The Gainers Strike: Capitalist Offensive, Militancy, and the Politics of Industrial Relations in Canada
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Gainers Strike: Capitalist Offensive, Militancy, and the Politics of Industrial Relations in Canada ALAIN NOEL AND KEITH GARDNER The unions are very self-serving. In Taiwan workers get $300 a month for the same job. And Taiwan isn't that far away by air. They need to find out what the new realities of business are. Peter Pocklington, Alberta Report, 16 June 1986. You know, it was a very little strike at a very little plant in a very unimportant city. But it took on that kind of significance -they realized they had to win just as badly as we realized we had to win. Dave Wedin Saturday Night, August 1987. he history of Alberta's meatpacking workers is closely connected with the broader historical T struggles of the working class in North America. Like their counterparts from the packinghouses in Toronto and Montreal, the workers of Calgary and Edmonton organized and fought for union recognition between 1911 and 1920, thus joining a labour revolt that was spreading throughout Europe and North America in the wake of World War I and the October Revolution.} They faced stiff resistance. Pat Burns, the Calgary millionaire who owned Burns Packing Plant and employed children for 27 cents per hour, refused to negotiate and said the company "would Studies in Political Economy 31, Spring 1990 31 Studies in Political Economy rehire the strikers as vacancies opened up but would reserve the right to choose who it would take back." The government was unwilling to challenge him and, lacking support from their international union, the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union, the Burns workers were defeated along with those at Swifts in Edmonton.2 They remained non-unionized for almost twenty years. The Amalgamated was unable to organize the large packing houses and the Alberta Federation of Labour also failed to reach the workers of what was by 1935 the largest manufacturing industry in the province.' The second attempt to organize, also unsuccessful, came in 1937, when Canadian workers imitated the methods de- veloped by the CIO in the United States. Workers' demands were finally met in the 1940s, when the United Packin- ghouse Workers of America, a CIO/CCL affiliate, organized a national strike and won a standardized master agreement with the 'Big Three', Swifts, Canada Packers and Burns.4 A national bargaining pattern was established and, until re- cently, it kept wages, benefits, and working conditions uni- form across the country.5 In the 1980s, such stable bargaining patterns started to unravel. In the United States, in industry after industry multi-employer "pattern bargaining" broke down leaving the market and local union strength as the only determinants of wages and working conditions. "The worst settlements in an industry, or company, increasingly become the stand- ard of wage determination" and, since 1983, non-union workers have obtained larger percentage wage increases than union members. Collective bargaining has often been reduced to an exercise in concession management and union membership has plummeted below 20 percent.6 Canadian trade unions have so far been able to avert most of these trends. Concessions have been accepted but they have not reached the American level, and union mem- bership is still strong, even in the private sector. The contrast with the American evolution was clearly established when the automobile workers formed a new Canadian union to refuse the concessions accepted by their international union.? 32 Noel & Gardner/Gainers The times remain trying however. Between 1977 and 1987 real wages dropped by 4 percent, in spite of a 30.8 percent growth in the Gross Domestic Product. 8 The com- bination of high unemployment, conservative governments, and employers fascinated by the power of their counterparts to the South has made an American-type offensive plausible. In many cases, the struggle already concerns basic union positions, as workers fight to secure previous gains or "to hold onto the union at all. ,,9 Some observers think such pressures could weaken CanadiIan unions as much as theierr Amencan' counterparts. 10 Opponents of the Free Trade Agreement, in particular, have predicted an erosion of Canadian labour laws with a gradual transition toward the American pattern.l' The divergence between the two countries, which widened as trade relations intensified, and the evidence provided by recent conflicts suggest these negative assessments may be premature. Simple celebrations of the Canadian differences would, however, be equally misguided.12 Canadian unions face a real challenge. No economic or institutional necessity dictates the out- come. A new balance of class forces can only be the product of a series of conflicts. Specific analyses are therefore neces- sary to assess the transformations that are taking place and to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and potential of the Canadian labour movement. In that perspective, the 1986 Gainers strike in Edmonton is instructive. A long and violent confrontation over the very existence of the union, the strike "rallied Alberta working people as no cause had since the Depression.,,13 It rejuvenated the provincial labour movement, increased public support for trade unions and brought the provincial labour laws to the forefront of the political agenda. For a number of reasons, the Gainers case appears par- ticularly relevant. First, the strike took place in meatpack- ing, a mass-production industry that is undergoing profound transformations. In the United States, meatpacking has in- creasingly become a non-union, low-wage industry. In Canada, with the same international union, similar pressures are at play. Conflicts in the industry can therefore indicate 33 Studies in Political Economy how entrenched are the differences between the two coun- tries. Second, the strike happened in Alberta, one of the provin- ces, with British Columbia and Saskatchewan, where the Americanization of industrial relations seems most likely. 14 Because industrial relations frameworks are constructed on precedents, the vitality of a labour movement is best ob- served where it is most threatened. The depressed Alberta labour market and the orientation of a provincial govern- ment, whose labour laws had already been condemned by the International Labour Organization, placed the union and the labour movement in such a vulnerable position. IS Finally, the Gainers strike is instructive because, from the outset, it was a political confrontation. Comparative stu- dies suggest that the strength and the nature of labour move- ments have more to do with politics than with generic economic trends. The difference between Canada and the United States, in particular, is best explained by political and ideological factors.16 The Gainers strike critically tested that difference. From a strict collective bargaining point of view, the strikers did not obtain very much. After more than six months of an intense and at times violent conflict, the agree- ment which was finally reached extended earlier conces- sions for a surprisingly long four-year period, and left wages well below the national standards in the meatpacking in- dustry. Moreover, the labour movement and the New Democrats were not able to translate increased public aware- ness and the potential support for change into legislative victories. In spite of these strictly defensive results the strike was perceived as successful by the workers of Alberta. Beyond its immediate outcome, it is evoking a new militancy, a rank and file determination to refuse concessions, and to demand more. If political and ideological factors are the foundations on which the comparative strength of the Canadian labour movement rests, the capacity of the Alberta workers to react to a frontal attack with militancy and with a renewed discourse indicates something important is hap- pening. 34 Nol!l & Gardner/Gainers To better understand the political meaning of the strike, its story must be told. It is a long and complex story, and many aspects must be left aside, to focus on the major politi- cal and economic factors and evaluate the strike's legacy. The article offers a roughly chronological account of the strike with the aim of establishing the political and ideologi- cal nature of the corporate offensive that triggered it, the strength and importance of the militancy that developed, and the significance of this militancy in a context where a strong conservative government predominates. 1. From High to Low Wages: The American Model in the Meatpacking Industry In 1981, meat processing, with 5,500 employees, was the largest industrial employer in Al- berta, second only to petroleum refining in terms of sales ($1.8 billion). Nationally, the industry ranked ninth in terms of employment and fourth in annual sales. It was a profitable Canadian-owned industry which exported more than it im- ported, primarily to the United States and Japan. Concen- trated and stable, the industry grew steadily, practically doubling its output between 1960 and 1983.17 Growth came easily since it was generated by a rapidly expanding domes- tic demand, and the benefits were shared in an oligopolistic fashion by the major meatpackers.P Given these conditions the industry became complacent. There was some modern- ization in the beef sector, but practically none in the pork industry. Old facilities - almost all of Alberta's were con- structed before 1940 - were simply maintained.19 When domestic demand started declining in the early 1980s, due to slower population growth, reduced disposable incomes