In Eidlin's opinion, the employer had little reason to meaningfully bargain with workers, knowing that in short order the government would intervene to end the strike and bail them out. "This employer was banking on the strike creating enough of a crisis to justify government intervention," Eidlin said.

The union's president echoed this sentiment, indicating that the impending law meant that the STM "no longer had any incentive to negotiate with us." As in so many examples over the past several years, government interference on the side of the employer undermined collective bargaining and shielded STM from the pressure of the union's strike.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago

There is a similar concept of "work to rule" within many industries -- to not do any duty beyond what is in the contract or collective agreement. So no overtime, no additional duties aside from what you've been paid for. It's been used by teachers unions in Canada a fair amount, since they have been relied upon to go above and beyond all the time for the kids they teach, while their salary does not compensate for it.