The fight isn’t over for postal workers

by James Clark

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives showed their class bias when they passed draconian back-to-work legislation on June 26, ending Canada Post’s two-week lockout of 45,000 postal workers.

Members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) began rotating strikes on June 3, to defend wages, pensions and sick days. The union—without a contract since January 31—continued negotiations until Canada Post’s lockout on June 14.

The Tories’ legislation attacks the right to strike and collective bargaining, and rewards Canada Post for refusing to negotiate. It also demonstrates Harper’s intention to make workers pay for the economic crisis—even though they didn’t create it. Bill C-6 punishes workers for going on strike in the first place: it prevents mediation between the employer and the union (by forcing the arbitrator to choose either the government’s offer or CUPW’s), and imposes a wage increase that is less than Canada Post’s last offer.

The CUPW action was the first real test of the labour movement under a Tory majority. Although it ended on unfavourable terms for the union, the strike was neither a total defeat for postal workers nor a total victory for Harper. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, although Canada Post had the upper hand, CUPW held its own and generated widespread support. This is no small feat, given the overall weakness of the labour movement and the Tories’ arrogance just weeks after forming a majority.

Throughout the dispute, CUPW received “massive support” and “unprecedented solidarity,” according to the union (http://bit.ly/oJobf5). This came from three constituencies: the labour movement, the social movements and Parliament.

Both public and private sector unions, as well as central labour bodies, joined solidarity rallies and issued strong statements of support, helping build unity against Harper. Some groups, such as the Toronto and York Region Labour Council, initiated city-wide rallies to show solidarity and to generate public support.

The social movements mobilized support among students, women and local community groups. Some groups were launched before the strike began, with the singular focus of organizing support among the general public. Other groups, including the Canadian Federation of Students, organized large contingents for local actions.

In Toronto, the Greater Toronto Workers’ Assembly initiated picket support, distributed hundreds of leaflets and collected signatures on a petition.

Support was also highly visible on Facebook, Twitter and numerous websites that provided solidarity materials such as window and mailbox signs for supporters to download and display.

In the House of Commons, the NDP led a three-day filibuster against back-to-work legislation, using its platform as the Official Opposition to boost CUPW’s struggle. According to the union, “Never in history have postal workers, or the labour movement, received such strong and dedicated support in Parliament” (http://bit.ly/oJobf5).

These actions were important because they set a precedent for upcoming labour struggles and raised expectations of how to build solidarity. They also had the effect of strengthening existing solidarity networks and creating new ones, especially outside the labour movement. These relationships will make a difference in the ongoing fight against Harper’s agenda.

Moral high ground

A second reason that Harper’s Conservatives didn’t score a total victory is the union’s success in winning the moral high ground. The decision to embrace the tactic of rotating strikes allowed the union to launch coordinated pan-Canadian job action, but on a scale that minimized disruption to the public (a move that helped win support beyond labour) and that bought time to build the action from city to city.

The tactic also allowed the union to expose Canada Post’s hypocrisy. When CUPW started rotating strikes, it limited disruption to one city (or a grouping of smaller cities) for only 24 hours at a time. By contrast, Canada Post’s lockout shut down the entire postal service right across the country. If anyone is to blame for limiting postal services, it’s management.

Similarly, Canada Post claimed rotating strikes cost it $70 million, but later admitted that its own lockout cost “hundreds of millions” of dollars. Again, management will spare no expense to force concessions. If anyone is to blame for wasting money, it’s management.

Some critics suggest that the tactic of rotating strikes reveals a lack of confidence to launch a full-scale strike right across the country. But the membership widely supported it, since it gave the union more time to build each action. It also had a material effect on the employer, while minimizing hardship on the members.

If there were any debates, they were about timing. Either way, postal workers mustered a good fight and won the moral high ground—which puts the union and the broader labour movement on better terrain for the next battle.

A third reason the outcome isn’t a total victory for Harper is the union’s success in framing the terms of debate. CUPW advanced the argument that its struggle was more than a fight for its members’ interests: it was also a fight for the next generation of workers who face two-tiered wages, reduced pensions and benefits, and job insecurity. This argument made it easier to generate support outside the union, especially among young people who will earn less than their parents’ generation.

At the heart of the dispute was Canada Post’s attempt to create a two-tiered workforce. According to CUPW president Denis Lemelin, “The corporation wants to pay new employees 30 per cent less. It wants to reduce their benefits, weaken their job security and provide an inferior pension. It also wants to attack retiree benefits, sick leave and turn back the clock on many other contract provisions” (http://bit.ly/pzHPMr). Management claimed it could no longer afford to pay decent wages or hard-won benefits, although Canada Post has made a profit the last 16 years. Its CEO is the highest paid boss of any Crown Corporation in Canada.

These facts demonstrate that the strike was a fight for the wellbeing of all workers, since Canada Post’s attacks will inspire similar concessions in other sectors. It was also a fight to defend a publicly owned postal system that provides high-quality services across the country, and to resist Canada Post’s privatization agenda.

The union’s characterization of the strike as an anti-austerity struggle allowed it to connect to other labour disputes—in particular, the strike on June 14 by 3,800 customer service staff at Air Canada, members of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) who resisted similar attempts by management to reduce pensions for new hires. Like CUPW, CAW was fighting for the next generation of workers who will work longer hours in worse conditions for less pay and fewer benefits.

If the labour movement can generalize this argument among the broader public, it will attract more allies and build a stronger fight against Harper.

Confidence

A fourth reason that Harper can’t claim total victory is the mood of postal workers after the lockout. Based on the unprecedented levels of support that CUPW received throughout the dispute, there is a heightened sense of solidarity among its members, which has built their confidence to continue the fight.
As it stands, the union has announced a legal challenge to the legislation, but its members have returned to work since “this government would use any excuse to destroy the union should we defy the legislation” (http://bit.ly/oJobf5). But that doesn’t mean the fight is over.

Most postal workers are angrier than they were before the strike began, when they voted 95 per cent (with the highest turnout ever) for strike action: in addition to Canada Post’s concessions, they must now respond to the Tories’ attack on their right to strike and collective bargaining. The issues that provoked the strike have not gone away. If workers’ anger can find an outlet on other fronts, it could help fuel the struggle against concessions and inspire fight-backs elsewhere.

Canada Post’s reliance on back-to-work legislation instead of bargaining with the union exposes its contempt for its workforce. Likewise, its decision during the lockout to cut drug benefit coverage for all of its workers, including those on disability insurance, shows its viciousness. As for the Tories, the speed with which Labour Minister Lisa Raitt introduced back-to-work legislation reveals the Harper government’s plans for dealing with labour during the next Parliament: directly attack workers’ rights.

What next?

What does this mean for postal workers, the labour movement and the fight against Harper’s austerity agenda?

For postal workers and the labour movement, it represents a setback, but it isn’t a total defeat. As the first real test of labour under a Harper majority, the strike posed many challenges. But postal workers and their allies appear to have overcome most of them.

Instead of alienating public support, the union attracted unprecedented solidarity and cast the employer in a bad light. Instead of succumbing to Tory-led media attacks, the union framed the terms of debate and improved the terrain for the next struggle. Instead of being demoralized by the strike’s outcome, the union has emerged stronger, more determined and more united for the next struggle.

Since the fight against Harper’s austerity agenda is only just beginning, the labour movement must prepare for more struggles like this one and generalize the strategy and tactics of solidarity that expand support for strike action. For trade union militants and their allies, it means accelerating and deepening the process of building rank-and-file networks in every union local and generating meaningful community support for workers wherever they work.

This is what capacity-building looks like. If workers are increasingly confident to fight back—knowing full well that their counterparts in other unions and allies in the community will stand beside them—they will be prepared to take the kind of long-term, militant actions that will be required to resist, stop and reverse the neoliberal policies of the Harper Conservatives.