March 14, 2024
Opposition to Bill C-58
The Federally Regulated Employers – Transportation and Communications (FETCO) organization of employers is one of the major opposition groups against the anti-scab Bill C-58.
Please see here some videos outlining FETCO's position for each sector and their proposed amendments:
FETCO
FETCO is just the dirty business arm of its associated companies. I think that the question is how much money are employers paying to it instead of commenting publicly themselves.
It supported Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 under the Harper regime and seems to only exist to advance an anti-worker agenda.
I don't think that anyone should taken them seriously as a public policy voice since they do not really comment on anything other than opposing positive labour legislation or supporting anti-labour legislation.
FETCO is the anti-union voice of large unionized Canadian capital.
As such, their "analysis" of the Bill is no analysis at all but a communications/propaganda campaign against worker rights. The principle of the organization is simply "nothing good for workers' rights".
The difficulty is outlining that they are not simply the "flip-side" to labour's demand. They are not the answer to labour unions, unions are the answer to their true goal.
FETCO are simply saying what Capital really thinks of workers and the state: that the state should ensure powerlessness of workers and supremacy of Capital.
They expose how ugly Canadian capital is and why regulations and Charter rights of workers to act collectively and democratically is essential.
So, their campaign has nothing to do with replacement workers and the impact of Bill C-58. Their goal is the destruction of workers' rights in Canada through a thousand cuts or through large shifts, it doesn't matter to them.
FETCO member companies and their net income if they are publicly traded:
| Company | Net Income |
|---|---|
| Air Canada | 2,276M |
| Air Transat | -25,292M |
| Algoma Central Corporation | 82,870M |
| BC Maritime Employers Association | |
| Bell Canada | 2,076M |
| Brinks | 87.70M |
| Canada Post Corporation | |
| Canadian National Railway Company | 5,625M |
| Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (AECL/SNC) 2022 | 9.75M |
| Canadian Pacific Railway | 3,927M |
| Canadian Trucking Alliance | |
| CATSA | |
| CBC/Radio-Canada | |
| FedEx | 3,972M |
| GardaWorld | |
| Halifax Employers Association | |
| IMP Group | |
| Jazz Aviation (Chorus Aviation) | 101.35M |
| J.D. Irving Limited | |
| Logistec Corporation | 53.54M |
| Maritime Employers Association | |
| National Bank | 3,189M |
| NAV CANADA | |
| Ontario Northland | |
| Purolator (Canada Post) | |
| Rio Tinto Canada | 10,058M |
| Rocky Mountaineer | |
| Rogers | 849M |
| SaskTel | |
| St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation | |
| Sunwing Vacations | |
| Swissport Canada Inc. | |
| TELUS | 841M |
| UPS | 6,708M |
| VIA Rail Canada | |
| Walmart Fleet Canada | |
| Western Grain Elevators Association | |
| WestJet (ONEX) | 529M |
Critical Infrastructure and Bill C-58
FETCO (and the employers they cover) are using the term "critical" to describe these parts of the infrastructure because of the government's definition of what constitutes Critical Infrastructure. The government's focus on Critical Infrastructure is informed by the pandemic, supply chain crises during and resulting from the pandemic, and its impacts on the inflation crisis.
Specifically, Critical Infrastructure involves:
- Water
- Safety
- Finance
- Food supply
- Electricity
- Transportation
- Communications
- Public safety
The employers are leaning heavily on their own interpretation of (and submissions to the) recent federal review of programs to enhance resilience of critical infrastructure.
Public Safety describes CI as:
Critical Infrastructure (CI): refers to processes, systems, facilities, technologies, networks, assets and services essential to the health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians and the effective functioning of government. CI can be stand-alone or interconnected and interdependent within and across provinces, territories and national borders. Disruptions of CI could result in catastrophic loss of life, adverse economic effects, and significant harm to public confidence. CI includes both physical and digital infrastructure. Physical infrastructure refers to the built environment, including buildings, vehicles, computer hardware and other assets. Digital infrastructure refers to electronic systems and assets, like data and software.
While some of these are also "essential" services allowing some specific limits to strike action, not all of them are essential. Especially not ports, rail, and communications infrastructure under the ILO Conventions. This is because an interruption to one via strike does not constitute a complete shutdown of all trade in goods of a country or constitute an immediate harm to life.
If a strike of any of that did constitute an essential service interruption, there are ways to deal with that under current legislation, bargaining frameworks, and within Bill C-58.
FETCO's Critical Infrastructure Narrative
FETCO's definition of critical infrastructure covers pretty much everything, which is why it is an outlandish position for them to take. Essentially, they are saying that the right to strike effectively (through banning replacement workers) must be curtailed in all parts of this infrastructure. As in, everywhere because it is all linked to critical infrastructure.
This is a major distortion of this program. The purpose of outlining critical infrastructure is to measure the systemic risks facing that infrastructure in Canada from a national security and economic security standpoint.
The risks outlined by the government relate to major natural disasters, terrorist attacks, pandemics and health crises, and war.
The focus of the government is to mitigate the risks of these things happening and reduce their impact when they do happen—with the knowledge that they cannot be avoided entirely.
There is no need to interfere with Charter Rights when ensuring systemic protection of critical infrastructure. The goal of the government is to have a plan that ensures resilience of infrastructure in the face of disruptions so that emergency measures that limit Charter Rights can be avoided.
The "balance" between Charter Rights and protecting critical infrastructure does not mean banning strikes, making strikes completely ineffectual by allowing replacement workers, or undermining other rights workers have won. It means having plans in place where some parts of critical infrastructure could be taken off line via strikes, so that this does not have an uncontrolled cascading impact on the entire economy.
This is not a new problem and countries with anti-scab legislation have not had cascading collapses of their economy resulting from local strike action.
We know that stopping full cascading collapse of essential services is rather easy to accomplish and we do this in every strike.
There is no question that strikes can be a challenge to parts of critical infrastructure, but they are not on a scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, as is claimed by the FETCO.
As I have outlined previously, the impacts of climate change and geopolitics are much larger than the impacts of strikes. In fact, strikes mostly have limited to no medium to long-term impact on critical infrastructure or supply chains.
The limited impact on that infrastructure is because strikes:
- are avoidable via free and fair bargaining
- are short lived and have no lasting impact
- have a timing that are well known and easily prepared for
Charter Rights cannot be undone simply because there is a threat that workers might create some inconvenience along a small part of a supply chain leading into some critical infrastructure.
Critical Infrastructure does not equal essential services along that supply chain.
Critical Infrastructure: