Using a Howtizer to Kill a Fly

In which we assemble the conservative case for staying the heck out of labour disputes.

Air Canada has managed to avert a strike by referring its dispute with the airline's flight attendants to the labour relations board, which has decreed that there shall be no striking while the board considers the issue. It was the latest tactic employed by Federal Labour Minister Lisa Raitt to get a union to acquiesce to management demands, as she has claimed that a strike would alternately harm Canada's fragile economy and present a health and safety risk to Canadians. To this, the Sun chain's Tom Brodbeck huffs, "nonsense." Brodbeck admonishes the Tories for intervening in an affair that ought to be the exclusive domain of the private sector, and especially for claiming that an Air Canada strike could damage the economy. "Sure there would be some economic disruption if Air Canada had to ground one-third of its planes," says Brodbeck. "But some of that would be offset by increases in services from competing airlines like WestJet and from other forms of transportation such as trains and buses." Instead, the Tories have decided to politicize a matter that could have easily been sorted out through the channels already open to management and labour. If an airline's management isn't competent enough to deal with the demands of its employees, then Canadians should be free to opt for another transportation provider that has its house in better order.

Conservative blogger and occasional National Post contributor Keith Beardsley similarly can't wrap his head around the Tories' decision to keep on intervening in labour issues. "While many will cheer the government’s move, there are other potential long term implications for the economy," says Beardsley. "Unions will only sit back and take so much before they retaliate and they have the means at their disposal, means that can seriously hurt our recovering economy," such as illegal one-day strikes, working to rule, general strikes, and other measures that in sum could actually harm the economy. Beardsley asks: If government officials truly thought a strike would imperil the economy, why didn't they get MPs to pass a back-to-work bill over their Thanksgiving break this week instead of "[unveiling] their War of 1812 initiatives[?]" As it stands, their excuse "rings hollow." Once again, it looks like the governing party has opted for ideology over studied analysis. And this is Keith Beardsley saying so.

Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star goes one step further, calling the Tories' reasoning for intervening "frankly, nuts." Walkom takes great pains to explain that the Air Canada flights affected by such a strike would be limited to some international flights and routes between major cities, but the dozens of daily Air Canada Jazz flights to smaller cities, Air Canada Express flights to major American cities, and international flights provided by Air Canada's partners such as United Airlines would continue without any interruption. If anything, the strike "would be a major inconvenience for the travelling public," and little more. It might annoy travellers and hurt Air Canada's bottom line, but that's sort of the point of a strike in the first place, isn't it? Otherwise, government intervention in strikes amounts to firing a Howitzer to kill a fly.