CHAUDHRI: LCBO strike a loss for workers

Article content

It was much ado about nothing.

Article content

A two week strike that shuttered LCBO retail locations in Ontario this summer generated a response that was markedly less than a dull roar.

While I saw picketing in some locations, including in Picton where a worker marched with a sign “I have a right to my job,” I was surprised that an employee-friendly province like Ontario did not demand immediate action from the government.

Instead, few, if many, noticed at all.

Of course, most consumers post-COVID have various means and methods to procure alcohol in this province if they so choose.

While it is true that the post-strike deal was better than the government’s original position (8% pay increase over three years and more permanent full-time jobs), I’m sure some union members have been left wondering if the juice was worth the squeeze.

Article content

Article content

There are a few conclusions one could draw from the LCBO strike and it’s ultimately, anti-climactic outcome:

Unions must win public sentiment: A Leger poll taken during the strike reported less than one-third of Ontarians wanted the government to intervene and end the strike. Clearly, the public does not view the LCBO as fulfilling a fundamental need requiring us to clamour into action when a strike is threatened. Even in the face of OPSEU’s threats of a “dry summer,” Ontarians were unfazed, materially weakening OPSEU’s negotiating position.

Article content

Unions must focus on their member workers and not operations: The first LCBO strike in history was brought on only in part to further worker rights. Its other principal goal was to force the LCBO to limit its expansion of alcohol sales in September to grocery and convenience stores. OPSEU did not stay in its lane. Unions rarely are permitted to weigh in on operational decisions of this nature and muddle priorities during tense collective agreement negotiations. It ultimately did a disservice to union workers by dividing its focus on this issue.

Unionized employees crave agency: This strike showed us that LCBO workers were reportedly frustrated by OPSEU’s “lack of bargaining.” At the same time, employment law is evolving in Ontario for the private sector, and many unionized employees seek to assert similar rights in their own workplaces. When a unionized employee is disciplined or terminated, only a union representative may take action on behalf of the employee. Unionized employees are not permitted to seek external counsel in most cases. A trend we are seeing is that unionized employees are increasingly looking to assert individual rights and seek individual representation. One could surmise this is a sign of deep divisions being created when unions call strikes that materially impact.

Article content

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Play Video

Workers lost social capital: Because the LCBO store closures did not provoke a strong response, LCBO workers are simply more vulnerable to the next round of collective bargaining. OPSEU executed a strategy that did not deliver the public outcry it needed to drive a strong outcome.

The strength of a union lies with its members. While the LCBO strike may have resulted in short term gains, the long term effects on the union will only be seen in time.

Have a workplace question? Maybe I can help! Email me at [email protected] and your question may be featured in a future column.

The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.

Article content