Collective Bargaining Needs a Fresh Start, in Canada and the US Alike
Although Canadian unions are in a better position than their US counterparts, the Wagner model of industrial relations still can’t be relied on to protect vulnerable workers in either country. American and Canadian labor law need a complete overhaul.
Developments in the United States will strongly influence the future of Canadian labor law. (Great Neck Teachers Association)
Advocates of progressive labor law reform in the US have long hoped to “Canadianize” the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 — also known as the Wagner Act. Canada imported key elements of the Wagner model from its southern neighbor in the early 1940s, including the distinctive features of majoritarianism and exclusivity. If a union could show that the majority of workers in a bargaining unit supported it, it would receive a government-issued certificate, allowing it to represent all of the employees in that unit.
Canada’s appropriation of the Wagner model was natural enough, in view of the close economic, geographic, and social ties between the two countries. By the 1940s, US-based international unions were already organizing employees in Canadian subsidiaries of American corporations.
Canadian Divergences
Despite the similarities, there were also important differences between the industrial relations models of the two countries. At first, hardly anyone noticed these variations on the Wagner model. In both Canada and the United States, the model appeared to be a very successful framework for collective bargaining in the large industrial workplaces that dominated the economic landscape. However, by the early 1980s, union density in the United States had entered into a long-term tailspin that has continued to this day.
This article is for subscribers only. Please login or subscribe to access our full archives and beautiful print and digital magazine starting at just $3 a month.