For private sector unions, the overarching trend of the last forty years has been one of decline. The rise of neoliberalism during the 1980s ushered in a wave of deindustrialisation and the offshoring of jobs in industries with high levels of union density. Nationally, this translated into a nine per cent decline in membership, from 37.6 per cent in 1981 to 28.7 per cent in 2022. Coverage in the manufacturing sector has taken an equally significant dip, where roughly one in five workers are covered by a collective agreement today compared to over one in three in 1997.
In Canada, all parties’ embrace of “free trade” and the suspension of workers’ right to strike, by law or binding arbitration, are troubling extensions of this reality. The retrenchment of organised labour has been a staple of neoliberal governance over the last few decades, transforming it into an objective for economic and social policymakers.
Now add Donald Trump and his tariffs to the mix. In targeting automobile manufacturing, steel, and aluminum, the President poses a direct threat to some of Canada’s largest private sector unions. As a result of the levies, GM recently laid off 750 workers while Stellantis shut down one of its Ontario factories. Tariffs may also have contributed to Honda’s delay of an EV plant slated to generate 1000 jobs. Hundreds of workers in the steel and aluminum sectors have also been impacted, with more losses likely to follow depending on how long tariffs last.
Understandably, private sector unions may be preoccupied with preserving these positions though such endeavors must be accompanied by a simultaneous and concerted effort to rebuild their strength. The future of the labour movement could very well hinge on its ability to reach out to non-traditional, though prevalent, forms of employment.
Questions of strategy notwithstanding, this future is not wholly in organisers’ hands and instead hinges on an outdated labour relations regime. When contemplating what’s best for the working class, policymakers must also be willing to rise to the challenges facing the labour movement and pursue legislative action that will make it easier for workers to organise in the first place.
Despite some optimism that the COVID-19 pandemic would catalyse a resurgence in unionisation, those expectations do not appear to have materialised. While coverage in the private sector increased to 16 per cent in 2020, it has since fallen back to pre-pandemic levels (15 per cent).
This can likely be attributed to various factors, such as an outdated labour relations regime that hasn’t kept up with the changing nature of work or familiar union-busting measures, like Amazon’s closure of its Quebec warehouses.
Workers are still making efforts to organise, albeit slowly. Recently, Starbucks workers in British Columbia unionised, while the United Food and Commercial Workers have applied for certification to represent Uber drivers in Victoria. Wal-Mart warehouse workers in Mississauga, Ontario have also voted to join Unifor.
These examples remain highly localised—yet could represent the future of the Canadian labour movement. Union coverage in the accommodation and food services (5.8 per cent) and warehouse (12 per cent) sectors remains lower than the private sector average, despite being growing and important areas of the economy.
There is also the question of platform workers. In 2024, nearly 700,000 Canadians are employed via digital platforms, mostly in delivery and personal transportation. The group is also highly racialised and, because of their status as “independent contractors”, is not afforded access to basic employment protections or the minimum wage.
Policy changes are key for rebuilding the working class
Lagging unionisation efforts boil down, in large part, to how labour relations are structured. Union-busting practices notwithstanding, not every worker is permitted to join or form a union. Instead, one’s rights in the workplace are determined by their status.
Consider a province like Ontario, which divides its workers into three categories: employee, dependent contractor, and independent contractor. The provincial government only permits those deemed employees or dependent contractors to organise or access basic protections under the Employment Standards Act. This represents a unique challenge for platform workers, and it is why companies like Uber insist on labelling their workforce as “independent contractors”.
Only two provinces have taken steps to update their labour regulations: British Columbia and Ontario. Of those two, only BC’s Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023 has ventured to classify platform workers as “employees.” Ontario’s Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, 2022, which extends some protections to platform workers, falls short of labelling them similarly.
A worker’s status is at the heart of any challenge to organising emerging sectors of the digital economy. If labour organisers have to first litigate whether they are employees before engaging in the normal procedural hurdles required for certification, their efforts are bound to stall.
Politicians of all stripes claim to be for the working class. Such commitments are meaningless without equal efforts to protect and rebuild it. The reversal of declining union density is, fundamentally, a question of public policy. Below are a few reforms politicians claiming to be “for the working class” should consider to address this trend.
Recognise platform workers: Following British Columbia’s example, other governments should update their labour relations laws to recognise platform workers as employees, ensuring their access to basic employment standards and the right to unionise.
Introduce sectoral bargaining structures: Most manufacturing and public sector unions utilise a system called “pattern bargaining”, which allows negotiations to occur at multiple, individual, workplaces at the same time. Once an agreement is made, it establishes a template, or minimum standard, for other organisations in the same industry still engaged in collective bargaining. This differs from sectoral bargaining, which is intended to create common terms under one collective agreement for an entire industry or sector. A legislative recognition of the latter would be a boon for workers employed in smaller, franchise-reliant industries by streamlining negotiations, agreements, and the general ability to organise.
Single-step certification: Single-step certification allows employees to immediately form a union after a successful certification vote as opposed to the two-step process, which requires a secondary reconfirmation vote to occur. As the CCPA has argued, the latter’s primary objective is to undermine workers’ ability to organise by establishing additional regulatory hurdles. Only four provinces and the federal government have this procedure in place. A return to a single-step procedure, which was common until the 1980s, would make it easier for workers to unionise across a variety of sectors.
Tackle contracting and subcontracting: More stringent “joint employer” standards could be a boon to workers while addressing repeat offenders in Big Tech or e-commerce who rely on outsourcing or subcontracting to circumvent employment standards. Joint employment refers to a finding that an employee is simultaneously working for two or more entities, both of whom are required to comply with existing labour laws and regulations. This would directly impact companies like Amazon, which is planning to shift to a “third party model” for warehousing following the closure of its Quebec facilities. Under an alternative framework, companies could still be recognised as the primary employer even when subcontracting tasks which would clarify things like employment status and workplace rights.
For the working class? Prove it
Unions play a critical role in elevating the status, opportunities, and conditions of working people. Their decline over the last forty years is no coincidence but the effect of a policy consensus intended to weaken the labour movement and any barriers to unfettered capital accumulation. This is precisely why decades of austerity and offshoring have coincided with skyrocketing wealth inequality.
This problem is socioeconomic—just as a policy consensus weakened the labour movement, a modernisation of our labour relations regime could help reverse this trend. If politicians truly want to portray themselves as champions of the working class, strengthening unions is a great place to start.
