The Canadian labour market is plagued by two interrelated and longstanding crises: declining union density and the growth of precarious, low-wage work. Fixing these problems is essential to improving the status of Canadian workers—and while both of these issues are wide-reaching, finding a solution requires a hard look at the Canadian industrial relations model.
First, let’s look at the problems: for one, union density has been on a secular decline since the early 1980s. Whereas nearly 40 per cent of employees across the country were union members in 1981, today only around 30 per cent are covered by a collective agreement. The private sector has accounted for the entire decline observed over this period and now hovers at just over 15 per cent.
Second, precarious forms of employment have become troublingly common in the contemporary labour market. Nonstandard forms of work—including involuntary part-time, temporary, sub-contracted, and solo self-employment—grew from the late 1980s to the late 1990s and presently encompass a considerable share of the Canadian job market. Employment in franchised firms and other “fissured workplaces” where employers seek to reduce their responsibility to workers has also generated a range of problems. The emergence and spread of app-based gig work has only exacerbated these issues. In general, low-wage, service sector employment remains stubbornly precarious.
For workers, the twin crises of low union density and precarious employment translate into economic and job uncertainty, unstable and often low incomes, weak regulatory protections, and a lack of control over labour processes.
The crisis of private sector union density derives from the growing mismatch between Canada’s “Wagner model” of collective bargaining and the contemporary, service-based economy. Designed for large, industrial enterprises and based on worksite-level bargaining, Canada’s private sector union model was built through struggles by (and for) workers in mass-production industries, and is ill-suited to the needs of workers most in need of union protection today—i.e. those in low-wage, service sector workplaces.
Despite the relatively widespread recognition of these problems within the labour movement (and among sympathetic policymakers), there is little consensus about an alternative industrial relations framework. Periodic efforts across several provinces to develop and propose alternative sectoral bargaining arrangements where unions and employers negotiate at the industry or regional level have failed due to a combination of employer resistance, lack of government commitment, and disagreement among unions.
In some senses, that final issue has proven particularly sticky. Without labour unified around an alternative, sectoral bargaining framework, there was and remains little chance of overcoming business and government opposition.
Below, we review how Canadian union density has changed over time, with a particular focus on Manitoba. Falling and persistently low union coverage in many industries call for a reconsideration of sectoral bargaining models. With single-step, card-check unionization reinstated and a ban on replacement workers now in force, the Manitoba government has shown a willingness to respond to workers’ needs. Manitoba may, therefore, be the place to put sectoral bargaining back on the agenda.
The crises of private sector union density
Shrinking union density is a near universal story across Canada. In all but three provinces (Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia), union coverage fell between 1997 and 2025. The extent of coverage decline varies considerably, as does overall density. British Columbia, for example, experienced the largest loss of union coverage, going from 36.5 per cent of workers in unions in 1997 to 30.5 per cent in 2025.
In 1997, 37.8 per cent of Manitoba workers were covered by a union contract. By 2025, coverage had fallen to 34.1 per cent, still above the national average but trailing higher-density provinces such as Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. Quebec maintains its place as the most highly unionized jurisdiction in Canada, while Alberta continues to lag well behind other provinces.
Notably, in no Canadian province were a majority of workers covered by a union contract at any point between 1997 and 2025.
Across the country, high public sector union coverage masks often extremely low coverage in the private sector.
In all provinces, over 70 per cent of public sector workers are union members. In Quebec, the figure was 86.2 per cent in 2025. In Manitoba, just over 79 per cent of public sector workers had union coverage in 2025.
By contrast, private sector union density lags behind, and in many provinces far behind.
Nearly every province has experienced a sharp drop in private sector union coverage over the past three decades. Nearly 10 full percentage points fewer private sector workers in British Columbia enjoyed the protection of a union contract in 2025 than in 1997. In Manitoba, private sector density dropped by five percentage points over the same period. Ontario, once the heartland of industrial unionism, had only 12.9 per cent of private sector workers in unions in 2025. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island now have single-digit private sector union coverage.
These are not just empty statistical measures. Low private sector union coverage has significant material consequences for workers’ lives and livelihoods. It means stagnant real wages, weaker health and safety protections, and a lack of worker voice on the job.
And for workers in several industries, these consequences of weak union coverage have been apparent for decades.
The persistence of Manitoba’s low density industries
Manitoba offers a test case, both because of the persistent problems generated by low private sector union density and the potential to chart a different path.
In many respects, Manitoba looks similar to the country overall when it comes to the unevenness of union density between sectors. Public sector density remains high, while private sector coverage sits one percentage point above the national average at 16.1 per cent. At the same time, goods-producing sectors have seen coverage fall from 34.1 per cent in 1997 to 27.6 per cent in 2025. In services, the decline has also been notable, though less pronounced (38.8 per cent in 1997 vs. 35.9 per cent in 2025).
As in other Canadian provinces, the industries with the highest density are all predominantly in the public sector. Over 82 per cent of Manitoba workers in public administration were union members in 2025, up from 74 per cent in 1997. While union density fell in utilities, educational services, and healthcare and social assistance between 1997 and 2025, all three industries still posted coverage above 57 per cent as of last year.
However, when we consider all industries in Manitoba, the nature of the problem is clearer. Contrasted with the high density industries isolated in Figure 5 are two other sets of industries: a cluster of mostly blue-collar industries where density has fallen considerably over the years but remains in the mid-range; and a cluster of industries with very low density, the most notable of which pay low wages and generate frequent employment quality problems.
Among the blue-collar trades, there has been a notable fall in the share of workers covered by a union contract. In forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying, oil and gas, density fell from a peak of 59.2 per cent in 1998, to 37.3 per cent in 2025. Transportation and warehousing went from having union coverage of 55.6 per cent in 1997 to just 31.4 per cent in 2025. In manufacturing, 35.4 per cent of workers belonged to a union in 1997, but by 2025 the figure had fallen to 31.4 per cent. Construction as well has not been immune to this trend. Whereas a high of 27.1 per cent of construction workers were covered by a union contract in 2006, just 15.4 per cent enjoyed union protection in 2025.
It is among private service sector industries, however, where the problem of low union coverage is most pronounced. While services overall have experienced a small decline—going from 38.8 per cent union coverage in 1997, to 35.9 per cent in 2025—this relatively high density masks the persistence of low coverage in several low-wage industries.
In 1997, just 15.8 per cent of workers in wholesale and retail trade were covered by a union contract. In 2025, a slightly smaller share (14.3 per cent) had union coverage. In business, building and other support services, density increased marginally over the past three decades, but still remained at just 16.7 per cent last year. Accommodation and food services, the industry grouping with the lowest union coverage, had only 3.1 per cent of workers in unions in 2025, down from seven per cent in 1997.
We have been describing this crisis as one of falling union coverage, and indeed that is part of the story. But a focus on the overall decline of union density also obscures the degree to which workers in particular industries have always been systematically excluded from union membership. For these workers clustered in low-wage private service industries, such as wholesale and retail trade and accommodation and food services, the lack of union coverage has always been a crisis. Canada’s model of worksite-level bargaining was never designed to facilitate and support collective bargaining in these industries. As these areas of the service sector have grown over the last few decades, the consequences for workers have become more pronounced.
Low-wage work and weak employment standards
Low union coverage is directly related to the persistence of low pay, in Canada as a whole and in Manitoba in particular.
Although Canada has made some progress when it comes to reducing the share of workers earning low pay (defined by Statistics Canada as making less than $20 per hour in constant 2024 dollars), the problem continues. In 2006, nearly a quarter of Canadian workers (24.2 per cent) earned low wages. By 2024, this had fallen to 18.5 per cent, partly because of stronger minimum wage protections and a relatively robust post-pandemic labour market.
By international standards, Canada nevertheless still stands out as a country with a high share of workers earning low pay. For example, as of 2021, the average share of workers with low pay across the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was 12.9 per cent. In countries with sectoral bargaining and high union density, such as Norway, Finland and Denmark, just 7.4 per cent, 8.4 per cent, and 9.5 per cent of workers were earning low pay in 2021, respectively.
In Manitoba in particular, low pay continues to impact a large number of workers. Around one in four workers in Manitoba were earning less than a living wage in 2024 ($19.77 at the time). Nowhere in the province is the minimum wage a living wage. In Winnipeg, the minimum wage misses the mark by more than $3 per hour. Reflecting the twin crises we identified at the outset, workers earning low pay are concentrated in industries with low union density and hence lack the capacity to collectively bargain up their wages.
But it’s not only low compensation that is the issue. As union density has fallen, more workers find themselves dependent on poorly enforced employment standards. Research consistently finds that workers in precarious employment and industries with low union coverage experience the most frequent employment standards violations, such as unpaid wages, vacation and holiday pay infractions, various working hours and overtime violations, and a myriad of other employer transgressions.
With no union to protect their rights on the job, workers must rely on the enforcement capacity of under-resourced and overstretched government labour inspectorates, such as the Employment Standards Branch in Manitoba. That is, if they even file complaints at all. The fear of employer reprisal prevents many workers from ever coming forward.
Even in jurisdictions where governments have undertaken coordinated campaigns to reign in employer non-compliance, the results have been lacklustre. Under-resourced labour inspectors simply cannot address the widespread violation of workers’ rights.
Instead of expecting employers to voluntarily comply with minimum employment standards or for government agencies to address worker complaints after the fact, we should be encouraging broader union coverage and giving workers greater voice and power on the job.
Toward a sectoral bargaining model
It’s long been recognized that Canada has a problem of chronically low private sector union density. Innovative approaches to worker organizing, while producing inspirational breakthroughs in some sectors, have been unable to arrest union decline or address the deeper, structural challenges of low collective bargaining coverage in private industry. Despite the best efforts of some unions, deterioration in private sector union density has continued unimpeded.
Other reforms to union certification processes in some provinces, while welcome, are also unlikely to meaningfully address the decades-long fall in density in some sectors and the systemic exclusion of workers from collective bargaining in others. For example, the return of single-step, card-check certification in British Columbia and Manitoba has increased certification applications appreciably, but thus far the evidence suggests this hasn’t increased overall union coverage. While card-check has allowed unions to form units in small workplaces more easily, we still lack mechanisms for bringing dispersed groups of workers under one contract and expanding the reach of collective representation, particularly in sectors characterized by low wages and precarious employment.
Tackling the many challenges resulting from chronically low private sector union density—low pay, income inequality, unsafe workplaces, widespread workers’ rights violations, and a lack of worker voice on the job—require a new approach to union certification, representation and bargaining. The time is nigh to consider sectoral bargaining as an alternative, particularly in Manitoba.
Sectoral bargaining is associated with a range of positive economic benefits. Countries with sectoral bargaining systems not only have higher union coverage, but the share of workers with union protection has also been more stable over time. Countries such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark have not experienced the falling union density witnessed in Canada and the United States.
Second, there is strong evidence that sectoral bargaining models improve income equality by raising the pay of workers at the low end of the wage distribution who would otherwise lack access to collective bargaining. Canadian provinces have largely failed to meaningfully reduce incidences of low pay through modest minimum wage raises and other statutory protections. International comparisons make clear that the most reliable way to eliminate low pay and encourage income equality is by expanding access to collective bargaining.
Relatedly, sectoral bargaining can boost productivity by compelling employers to compete on product and service quality, rather than on low labour costs. In this sense, broader collective bargaining and business performance may have a positive and reciprocal relationship. By raising the cost of labour at the low end, employers are incentivized to make productivity-enhancing investments, rendering “low-road” business strategies that are dependent on low wages and poor working conditions unviable. This can additionally open training opportunities and extend career ladders for workers.
Raising union density through sectoral bargaining could also encourage broader positive social impacts, such as more equal incomes, lower rates of poverty, a healthier environment, and better overall public health outcomes.
Union protection is all the more important at a time when cost-of-living challenges are proving to be persistent, and when workers are caught in the middle of recurring and overlapping economic and political crises.
The challenge ahead is constructing a workable sectoral bargaining model. The key to avoiding the labour law reform pitfalls of the past will be working collaboratively to construct a model that both serves the workers who need it most and has the necessary support from the unions who will work within it.
Luckily, we do not need to start from scratch. The legacy of pattern bargaining in blue-collar trades, such as forestry and auto manufacturing, shows that broader-based bargaining is possible. The grocery sector offers another contemporary example of pattern bargaining. In Quebec, the decree system long provided a public policy mechanism to expand collective agreements to workers in industries in need of union protection. And of course, the vast majority of the public sector workers across Canada already bargains sectorally, which in part explains its high collective agreement coverage. We can also draw from international examples of stable, sectoral systems that have maintained high density over time and helped to guard against the spread of poor working conditions and precarious employment.
Ultimately in Manitoba, a sector bargaining model suitable for this province will need to be organic, built through dialogue with unions and workers themselves.
Union coverage is a public good. We need a system that makes collective bargaining accessible to all workers.
