We Really Do Need Canadian Unions to Be Independent from the U.S.
A Second Look at This Cultural Imperative. April 16, 2025
The prominence of news related to the current U.S. Administration’s imposition of tariffs on its trading partners is impossible to ignore. It is also difficult to keep up with the constant shifts and changes being made, to the point that developing a coherent strategic response is increasingly difficult. Governments and businesses alike struggle with adopting either a short-term response or engaging in longer-term strategic responses.
Even at the most fundamental level the chaos created has handcuffed legal firms and U.S. lawmakers in developing a position to support or defeat the measures being taken. Clearly the rule of law and the actual U.S. constitution assign responsibility for the imposition of tariffs to Congress as the voice of the people. However, somewhere along the line the U.S. government saw fit to give the President some power to use tariffs in an “emergency”. So, what is the emergency or compelling cause that allows the President to do what he is doing? The answer, as simple as it may seem, is nothing.
The feeble excuse of the fentanyl crisis to justify tariffs is just that – feeble. The root causes of the overall opioid crisis is imbedded in a complex set of circumstances not least of which is legislative regimes in the U.S. states that created an environment that morphed into a nation-wide epidemic in substance abuse related to the problematic abuse of legitimate drugs like Oxycontin and contributed to widespread addiction issues. To put it plainly, the bulk of the problem is an own-goal situation that can only be remedied by action at home. The importation of fentanyl (or any illicit drugs) is an outcome in relation to these causal factors that created a huge market amongst Americans for those products. There is no external fentanyl threat that legitimizes the use of tariffs.
Putting aside the chaos caused by tariffs for a moment, the modus operandi of the U.S. Administration is to move quickly and overwhelm everyone with massive amounts of change. This makes it impossible for any group to mount a coherent response and garner support for their cause and or complaint against the Administration. Let’s take a look at how this strategy of flooding the system with massive shocks and change is obfuscating smaller yet significant changes the administration is imposing.
The Unions in the U.S. are under attack. Nevertheless, this is not a leading or new item on the agenda so the ongoing erosion of union rights is an undercard that is not attracting much public attention… yet. For example, o January 27, 2025 one of the National Labour Relations Board members, Gwynne Wilcox, was dismissed by the President without cause. Subsequently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the termination was wrongful. The dismissal of Wilcox from the NLRB during the middle of her five-year appointment, left just two members remaining on the five-member board. This denied the NLRB a quorum for any decision making, therefore incapacitating it. The law suit against the President for wrongful dismissal argued that a functioning NLRB is necessary for the enforcement of labour laws across the United States.
A president can only fire NLRB board members for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. This was done intentionally by Congress to grant the board some level of political independence. The court found that Wilcox was not dismissed for neglect or malfeasance, but rather because she did not share the political objectives of the current Administration1.
“A president can only fire NLRB board members for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office”. This statement was established intentionally by Congress to grant the Board some level of political independence. The court found that Wilcox was not dismissed for neglect or malfeasance, but rather because she did not share the political objectives of the current Administration. In its ruling, confirming Wilcox’s status on the board, the court noted that, “as an entity entrusted with making impartial decisions about sensitive labor disputes, the NLRB’s character and perception as neutral and expert-driven is damaged by plaintiff’s unlawful removal”. You can bet that this matter is not done with. The current administration is decidedly against the NLRB which they see as a body that serves to undermine “free enterprise”.
As we noted in a previous article other actions taken by the administration, including stripping at least two unions of all bargaining rights, thus denying some displaced government workers the right to union representation, are part of a concerted effort to undermine the already weakened labour movement in America. Meanwhile, the result of the uncertainty caused by the administration’s trade policies has unions reeling. Some unions are forced to consider the adverse impact trade wars are or will have on their members, while others believe the administration is supporting their future. The reality is that organized labour is not a favoured group of stakeholders by this Administration and to the degree that the Administration shows any level of support for a given union is a matter of political expediency and not one of any sort of long-term policy initiative.
Hence our argument that, in Canada, we should consider requiring all unions in Canada to be Canadian entities legally based and operating in Canada. In so doing create a legislative environment where Canadian-based unions can represent Canadian members’ interests and thrive as an important stakeholder in Canada’s future, divorced from any undue influence by so-called International affiliations (which are universally U.S.-based). Canadian workers have the inalienable right to be represented and as such to participate in our democracy and in our future. Money collected from workers in the form of dues should not be used to further the interests of American workers regardless of how noble the cause. During a trade war where the U.S. has willingly forsaken Canada as an ally and a trusted trade partner we must consider all avenues that lead to more independence and that strengthen our sovereignty.
We acknowledge that given our Canadian legislative regimes, wherein labour relations is governed and regulated by the provinces (with only a small portion being under the aegis of the federal government), change is not simple. But it is not impossible. Through a meeting of the Premiers and the various Provincial and Federal Ministers of Labour we believe some consensus could be developed around a set of principles to ensure that our workers voices (and their resources) are used to further Canadian interests.
Two cases illustrate the importance of this point. In 1984, the Canadian section of the UAW (United Auto Workers Union), under the leadership of Bob White and his assistants Buzz Hargrove and Bob Nickerson, broke away from the UAW, led by Owen Bieber, because the American union was seen as giving away too much in the way of concessions during collective bargaining. The reasons for the CAW (Canadian Auto Workers) split from the UAW are complicated. The Canadian labour movement has traditionally been seen as more militant than its American counterpart and has had differing objectives and has held different values and political beliefs. At times these differences clashed when the American union parent in this case who refused to support (e.g. by withholding strike funds) the campaigns by the Canadian locals and attempted to impose their agenda on the Canadian union Local executives.
These differences accumulated over time and became highlighted in bargaining with the American “Big Three” automakers in 1984. This included the granting of concessions by the UAW which the Canadian locals refused to accept. Thus, a divorce was set in motion and the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) was created. Now that union has grown through organizing efforts and through the merger of the union with other Canadian based unions like the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers (CEP) to become what is now the union named Unifor.
A lesser known similar example is the formation in 1999 of the Canadian Union of Skilled Workers which formed when Local 1788 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) broke away from its parent union because of differences in approach. The IBEW was concerned with the size and influence of Local 1788 which represented workers at Ontario Hydro. It began to take actions to shift jurisdiction for the Ontario Hydro work to other IBEW locals in order to reduce the size of 1788 and bring them “under control”.
Local 1788 leadership was also driven by philosophical differences with respect to how the International was managed. Local 1788 believed, and continue to advocate today, for more democratic structures that place decision making in the hands of the members. Today CUSW remains a relatively small Canadian union with approximately 4500 members nationally, representing primarily electricians but is a multi-trades union. It maintains minimal staffing, and has a member elected Board of Directors in order to ensure that the members have the dominant voice in terms of administration and policy direction.
What we are proposing is for the provincial and federal governments to come together to discuss whether or not these and other examples of Canadian labour organizations ought to be the models for developing a set of guiding principles to help facilitate a strong labour movement that truly represents the interests of Canadian workers and only Canadian workers.
We envision a few simple principles including regulations that ensure decision-making resides with the Canadian labour organizations and immune to foreign influences. We also suggest that while unions (and other organizations for that matter) may have legitimate reasons to affiliate with international organizations, in the interests of Canadian workers there ought to be upper limits to how much of their dues are paid to international entities and are therefore divorced from their interests.
Why is this important? Unions like Unifor and CUSW and other Canadian unions must be recognized stakeholders who can help our country achieve the economic goals we need to pursue to diversify our risk, address the productivity gap and to create sustainable economic stability.
Our previous article about these proposed changes garnered a lot of attention and little commentary. So, we believe it is important to press the idea matter a little further to see if there is any interest amongst stakeholders to lobby for change. What do you think?