From order, chaos

Plenty of others have commented on Rona Ambrose's order requiring the union representing Ottawa transit workers to vote on an offer to capitulate. But while one expects the Cons to decide on the result most damaging to workers regardless of the merits, it's worth noting that the Ambrose's order looks to have been a complete and avoidable failure even on her own assumptions as to how the dispute should play out:

Federal Labour Minister Rona Ambrose took an unprecedented step Wednesday and intervened in the city’s labour dispute with its striking transit union when she ordered a membership vote on the city’s last contract offer no later than Jan. 9.

Ms. Ambrose made the order Wednesday at about 3:30 p.m. after the city requested that she do so...

In a statement, Ms. Ambrose said “the fastest way to resolve this matter is for the parties to get back to the table and reach an agreement,” but Mayor Larry O’Brien quashed that idea shortly after the minister made the order.

“I think now that the vote is on the table, there will be no bargaining,” he said...

Union officials said they didn’t take the city last two offers to a vote because the offers contained the same scheduling and route assignment demands by the city that were rejected by 98 per cent of their membership in vote a week before the strike began on Dec. 10.

From the turn of events described, it would seem that Ambrose didn't bother going back to the city and even discussing whether it would be willing to talk to the union after she acceded to its request, or considering whether to set any conditions on a vote which might encourage talks in the meantime.

Instead, Ambrose apparently gave O'Brien the order he asked for without looking into how it would affect potential talks between the parties. Which led to O'Brien being able to summarily dismiss her public suggestion - and ensured that the city will have no motivation to work toward her supposedly preferred outcome (at least until after a vote takes place and rejects the offer).

Of course, it's difficult to tell whether Ambrose merely took a misleadingly soft public line while delivering the most employer-friendly result possible, or whether she was genuinely clueless about the likelihood that an order made without some conditions or assurances from the city would serve as an obstacle to further negotiations. But it surely can't be a good sign when the only explanations for a ministerial action are dishonesty or incompetence - which makes it a serious problem that the Cons are still leaving little room for any other conclusion.