On unreasonable outcomes

I've pointed out before how the Cons' deliberate attack on the Canadian Union of Postal Workers figures to create damaging incentives as federally-regulated employers consider how to handle future collective bargaining. But now that we've seen the Cons' endgame, it's worth noting that the incentives for unions may be equally damaging.

After all, the CUPW approached its negotiations with Canada Post from the standpoint of trying to be as reasonable as possible - both in its position at the bargaining table, and in a collective action strategy designed to avoid disrupting postal service. And even from that modest starting point, it was willing to compromise further through the parliamentary process, signalling no apparent disagreement with amendments aimed solely at modifying the worst of the Cons' abuses (eliminating the decree of future salaries lower than those already offered by Canada Post and allowing for some effort at mediation rather than a winner-takes-all arbitration).

And yet even that willingness to compromise was met with a thumb in the eye.

Now, I'm sure the Cons hope that other unions will see the lesson as being that it's not worth even trying to defend collective bargaining rights.

But I'd think that's only one of two possible interpretations - with the other being that the Cons wound up supporting the party which was utterly unreasonable and unduly disruptive, while punishing the one which operated in good faith all along.

And while it remains to be seen what strategies Canadian workers will develop to respond to that message, I'm not sure the Cons or anybody else will have reason to look forward to the result.