Gus Carlson is a U.S.-based columnist for The Globe and Mail.
The dockworkers’ strikes crippling major seaports from the Gulf of Mexico, along the U.S. East Coast and into Canada has resurfaced this question: At what point should political leaders move to override the collective bargaining process in the name of protecting the national interest?
It’s a question whose answer will not please all the people all the time. U.S. presidents have weighed in to end labour disputes dozens of times since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 opened the door to such action. Among the highest-profile cases: Ronald Reagan forced air-traffic controllers back to work in 1981, and George W. Bush ended an 11-day lockout at West Coast ports in 2002. In both cases, the justification was protecting the economy.
In Canada, former prime minister Stephen Harper made back-to-work legislation a cottage industry during his tenure, imposing it a number of times in labour disputes at Air Canada and the post office in the name of mitigating damage to the economy.
For U.S. President Joe Biden, the strike this week by the 47,000-member International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) comes just a month before a very tight U.S. presidential election in which the economy – and specifically stubborn inflation that spiked during his administration – is among the top issues for American voters.
For Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the problem may be of a smaller scale. The 300 workers at the Port of Montreal stopped work for only three days this week. But their contract differences remain unresolved, leaving open the possibility of another walkout.
With a minority government that just survived a confidence vote, Mr. Trudeau, too, could be staring down an election where his party would be held responsible for the cost-of-living crisis.
Particularly in the United States, fears have quickly surfaced that an extended strike at the ports would rekindle inflation, making goods scarcer and driving up consumer prices for an already inflation-weary electorate.
Despite the potential risks, Mr. Biden, true to his union-friendly Democrat ideology, said repeatedly this week he had no intention of using his presidential power to force workers back. Instead, he said he intended to let the collective bargaining process run its course in hopes that the union and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), a consortium of companies operating the ports, can reach agreement.
Further, Mr. Biden not only said he would not lean on Taft-Hartley, but that he also didn’t “believe in it.”
Mr. Trudeau appears to be of a similar mind. His government already intervened once this year to order striking rail workers back to their jobs. With all parties now courting the union vote, it’s not inconceivable that a minority government like Mr. Trudeau’s would let the dockworkers’ strike play out.
The impact of an extended strike is not insignificant. More than half of all goods shipped in and out of the U.S. go through the seaports idled by the strike, which include the giant ports of New York and New Jersey. JP Morgan estimates the strike will cost the U.S. economy US$5-billion a day.
Similarly, a long strike would hobble the Port of Montreal, a crucial transshipment hub in the nation’s economy. In its 2023 annual report, the port said it handled more than 35 million tonnes of goods arriving and departing on more than 2,000 ships a year, 2,500 trucks a day and 60 to 80 trains a week. The port’s supply chain is estimated to support more than 600,000 jobs across Quebec.
Whether or not an agreement is reached quickly between any of the parties – and with or without government intervention – there will be a price to pay. That’s because the devil, as always, is in the details.
Port of Montreal workers reportedly want 20-per-cent raises and “better work-life balance” – more money for less work, presumably.
The ILA is demanding a 77-per-cent wage hike – from US$39 an hour to US$69 an hour, as well as limits on the use of automation in port operations to protect those high-paying jobs. Union leaders rejected an offer of a 50-per-cent wage increase from the alliance, which prompted the strike.
The reality is someone will need to pay. Even if the dispute is settled quickly and an inflationary spiral owing to a shortage of goods is avoided, the high cost of a new contract will be a somewhat pyrrhic victory. As usual, consumers will be left holding the bag.
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Biden – or Mr. Trudeau, if the Port of Montreal matter escalates – relents and steps in to force a resolution or stands firmly on ideology and backs off. Either way, it’s a high-risk balancing act with no clear winner.