Corporate versus Collective Rights: A Question of Political Ideology?

The question of corporate versus collective rights is one for the times. It seems that it is always an issue in capitalist society. Whatever the political stripe, the rights of both parties seems to be a question of economic productivity and sustainability. Unfortunately, corporate rights appear to trump collective rights.


Recently, members of a collective bargaining unit of Air Canada voted for a general strike. This is after months without a collective agreement with the corporation. After just one day, Canada's governing party served notice that it would introduce and expedite "back to work" legislation. This appears to be a little impetuous on the part of the Government of Canada. If it was in business's best interest to lock out its labour, what would be the reaction of the government?


What seems to be clear is, collective bargaining is an acceptable approach to management labour relations so long as it does not or has the potential to affect the operations of a business enterprise. In other words, the corporate productivity and profitability supersedes the value and livability of labour.


What is more surprising in all of this is the willingness of society to accept the artificial mantra of government, business, and their advocates that it is business that drives the country. Labour is at the heart of business. Without it business does not thrive (or fail, depending on the management practices).


Although there are many questions regarding unions and the right to collective bargaining, it remains crucial for many people's livelihoods. They depend on the strength of the union negotiations to provide them with a sense of income, pension, and retirement security. However, as we have seen, even when these are negotiated, many a times, the future of income, pension, and retirement security is at risk when companies are poorly mismanaged and their commitments made to labour have not been fulfilled. Where is the accountability?


The political ideology makes no difference. It is a matter of political expediency and pragmatism. History has shown us that in many of the developed countries, regardless of the political ideology, the decisions to move with the corporate mantra that they provide security for labour and the development of the country is embraced.


Until the elected officials and the bureaucracies that support them realize that economic development is based on planning, opportunity identification, resource allocation, and a localized integrative approach, corporate rights will continue to win the day.


For those involved in the collective bargaining process, the best they can hope for is to continue to secure agreements that benefit them--and hope that the company is managed well so that their futures are not at risk.