Essay on the Advantage of Canadian Unionization of Work Force Compare to the US

Traditionally, the unionisation of work force in Canada is considered to be more advanced than in the US. Such a difference between the development of unionisation in the neighbouring countries may be explained by a variety of factors but the primary role play the difference in legislation, historical development and mentality of Canadians and Americans.

Before analysing the advantages of Canadian unionisation of work force compared to the US, it is primarily necessary to point out that nowadays unionisation rates in Canada have reached the level of 37%, while unionisation rates in the US tumble to 16% of work force (Jackson 2004). Obviously the gap is quite significant and has to be properly explained.

First of all, it should be said that probably differences in legislation of Canada and the US play the most significant role in the higher unionisation rates in Canada and lower in the US. In general, Canadian legislation may be named as quite supporting to the position of work force and contributing to the development of unionisation in the country, while, in stark contrast, American legislation, being based on liberal principles, rather tends to distance state intervention into regulation of relations between employers and employees. Moreover, often American legislation is criticised for the lack of loyalty to employees and practically open support of employers.

In this respect, it is worthy to mention one of the recent legislative initiatives of the US government, according to which one of the fundamental union rights, the right to strike is undermined, through the “use of permanent replacement workers” (Silk 1991:68) that naturally limits dramatically the possibility of American unions to protect their rights and positions in potential conflicts with employees.

Such a situation seems to be particularly contrasting to the development of legislation in Canada where “labour in many Canadian jurisdictions has continued to win important innovative labour law reforms and rights” (Jackson 2004:219). At the same time, it is necessary to underline that basically the difference in favour of Canadian legislation compared to American legislation may be found not in right-to-work laws, or permanent replacement workers, but rather in more fare certification procedures with strong sanctions on employer interference.

Naturally, in the situation when American employers get used to the lack of serious sanctions for proving ‘unfair labour practices’. Consequently, they tend to increase their resistance to the development of unionisation and formation of strong unions.

Furthermore, such a difference in legislation, in its turn, may be explained by historical development of the US economy and national mentality. It is getting to be obvious when the development of unionization is analysed. For instance, the Canadian labour movement has developed “a different approach to labour political action, rejecting the two major parties and founding its own political party” (Renuad 2003:305).

Thus, it is obvious that Canadian unionisation is more advanced compared to the US because it can protect its interests on the highest political and economic level. Not surprisingly, American labour movement tends to follow the example of Canadian unions in recent years.

Bibliography:

1. Jackson, A. Productivity and Competitiveness: Labour Perspective. Toronto: Routledge, 2004.
2. Renuad, G. Industrial Relations. Toronto: New Press, 2003.
3. Silk, L. “Worrying Over Weakened Unions”, The New York Times, 13 Dec. 1991.