Ban on replacement workers drives down employment, investment
Jason Clemens and Niels Veldhuis, For CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 Article tools
Printer friendly
E-mail
Font: * * * * Parliamentary hearings into Bill C-257, a private member's bill to ban the use of replacement workers for federal industries began earlier this week. At first glance, legislatively prohibiting replacement workers or what unions have coined ``scabs'' may appear to help Canadian workers. The reality is much different. Prohibiting replacement workers will make already unbalanced federal labour laws more biased and reduce Canada's investment competitiveness. The result will be reduced investment and lower rates of job creation.Labour relations laws regulate the process by which unions gain and lose the right to collectively represent workers and regulate a company once it is unionized. The goal of these laws should be to balance the rights of workers to collectively organize against the right to reject such representation and the rights of employers. Balanced labour laws are critical in creating and maintaining a functioning and dynamic labour market, one characterized by high rates of job creation, low unemployment rates and strong productivity and income growth.
Unfortunately, many Canadians, including most of the advocates for banning replacement workers, think the goal of labour laws is to favour one group (unions) over all others. Put differently, these groups seek to gain advantage over others through labour laws.
The way a society regulates labour markets has broad implications. There is a large and growing body of research indicating flexible labour markets out-perform regulated ones in incomes, job creation, unemployment and investment.
Unfortunately, Canadian labour relations laws are the most unbalanced and biased in favour of unions in North America. In a recent empirical analysis examining labour relations laws, federal laws in Canada were ranked 61st out of 61 jurisdictions (10 Canadian provinces, 50 U.S. states, and the Canadian federal government) in balance and the promotion of labour market flexibility.
Full story.
[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: blake 3:17 ]