Image Source: Evan Mitsui/CBC
How state intervention and union bureaucracy weaken worker resistance.
By Basil Almezel, Staff Writer
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) strike of 2024 once again highlighted the recurring obstacle in labour movements historically: the suppression of collective action by the state. As postal workers demand fair wages and better working conditions, the federal government responded with the familiar tactics of back-to-work legislation and economic penalties. The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) determined that there was a low likelihood of an agreement being reached by the union and Canada Post, and thus ordered workers to return to work. Such intervention effectively stripped the postal workers of their right to strike and undermined their negotiation power. Furthermore, the media was utilized by the state to frame the workers as economic liabilities and disruptors of stability, rather than the essential labourers that the country relies on. Particularly, consumer inconvenience was emphasized in news coverage, as politicians invoked “public interest” narratives to garner support for suppressing the strike. The government interference in the strike claims neutrality, yet its actions clearly are aligned with corporate and state interests, namely maintaining economic stability (or whatever is left of it) at the expense of the worker. The union leadership’s questionable decision to return to work, following the federal order, is accompanied by a pressing question: have unions remained the emancipatory structures that they were envisioned to be, or have they subsided in the face of a system designed to weaken worker resistance?
The critique cannot stop at the predictable phenomenon of state interference and worker movement suppression. Unions exist in a contradictory space. They are necessary for worker organization, yet they often become bureaucratic institutions that serve to pacify rather than radicalize worker movements. Professor Robert Brenner critiques how union leadership often aligns with capital in the aim of maintaining the stability of the union, instead of taking the more radical angle in the pursuit of true labour movement potential.
The history of CUPW itself is proof that worker justice is not achieved by accepting and complying with state orders, but through direct and militant defiance. Many have read about the 1981 CUPW strike in the aftermath of the recent strike. CUPW was the first federal service union in the country to secure the right of maternity leave for its workers, as a result of the decision-making that followed after back-to-work federal orders, i.e. unwavering resistance to the state. The recent strike, on the other hand, saw postal workers in a position where they were forced to return to work by the state and lacked a meaningful resistance from union leadership. Workers expressed frustration and betrayal, feeling that their demands had been put aside to maintain labour peace rather than advancing their rights. Reports from postal worker forums and interviews show a common trend: many workers saw the back to work call as submission. They argued that the leadership conceded too quickly without genuinely exhausting militant options, which the workers were ready for. A glance at historical trends yields examples like the United Auto Workers strikes of the 1930s, which relied on tactics such as factory occupations and proved that change is often not a result of negotiation but of the disruption of production processes. Rank-and-file member power is also often underestimated today; recently the West Virginia teachers’ strike saw educators defy their union leadership to secure genuine victories.This is not a matter of distributing blame; the state and capital will function to suppress labour power, and the unjust interference we see when such strikes occur is not unpredictable. Legal injunctions and economic penalties are tools designed to weaken worker militancy. The challenge remains in ensuring unions are truly representative of the workers’ interests. The recent strike risks a trend where unions act as mediators rather than challengers to capital. History demonstrates that organized and defiant unions are among the strongest oppositions to systemic injustices faced by workers.
