Mark Carney’s austerity drive has begun.
In a surprise announcement yesterday, Minister Joel Lightbound announced that Canada Post would be directed to end door-to-door mail delivery. In addition, an unknown number of rural mail outlets will be closed and certain mail will no longer be delivered by air, increasing its delivery time. Canada Post has been given 45 days to present its “restructuring” plan along these proposed lines to the government.
In response, CUPW members have returned to the picket lines in an attempt to force the government to back down. Lightbound’s order will entail the destruction of thousands of good-paying union jobs, as well as a poorer service for millions of Canadians. This is no longer a fight over wages and quality of work, but an existential fight to protect jobs and services that directly affects all workers.
How did we get here and how should the labour movement respond?
Why Canada Post?
Carney’s cuts to Canada Post should not be viewed in isolation. In recent weeks, Carney has psychologically primed the public for an “austerity budget” to be delivered in November. In the meantime, he has requested that federal departments find 15 per cent in “savings” over a three-year period. The cuts to Canada Post are simply the opening salvo in the coming austerity drive—and a taste for what Carney has in store for us.
The choice of launching cuts at Canada Post is not accidental. Until yesterday, CUPW was locked in negotiations with management over issues of wages and the expansion of part-time work. Management cried poor and the talks reached an impasse. In one fell swoop, Carney has “solved” the deadlock by ordering the mass layoff of workers, whilst also dealing a sharp blow to CUPW—a union with militant traditions. In doing so, Carney has sent a message to other unions: if CUPW can be crushed, then so can you.
‘Canada Post loses money!’
The government has justified its move by pointing to the fact that Canada Post loses money. This is an indisputable fact. However, a few things need to be clarified here.
First, the reason that Canada Post loses money is that it offers necessary services that no private company has an interest in offering. Canada is an immense country, and there is little if any profit to be made in offering affordable and regular mail services to more remote or rural parts of the country. For this reason, many large countries have retained state ownership in mail delivery, even though this does not always turn a profit. This only presents an issue if one considers mail delivery, not as a necessary service, but as a business like any other—a notion that many would disagree with.
Second, while the federal government has been forced to “subsidize” Canada Post in recent years, this money pales in comparison to other subsidies given to private companies—and with far more disappointing results.
True, the federal government gave Canada Post a roughly $1 billion repayable loan to help keep it afloat. But this is peanuts compared with the over $50 billion in loans and subsidies given to auto companies and battery manufactures in recent years to boost production and create jobs—or at least that was the promise. In recent months, many of these companies have now scaled back their expansion plans, with the number of jobs created likely being minimal.
The question must be posed: why apply one standard to private companies that repeatedly break their promises, and another to a public company like Canada Post? If the concern is protecting “good Canadian jobs,” does that not also include the 60,000 people who work for Canada Post, many of them union members? Evidently, it does not.
Third, CUPW has offered ideas for how to retool and expand Canada Post’s operations, namely through the introduction of postal banking. The offering of public bank services via the post office’s infrastructure has been done effectively in other countries, including in Japan where its postal bank claims more depositors than any of its private banks. However, this idea has been dismissed out of hand by the government. Why? In short, because they prefer that post offices be closed and left abandoned than to step on the turf of the big banks—even if it would massively benefit ordinary people.
A losing argument
How has CUPW’s leadership responded to the government’s arguments? In a recent CBC interview, CUPW negotiator Jim Gallant suggested that Canada Post’s losses were due to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as recent work actions taken by CUPW in hopes of striking a new deal with management. He also implied that profitability would be restored once a deal was struck.
Frankly, this is not a compelling argument. The losses at Canada Post stem from much deeper issues, including the nature of delivering mail in a large country, declining mail volumes, competition from giants like Amazon, and other factors. Ignoring these facts will not help to bolster CUPW’s case with the public and will only generate confusion in its ranks.
Instead, a more convincing argument would be: why are we treating a necessary service as a business to begin with? Why should profits dictate whether or not a senior has easy access to their mail, or whether someone receives their package in a timely fashion? If the government is so concerned with “bailouts,” why doesn’t it start by ending the subsidies given to large corporations who then renege on their promises?
Moreover, if the concern is defending “good Canadian jobs,” why are multinationals like Amazon allowed to corner the market on the basis of low-paid work and anti-union policies? Why aren’t these companies and their networks also taken into public ownership, allowing for a more integrated and efficient mail system that guarantees decent work for everyone?
True, these ideas may prove a shock to some. However, what other proposals exist for preventing mass layoffs and the gutting of our postal service?
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
The nature of the epoch
The cuts to Canada Post are a harbinger of things to come under Carney. It should therefore be of top concern for every worker. CUPW’s fight is our fight.
In that vein, the labour movement should marshall its full support to CUPW members on the lines, including through holding mass demonstrations and the organization of solidarity strikes in certain industries, starting with other unionized mail workers. These actions would provide the best hope in forcing Carney to back off, as well as supplying other workers with confidence when the axe inevitably falls on them.
However, we should not be blind to reality. In the long run, the position facing CUPW workers is still a dire one—at least under present conditions. The financial decline of Canada Post has not abated, meaning that even more vicious cuts will always be just around the corner.
The situation facing CUPW is one that will soon face hundreds of thousands in the public sector who will be squeezed by Carney’s austerity. For example, the college workers are facing a similar existential fight with the collapse in revenue stemming from Carney’s change to student visas leading to closures, mergers and layoffs. It is only a matter of time before other workers start to feel the heat.
In the past, even a poorly organized strike could hope to wrest some concessions from the employer. However, during a period of economic crisis, even the most far reaching strike faces certain objective limits to what it can achieve. In those moments, even the old guarantees are considered too great an expense by the boss, let alone new ones. This is the situation Canada faces today.
The old trade unionism has reached its sell-by date. The methods of the past are of little use against a ruling elite with its plans for deep austerity. To retain the status quo means accepting mass layoffs, deep wage cuts and the gutting of our services long into the future. To defend workers, it’s time for trade union leaders to raise their sights.
The current situation is the product of an irrational economic system—capitalism. If the result of the “free market” is the destruction of our services and of decent paying jobs, the only solution is to replace it by rational planning through public ownership and democratic control. The answer is socialism—and it’s time for unions to adopt the call.
