Question 1
The federal government attempted to smooth over problems in the relationship between labor and management during World War 1 by extending the industrial disputes investigation act to war production. Why did labor oppose this action?
With the increased strained relation between labor and management during the World War 1, the government saw the extension of IDIA as the inevitable solution, a move that occasioned even much opposition from the labor movement. Much of the contention traces roots to the recent experiences. The experiences among the employees can be traced to the Kaiserian and profiteering principle (Fudge & Tucker, 2015). Both operated in contention with the interests of the workforce. Often, the employers took advantage of the situation leading to adverse working conditions among the employees culminating to civil strife.
In practice, the operation of IDIA was successful to the extent was used as a second best strategy. This was especially so when the employees lacked enough bargaining power requiring the need to engage its provisions in forcing the employers to enter into concessions with employers. However, its operation primarily favored the employers. The effect of military recruitment coupled with war production increased the cost living invariably and as well tightened labor markets. Of course, the provisions of the act were categorical, strikes and lockouts were objectionable until after the end conciliation process. These requirements had a dual effect on the employees. Firstly, it gave employers a ticket to overlook the workers’ interests such as delayed wages. In reality, this tendency was a legalization of malpractices radicals were constantly fighting fervently. Secondly, it denied victims an avenue to prosecute their grievances leaving them at the mercies of their employers. Of course, this was unacceptable in a free and the democratic labor environment, making the act fundamentally wrong. The compulsory period the act recommended for investigation was of benefit only to the employer and implied that the employees could not have their grievances addressed expediently. Thus, the labor saw the act as a retrogressive one stamping the same ancient exploitative antics. The labor movement long term proposition is for the existence of democracy and fairness in the labor market.
The labor movement also opposed apparent biases in the application of the act. IDIA administration was brazenly biased, and its application was uneven. For instance, M.C. Vety noted that an organization could only invoke the board only when it was capable of taking care of its interests (Fudge & Tucker, 2015). Such an observation underscores the underlying weaknesses in the implementation of the act. Undeniably, the act’s implementation mechanism was fraught with many challenges, which inevitably weakened its efficacy. In another instance, the minister had failed to establish boards when legally bound to do so. These shortcomings later formed the basis of the ensuing reforms.
Question 2
As a result of its growing concern over labor radicalism, what action plan was adopted by federal government?
The growing phenomenon of labor radicalization led to many action plans from the part of the government. However, a good number were a trial and error procedures exacerbating the situation or occasioning short-lived benefits. The federal government’s strategies often involved the formulation of new laws, procuring of new labor policies and strengthening of counter and response institutions.
The government always strived to keep laws in phase with the new job demands and emerging circumstances. In a typical society, laws are dynamic to reflect changing norms. The first move was the enactment of IDIA, an act that received much opposition. Weaknesses in the act led to further amendments. The principal object of the act was to help the government manage strikes. The most popular provision of this act was the requirement to suspend any act amounting to a strike or a lockout during a subsisting conciliation process. The essence of this act was to preclude activities that in government’s perspective threatened public order. As such, the objects were sound, but lacked good faith towards workers’ demands. The order in councils that came after aimed at filling the legal gap IDIA act had left while at the same time strengthen strategic institutions.
Sensing the dangers trade unions posed, the government at all levels imposed a ban on the formation of others. Widespread strikes and radicalization occurred in line with the functioning of these formations. This move was followed by campaigns to recognize only non- radical organizations as legitimate and the protection of law was accorded subjected to this consideration. Thus, this is a plan the government hoped would help to weaken labor workforce by denying them a forum to mount widespread strikes. As part of the scheme, the government used the law to enforce Dominion Police to enforce crucial provisions of the existing laws.
The last of the plan used the law to prescribe stringent measures against agitators by providing for fines and detention. The development empowered the police who were previously rather hands tied. These new laws eased the battle against radicalization in two ways. First, they qualified coercions to quell strikers making the move constitutionally permissible. Secondly, it created an avenue for the establishment of a spy body for hire to monitor the activities of radical organizations. The spies kept the activities of radical organizations in check making it possible to engage necessary measures to frustrate their operations. This plan considerably weakened the operations of radical organizations.
Question 3
Describe what brought about the defeat of labor radicalism in this period
For reasons of economic stability and peace, labor radicalization had to be halted whichever way. Obviously, such practices as long periods of strikes, economic militancy, and lockouts left so many things at stake. The government needed to survive. The employers and employees alike had to be assured of their interests. The employers Kaiserism and profiteering policy took the blame for the long labor radicalisms. However, labor radicalization had many dynamics that could not be contained with a single strategy. Several factors conspired to bring it down
Firstly, the cooperation between the government and the Ontario Police Station was an important development. The situation of radicalization had thrived in the presence of legally weakened police. The resulting cooperation resulted in the enactment of more laws to empower the police to take a more active role during strikes. The existing Order in Councils were weak legislations, and restrained police even when even in justified circumstances. The cooperation between them bolstered a rapport. The emerging ‘anti-loafing law’ was more stringent but was effectively usable against strikers and demonstrators.
Secondly, the Dominion Police established a special IWW section that also included spies. Major employers in Canada could hire these spies (Fudge & Tucker, 2015). With the support of this network, spies were able to infiltrate all the crucial radical organizations. The move kept the operations of radical organization within the eye of the government and police. The government was thus capable of engaging necessary preemptive measures to frustrate their operations.
The operation of IDIA was also a factor in the cessation of radicalization during the war. The act had a weak implementation mechanism allowing radical organizations to ignore its provisions with impunity. As a result, the government issued three orders in councils. The most important provisions were the ones that suspended strikes during the war and the one that charged Dominion Police with the duty to enforce IDIA.
Lastly, the decline of the Winnipeg strikes was crucial and doomed the progress of radicalization organizations. Apparently, radical organizations had consolidated most of its activities in Winnipeg, and the ripple effects could be felt in other places causing widespread alarm among employers and government officials. During the time, the government’s focus was the world war only, this here, the situation demanded a renewed focus. With a more organized and widespread strikes, the government chose to reconsider its focus. It revitalized its response mechanisms and engaged an unprecedented level of coercion. The government response to the situation in Winnipeg was a huge deterrent to radicals in other areas.
Question 4
Discuss the government’s concerns over the growth of labor radicalism, paying attention to the spread of unionism among police and firefighters, the deepening split between international unions and labor radicals, and the Winnipeg General Strikes.
Labor radicalization had been a long time challenge dating back to prewar. However, each day, its concerns were degenerating to alarming levels. Before the war, the federal government had only to worry about economic instability and peace due to a high number of industrial strike and lockouts. Armed with a seemingly working coercive policy, the government found it easy to ignore employees’ concerns. Throughout the wartime and post-war, it was apparent the government was unable to procure a suitable working policy to address the dangers of radicalization. The policy gap led to the development of even more alarming concerns
Firstly, the increased campaigns led to widespread unionism among police officers and firefighters. The move presented yet another cause of worry among the employers and government officials. Obviously, the unionized police were a compromised faction leaving the government unsure of whether the unionized officers would act against their brothers and sisters. It remained clear this move was slowly weakening the government’s capacity in containing radicalism. These fears closed rank during the Montreal municipal workers’ strike that included the police and firefighters. The ensuing investigation led to a ban of association of police unionism to those of other organized labor. This was a remedial move, but one that was difficult to implement as sympathizers among the police were making it hard to use coercion.
Secondly, a big rift was slowly emerging within the Canadian labor movement. The split was between the labor radicals and international unions that formed the better fraction of TLC. The TLC convention of 1918 triggered tension from within culminating to a split in the March of the 1919 convention of radical trade unions. This development inevitably led to the formation of One Big Union OBU movement (Fudge & Tucker, 2015). To the employers and state officials, this was a dangerous development and needed to be checked. The presence of OBU meant that the activities of radicals would be more widespread leaving the government with a difficult task. The long and bitter strikes of 1919 epitomized the challenges attached to this phenomenon.
The third development was widespread labor conflicts rocketing to unprecedented levels. Winnipeg was undisputedly the focal point. With the split within and Canadian labor movement and formation of OBU, this result was anticipated but difficult to engage preemptive measures. The Winnipeg strikes started on 6th May when the labor council authorized a general strike vote. The call received a huge support and was joined by over 3000 workers. Labor Council would continually authorize certain activities to continue to challenge established orders. This was a real threat, and the government’s response mechanism involved the use of extreme coercion measures, but fuelled the need for a long-term solution.
Question 5
Discuss the reasons the federal government wanted a return to industrial voluntarism after World War 1 Pay close attention to why the government wanted to be seen as cooperating, and the problem faced by the federal government.
The challenges experienced during the World War 1 were pivotal in shaping the federal government’s preference to voluntarism. The emergence of World War 1 did not lead to a sharp break from liberal voluntarism, but the situation had slowly deteriorated from mild to extreme. The emergence of trade unions had presented real concerns at both levels of administration, that is, the provincial and federal. The employers had their contention with the trade unions, especially because they affected profit margin negatively. Well, it was common to all that economic militancy and political radicalism had grown drastically affecting stability. As a result, strikes and lockouts had increased in numbers, and the workers were more willing to act collectively in pursuit of political gains, but in defiance of legal authorities. Besides, the coercive regime was too strong with the aim of repressing strikers and the activities of trade unions. This situation presented a real threat to the state officials triggering interest for a break from prewar voluntarism yet lacked a clue on what modifications to be done to contain the situation.
During the war, many employers and employees were aware of the sacrifices that they had made and expected the federal government to reciprocate. To the contrary, the government only took the route of the building on the wartime rapprochement by promoting cooperative in labor relations. However, real problems re-emerged when the employers’ resistance marked the downfall of the new regime. State repression still featured, and many people felt they had fought for democracy. Coupled with adverse economic and conditions and fragmentation, led the government to reconsider a return to voluntarism.
This route could not have involved a bold action since the pre-war policy could not have stood in a free and democratic society. In practice, it had to feature some elements of democracy in it. To act this guise efficiently, the government allowed enough liberties to employers/ but in areas where mass resentment was possible, created an avenue of intervention. It was an acceptable procedure, but a secretive way to defeat aggression from economic and political radicals. The ideology was to hide coercion as this could have woken up the old strikes. It was never easy to reconcile coercion and voluntarism due to the lack of a regulated accord. A major problem with the return emerged in constitutional discourse and the practice. It was not easy to define the role of provincial and the federal government in labor relations. The former had jurisdiction of civil and property rights, while, the later in criminal law and peace. The use of coercion came to be constitutionally permissible to compel conciliation.
References
Fudge, J., & Tucker, E. (2015). Labour before the law: The regulation of workers'
collective action in Canada, 1900-1948. University of Toronto Press.
