Collective Bargaining Works: How Unions Stabilize Workforces

Too often in Canada, organized labour is portrayed as a source of instability.

When negotiations become difficult, when the possibility of a strike emerges, or when a dispute begins to affect the public, attention quickly turns to the union. Workers exercising their collective rights are framed as the problem, and governments face pressure to intervene to protect the economy or the so-called national interest. That framing misrepresents the fundamental role of unions and ignores that two parties are always at every bargaining table.

Strong unions do not destabilize workplaces. When labour relations work as they should, unions are among the most important forces for stability, predictability, and long-term success.

As I have said many times, good outcomes come from good processes. And good processes begin with employers and unions recognizing each other as legitimate partners with a shared interest in the enterprise's success—not just at the bargaining table, but when handling day-to-day issues as well.

That does not mean we will always agree—far from it. Collective bargaining exists precisely because workers and employers do not always have the same interests or priorities. Bargaining can be messy and non-linear, and reaching an agreement requires hard work from both sides. But disagreement does not have to mean dysfunction, as the government, the public, and anyone not directly involved in the problem-solving often assume.

At the bargaining table, one of the most important stabilizing forces is addressing key issues early, building tentative agreements where possible, and establishing trust between the parties. Bargaining is not a game, and consensus should not be viewed simply as the destination. It is a process that requires both parties to engage seriously and responsibly. The same principle applies well beyond contract negotiations.

Employers and unions have a symbiotic relationship. We will be there together during periods of growth and economic downturns, through geopolitical uncertainty, operational challenges, and the next round of bargaining. Neither side can simply wish the other away, nor should they. Partnerships, by their very nature, can strengthen all involved.

When employers exclude labour from the conversation, stable outcomes become much harder to achieve. Labour unions must acknowledge that the reverse is equally true: When unions refuse to meaningfully engage employers, instability grows because either party stops recognizing the other's legitimacy.

The better approach is partnership and collaboration.

We do not need to agree on everything. We do not even need to agree on most things. But we do need to recognize the legitimacy of the concerns being raised across the table and maintain honest, forthright communication. That is particularly important when bargaining becomes difficult.

On the issue of the government’s place in collective bargaining in Canada, there has been a worrying tendency in recent years to view government intervention as a solution to challenging negotiations in federally regulated industries. But intervention carries consequences that extend far beyond ending an immediate disruption. This must not be confused with constructive participation in the form of mediation and, when appropriate, statutorily mandated conciliation through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).

With approximately 95% of collective agreements reached without a work stoppage, we see that Canada’s collective bargaining system works. If we want to increase that number, it is not by removing the rights of workers, and it is certainly not by creating additional systems that simply give the government political cover when they choose to interfere. In fact, the government's own consultations demonstrate that the answer is not greater political intervention in bargaining at all. We must instead focus on supporting good-faith bargaining by adjusting timelines, strengthening mediation, and focusing resources on efforts that set collective bargaining on a constructive path that allows employers and workers to reach agreements at the bargaining table while protecting the constitutional right to strike.

Collective bargaining depends on trust—not only trust between employees and employers, but trust in the system itself. When workers come to believe the bargaining process can be overridden when negotiations become difficult, that weakens trust.

And once trust in the process disappears, rebuilding it can take years.

The better answer is to keep parties at the table and allow them to do the difficult work required to reach their own agreement. When both sides must continue bargaining in good faith, the resulting agreements are stronger and more durable. This matters to businesses as much as it matters to workers.

Labour disputes carry costs that cannot always be captured on a balance sheet. They can damage brands, undermine employee engagement, disrupt customers, and weaken confidence in an entire sector. In aviation, those consequences can ripple across communities and throughout the Canadian economy. Workers understand this especially well because they have a front-row seat to their industry and community. Workers do not seek job action because they want to stop receiving a paycheque; they consider it when the concerns and issues affecting them are unaddressed or ignored.

As a union representing pilots, without exception and contrary to the belief of some employers and public observers, our members want the airlines they fly for to succeed. A stable, profitable, and growing airline creates careers, opportunities, and economic security. It enables companies to invest in people, equipment, and their future. That is why ALPA's work extends far beyond wages and working conditions.

We advocate for aviation safety, stronger career pathways, recruitment and retention, regulatory certainty, and policies that sustain highly skilled Canadian aviation jobs. We want Canadian airlines to be competitive and successful because our members' futures are directly tied to their success.

That is not a contradiction. It is what responsible trade unionism looks like.

While strong businesses are rightly tied to keeping unemployment low and driving GDP growth, workers know that good, safe jobs are a foundational part of the “why” behind the many reasons to stand for a strong industry.

Unions also provide employers with something extraordinarily valuable: an organized, democratic structure through which employees can identify concerns, communicate priorities, and work toward solutions.

An engaged workforce is not something businesses should fear. It is an asset. In aviation, our union committees work every day on safety, fatigue, scheduling, training, professional standards, and many other issues. That involvement gives pilots a meaningful voice in their workplace and provides employers with experienced representatives who understand both operations and employees' concerns.

That is stability in practice. It is also why governments and employers should involve labour early, rather than after problems have already developed. Early engagement creates an opportunity to identify issues, understand competing perspectives, and find workable solutions before positions become entrenched.

A labour relationship should not begin when bargaining starts, and it should not end when a collective agreement is signed. It should be continuously nurtured.

A wise contract negotiator once told me that to understand labour relations, focus on the second word: relations. That advice has stayed with me.

When relationships deteriorate, communication breaks down. When communication breaks down, disputes become more likely. And when disputes arise, everyone pays a price. But the opposite is equally true.

Strong relationships build trust. Trust improves communication. Better communication increases predictability. And predictability is something that every successful business values.

Unions are not outsiders to the businesses where our members work. We are key stakeholders in those businesses and in the industries they sustain.

For employers, that means recognizing organized labour not merely as something to manage during collective bargaining, but as a partner capable of helping identify problems and develop solutions.

For unions, it means bargaining responsibly, understanding the economic realities our employers face, and recognizing that the long-term health of the business matters to our members.

For governments, it means respecting free and fair collective bargaining and resisting the temptation to substitute political intervention for the hard work that should take place between the parties themselves.

When labour and business work together, they bring stability and predictability. Cooperation has intrinsic value, and early involvement, combined with honest communication, improves outcomes for everyone.

Disagreements between workers and employers will always happen. That is the reality of labour relations. The objective should not be to eliminate those disagreements; it should be to build relationships and processes strong enough to resolve them.

The best collective agreements are still negotiated at the bargaining table. And, as I have said many times before, we each do better when we all do better.