Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Congrats to the Tories, NDP. Is Tory Majority "Undemocratic"?

by David Doorey May 3, 2011
written by David Doorey May 3, 2011

Wow. That was quite an election. The Tories got a majority, moving from 143 to 167 seats (155 is necessary to get a majority), even though the percentage of people who voted for them barely moved (from 37.6% in 2008 to 39.6% yesterday). That’s due to the way votes translate into seats under our system.
The NDP received only 18.2% of the votes in 2008, but over 30.6 percent of voters chose the NDP in 2011. That translated in an increase in seats from 37 (2008) to 102 this time! The Liberals, well, their percentage of the vote dropped from 26.2% in 2008 to just 18.9% this time, leaving them with only 34 seats (down from 77). So, the mice did rise up, putting the NDP in the position of Official Opposition for the first time ever.  Congratulations to my friend from the U. of Toronto Masters of Industrial Relations program, Matt Kellway, for winning the Toronto-Beaches riding for the NDP.
I’ll add a labour law point, since this is a labour law blog.
Note that only about 24% of Canadians actually voted Tory in this election, since just about 61% of eligible voters cast ballots (of which 39.6% voted Tory).   Yet that is enough for a majority government in our system.  The 71% of the population that did not vote Tory now must live with whatever policies and laws that government passes.
Consider now how our labour legislation determines whether workers have access to collective bargaining in Canada.  A majority of workers must select unionization in order for those workers to have a right to collective bargaining.  So if 55% of workers vote to unionize, and 45% vote not to, the union wins the right and legal obligation to represent all of the workers, even the 45% who did not want to be represented by the union.  Keep in mind too, that the voter turnout in a union certification vote is regularly 100% or close to it (unlike political elections).
People who are against collective bargaining often say to me (and the media) that it is extremely “undemocratic” to have a system in which the minority of workers who did not support collective bargaining are nevertheless required to abide by the will of the majority.   But I thought that that was exactly how a “democracy” works, at least the version of it we aspire to in Canada, isn’t it?  
Unions might be happy doing away with the majority requirement in favour of a system where any worker who wants collective bargaining gets it.  Our requirement for majority support is a very unusual model by international standards.  But I suspect employers (and people who don’t like unions) prefer the majority requirement.  But if you want a system based on “majority rules”, isn’t it hypocritical to then complain when the majority rules?
What do you think?   Is it “undemocratic” for a union elected by a majority of workers to bargain a collective agreement that applies to all workers, even those that did not vote for the union?
If so, does that mean that allowing a majority government to be formed with less than 25% support of Canadians is equally, or even more undemocratic?

9 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Canada Votes on Monday: Employee Entitlements, and the Rise of the Mice?
next post
Private Garbage Collectors in Windsor Heading for Unionization Vote

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.