Strikes aren't selfish, Catherine.

The moral pillars of our societal discourse these days rely on a form of inebriated altruism which, if strictly followed, requires sacrifice from everyone at every level and in every action. Those demanding sacrifice, of course, assume those refusing to lay on the proverbial altar are selfish, traitorous people. Why, they scream, will you not provide your tears, and blood, to appease Tlaloc?

Such was the case with the vaccine mandates, but it does not stop there.

When Catherine Swift of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada says that the union, and by proxy the workers, at Canadian Pacific “does not care about the general public” and the railway industry should be considered an essential service thereby weakening the unions bargaining position, she means “why will you not provide your tears, and blood, to appease Tlaloc?” Her complaint is that the union chose this timing to go on strike because it is the worst time for a railway strike to occur, which maximizes their leverage. We have supply chain shortages and inflation to worry about, after all!

Her argument, of course, purports that a union should care about the general public, which is absurd. Unions should not care about the general public. They should care about their union members. Unions are meant for collective bargaining, not “environmental, social, and corporate governance” World Economic Forum-type virtue signals. Any benefits to the general public will come from maximizing the common good through increasing their individual salaries and contributions to a healthier society.

She also assumes that the union must have known years in advance that their collective bargaining agreement would be up for re-negotiation during the worst supply chain crisis in decades.

Omniscient bastards, am I right?

Well, Catherine, here is the thing: those concerns of yours, like inflation, are affecting the workers at Canadian Pacific as well. They probably would love a cost of living adjustment that is tied to inflation in order to minimize their financial insecurity in the coming/current recession. They certainly do not need to take one for the team just because we have a supply chain crisis — I, for one, believe they should maximize their leverage.

Sure, the supply chain may be worse off, but these problems are not going away for at least a couple of years in any case. That’s what happens when you large segments of the economy all over the world for a virus that, realistically, should not be an enormous concern for the vast majority of working age individuals: you get long-lasting supply chain issues. That is the reality with a just-in-time, global economy in a country with many regulatory barriers and low-or-no tariffs.

How about we fix the root of the problem, which too often involves myopic government policy, instead of demanding superficial sacrifices from workers using one of the best negotiation levers available to them?

I am getting tired of people that claim to believe in rational economic agents, yet demand those agents be price-takers when it comes to their wages. Subsequently, when the agents refuse to be price-takers, they are met with demands for their leverage to be taken away with the crushing force of government overreach. The government, traditionally, is better at creating problems than solving them. They just spent the last two years demonstrating that fact.