The evolution of a mugwump

Agar Adamson

The true definition of a ‘mugwump’ is an independent in American politics, but in the vernacular of today it is an individual with his or her mug on one side of the fence and their wump on the other. Although one attempts to follow the accepted definition of independence they often find themselves on the fence. Nova Scotians are in this situation when it comes to the proposal to ban nurse’s strikes, it appears.

On several occasions, the argument has been made that the strike/lockout should only be used in private industry and not in the public domain.

In private industry, both management (the owners) and the workers are the victims of a strike or lockout. For example, if General Motors goes on strike, the primary victims of this work stoppage are the workers and the owners, for there is an alternative to GM, Toyota.

In the public sector, as Acadia students and Wolfville merchants have recently discovered, there is a third party that may well be the innocent victims of the strike, but are not a party to the dispute and there is no alternative. The fact that non-combatants are the victims is central to the argument that the strike/lockout should not be used in public sector labour relations.

Thus, the public should support the MacDonald government’s proposed amendments to the labour code to outlaw strikes by nurses and other health care professionals. But hang on for a moment. In this is the distinct whiff of a ‘political rat’ that goes hand-in-hand with the MacDonald/Parent proposal.

Why is the government persisting with this charade when both the NDP and the Liberals have said they cannot and will not support the proposed legislation? Why is the proposed legislation aimed only at those involved in health care? If the strike/lockout is injurious to the public, why is it not aimed at all public sector workers, including the police, firefighters, teachers, tax collectors, professors, and food inspectors? Why?

Health care workers do not like to leave their patients to walk the picket lines. Nurses, we know as a fact, strike or work to rule only when there is no other alternative. Nurses are underpaid and suffer many workplace injuries. Indeed, as a profession, nurses lose more days of work because of physical injuries and mental stress than any other profession!

It is difficult to recruit nurses in this province because many single nurses vote with their feet and move away. It is also difficult to recruit LPNs and what about doctors, Mr. Minister?

Why have you, Mr. Premier, brought about the current situation in Bridgewater, which has so distressed many physician specialists?

Is it possible that the Tory government is pressing ahead with this legislation, knowing it will be defeated in the House, perhaps even at first reading? The Conservatives wish to fight an election with this bill as the major plank in their election manifesto. Do you want to have an election on the backs of nurses and other health professionals? I don’t.

Incidentally, there is no ‘right to strike’ guaranteed by the Charter. The right to strike is guaranteed by ordinary statute law.

As one member of the Nurses’ Union pointed out, law or no law, it is always possible to have an illegal strike or to work to rule.

The first postal strike in Canada was illegal, but the general public -- when they were informed of the working conditions -- supported the postal workers, and the government of Mike Pearson was forced by public pressure to negotiate with the postal workers and granted them the right to strike or be lockout.

An illegal strike, which is a form of civil disobedience, could well backfire on the government.

In regard to the current situation in the Capitol Health District, nurses have rejected the MacDonald government’s wage offer and have voted to strike, though wisely they have yet to set a date. Is the government attempting to provoke a strike by not bargaining fairly with the nurses in order to generate public support for their no-strike legislation?

Still, the single most important question remains: why just certain classes of health professionals? If the government truly believes that strikes by public sector unions are objectionable because they have a negative impact upon members of a third party like the Acadia students, then we could see merit in the legislation, but to single out just one class of public sector employees makes one seriously question the MacDonald government’s motives.

Mediation is possible, provided it is carried out by truly independent individuals like a labour court, whose members are independent of government and are involved in the negotiations from the beginning and not as the legislation proposes only when there is deadlock. Members of this court must be independent and selected by an electoral college composed of management, labour and especially independent individuals. They must have tenure and can only be removed by a vote in the Electoral College.

The government is a party to this court, not the ruler over it. It is the old question that justice, “should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” It is not certain that the MacDonald/Parent proposal fits this dictum of Lord Hewart.

Fence sitting is uncomfortable. A true mugwump would say that this issue requires independent study and removal from partisan politics; give it to elders to research.

The opposition is right to defeat the legislation as it is drafted. If the Conservatives try to use it as an election ploy, they deserve to be defeated. After all, who wants an election on the backs of our nurses?