Caterpillar and Rio Tinto lockouts highlight latest management strategy

Please chip in to support rabble's election 2019 coverage. Support today for as little as $1 per month!

Business lobbyists used to express grave concern about the economic impact of strikes. Those concerns were always overstated; time lost in work stoppages has declined by 90 per cent from the 1970s. Nevertheless, companies traditionally complain that work stoppages damage sales, productivity and, of course, profits.

Recently, however, business leaders have warmed to work stoppages. In the current bargaining environment, companies (especially multinational firms) hold the best cards. And executives are increasingly willing to precipitate their own work stoppages -- through management lockouts -- to enforce demands for lower wages and benefits.

Two New Year's Day lockouts highlighted this strategy. U.S.-based Caterpillar Inc. locked out 450 locomotive builders in London, Ont., demanding wage cuts of more than 50 per cent. The same day, Rio Tinto, the U.K.-based mining giant, locked out 755 smelter workers in Alma, Que. That company's demand to outsource all future bargaining-unit openings would ultimately achieve an even larger reduction in wages. In both cases, the future of middle-class incomes in our manufacturing and resource sectors is at stake. And in both cases, executives are willing to lock the doors until workers swallow their pill.

These are just the latest in a growing trend by employers to lock out their own workers. U.S. Steel used a 50-week lockout to dismantle the defined benefit pension plan for workers in Hamilton. Canada Post played the lockout card to precipitate back-to-work legislation from an obliging Harper government. And the City of Toronto is contemplating a lockout of thousands of civic employees to wrest concessions from the union.

Suddenly, business rhetoric about the costs of long work stoppages has been silenced. In the eyes of many employers, work stoppages -- even long ones -- are a small price to pay for driving down labour costs and boosting profit margins.

The popularity of lockouts reflects the dramatic tilting of the labour relations playing field in recent years. With unions on the defensive, management is eager to go for the jugular. Government has stood back or, worse, egged on the lockouts (as Ottawa did with Canada Post). Multinational firms are especially aggressive, given their ability (underwritten by free-trade agreements) to shift production and capital seamlessly between jurisdictions.

This trend is troubling, for macroeconomic as well as ethical reasons. As employers ratchet down compensation, income shifts from consumers (who spend every penny) to corporations (which sit on a growing pile of uninvested cash). That undermines aggregate spending and weakens the recovery. And the more employers succeed in driving down wages, the greater the danger of setting off a cycle of deflation in wages and prices (such as the one that bedevilled Japan for a decade).

So how should politicians respond to employers ready to lock out workers to slash compensation? Pushing the companies to treat Canadian workers fairly would be a start, rather than ratifying their actions with regulatory approvals, tax cuts and silence.

Labour law reforms could also play a role. Manitoba, for example, implemented an innovative provision in 2000 giving its labour board the authority to intervene in long disputes, including imposing arbitration when there's an impasse. It's been rarely invoked but has helped prevent all-out industrial warfare of the sort we're seeing at Caterpillar and Rio Tinto. This would be a good time for other jurisdictions to consider similar legislation.

Jim Stanford is an economist with CAW. This article was first published in the Globe and Mail.

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.