It’s been over a year since the owners of the Saskatoon and Moose Jaw Heritage Inn locked out their workers. Before September 7, 2023, the hotels’ employees had worked without a contract for over four years while their union local, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) 1400 attempted to re-negotiate with the employer.
Recently, the Heritage Inn ownership hired Steve Seiferling, a union buster and continuous donor to the Saskatchewan Party. The lawyer proposed a $3-an-hour pay decrease, reduced sick leave allotments, cut dental benefits, eliminated paid bereavement, and removed guarantees of fair and equal distribution of work. The owners removed any assurance of full-time employment, altered seniority guidelines, and eliminated a clause that made servers not liable if their cash float was short, absent proof of their theft.
These changes constitute severe aggression toward the employees, from physical harm through removal of benefits to emotional and mental harm. That aggression is, in effect, violence.
According to president of UFCW 1400 and lead negotiator in this conflict, Lucy Flack Figueiredo, the Heritage Inn has been at the negotiating table three times since last September, including one meeting that lasted less than an hour and only had time for outstanding agenda items. This lack of commitment to bargaining, compounded with actions to decertify the union, and a toxic work environment that pits non-unionized and picketing unionized workers against each other, demonstrates the employer’s clear disinterest in negotiation.
Inaccurate definitions of violence leave even more room for employers to harm their workers without facing material consequences. The game is rigged already, but this imprecision further helps employers evade prosecution and condemnation.
If the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board has let down the unionized employees of the Heritage Inn by declining to take stronger action, it has likewise allowed the employer to abuse the non-unionized workers, most of whom are recent immigrants on work permits – and so they are threatened with termination (and therefore risk deportation) if they join the picket line. Figueiredo labels this arrangement “indentured servitude.” The labour board declared that the employer had been “intransigent” and had acted in bad faith. Figueiredo was told by the board that they would not enforce binding arbitration unless there is “threat of violence” that would escalate the situation. What does the labour board consider violent enough or worthy of intervention? What are the consequences of the board intentionally and incorrectly defining violence?
Inaccurate definitions of violence leave even more room for employers to harm their workers without facing material consequences. The game is rigged already, but this imprecision further helps employers evade prosecution and condemnation. To redefine violence more broadly is not enough however; instead we must examine why we categorize actions as violent or non-violent at the individual, state, and systemic level, as well as how we respond to such occurrences. If workers decide to retaliate and physically attack their employer, have they instigated the violence, or is it self-defence? Employers’ violence disenfranchises their employees and may cause them to violently resist their condition. Who is to be blamed then? Who caused the violence? But most importantly, what consequences will the employee face when taking action against their exploiter?
We employees are pushed to our breaking point then condemned and punished for breaking.
According to service representative Sara Warman, police often come by, harass the currently picketing Heritage Inn workers, and accuse them of “preventing business.” The lack of action from the labour board cannot be surprising, as it is not a flaw but a feature in capitalism’s original design. This explains why employers often do not need to use illegal methods, because the law permits them to abuse and harm employees through denying benefits, wages, or fair employment. The legal system is meant to work this way. It was built on disenfranchisement and depends on it for survival.
We employees are pushed to our breaking point then condemned and punished for breaking. Truly, what are our options? What must these workers do to get their jobs and livelihoods back?
Knowledge can give us power to fight back. We cannot dismantle what we do not know or understand. Understanding the frameworks that define violence changes our tone, perception, negotiations and expectations when discussing labour, physical harm, and bodily exploitation. At what point do we say enough is enough? When will violent employers reap what they’ve sowed?
