In Eidlin’s opinion, the employer had little reason to meaningfully bargain with workers, knowing that in short order the government would intervene to end the strike and bail them out. “This employer was banking on the strike creating enough of a crisis to justify government intervention,” Eidlin said.

The union’s president echoed this sentiment, indicating that the impending law meant that the STM “no longer had any incentive to negotiate with us.” As in so many examples over the past several years, government interference on the side of the employer undermined collective bargaining and shielded STM from the pressure of the union’s strike.