Policing Labour in Canada

Abstract

Recent research on the policing of labour disputes suggests that there have been substantial historical changes in policing practices and policies in North America and Europe. Much of the literature points to a postwar movement from reactive policing grounded in the threat and use of force to a more preventive consent-based approach which relies on communication, negotiation and self-policing. At the same time, there have been conflicting reports of increased use of police force and confrontation with labour in some countries such as Britain, while police actions in a number of recent anti-globalization protests in Canada, the United States and Europe have demonstrated readiness of the police to use substantial force in certain public disorder situations. These developments speak to the need to examine more fully the ways in which the police construct their role and the role of labour unions in labour strikes and public protests. Based on interviews with police in 38 different cities and 10 provincial jurisdictions across Canada, this article looks at the ways in which the police understand and implement policies in strike and protest situations. It is argued that the police in most services have constructed a minimalist role for themselves in "normal" strike and protest situations which is grounded in processes of responsibilization, flexible policing and privatization. As they understand most situations, the "best way" to maintain order is to limit the show and use of force, while relying on negotiation and persuasion to resolve conflicts, and civil court or labour board proceedings and the threat of court imposed fines. At the same time, in contexts where the police perceive a clear threat to public interest or safety, in particular when unions or more typically other radical groups refuse to play by the rules of the game, police thinking shifts markedly to the view that extraordinary force is necessary and justified both to prevent and control public disorder.