Precarity, Collective Bargaining, and Why Member Research Matters More Than Ever
In recent years, Canadian workers have experienced a profound shift in mindset. We’ve described this as a move from scarcity (worrying about whether you have enough today) to precarity (worrying whether the systems and supports you rely on will hold tomorrow).
This change isn’t abstract. It shows up in the workplace every day, and it’s reshaping the dynamics of collective bargaining and labour relations in Canada. And perhaps nowhere is the shift more evident than across generational lines.
Labour Conflict at Near-Historic Levels
Since COVID-19, Canada has seen a surge of strikes, lockouts, and tense negotiations. In 2023 alone, over 800 labour disputes resulted in about 6.6 million person-days lost to work stoppages, roughly six times higher than in 2019. That’s the highest level of conflict in decades, approaching the strike activity of the 1970s and 1980s.
What’s driving it? Inflation eroded real wages, corporate profits hit record highs, and workers who sacrificed during the pandemic now feel they’ve fallen further behind. When people already feel precarious, worried about housing, retirement security, or health care, they’re far less willing to accept modest gains at the bargaining table.
For younger workers the sense of precarity is even more acute. They are the generations least likely to own homes, most burdened by debt, and most exposed to automation and AI disruptions. They also expect more transparency, fairness, and respect in the workplace. That combination has made them particularly vocal in pushing their unions to fight harder.
Tentative Agreements Are No Longer a Sure Thing
Perhaps the clearest signal of this new reality is what’s happening at ratification votes. Across industries, workers are rejecting tentative deals at levels we haven’t seen in years.
- At Canada’s West Coast ports, dockworkers voted down a recommended settlement, sending negotiators back to the table.
- Metro grocery workers in Toronto—many of them younger, lower-wage employees—rejected a first deal and went on strike, eventually securing bigger gains.
- Air Canada flight attendants, a group that skews younger and more female than many other bargaining units, are now voting on a tentative agreement that many members say still doesn’t deliver a liveable wage.
In each case, workers are sending a message: “it simply isn’t enough.” Bargaining committees can no longer assume that members will accept the first deal struck. Instead, members are empowered, connected, and more willing to take risks in pursuit of security.
The Generational Divide Inside Unions
What makes this moment especially complex is that unions now represent memberships spanning four or five generations. Baby Boomers may prioritize pension protection and healthcare benefits. Gen X often wants stability and predictability as they approach retirement. Millennials and Gen Z—facing unaffordable housing, unstable contracts, and stagnant wages are more likely to demand bold gains, even if it means prolonged conflict.
Our generational research shows that Millennials and Gen Z approach institutions differently: they are less deferential, more skeptical of leadership, and more comfortable challenging the status quo. Within a union, that can mean younger members pushing leadership to reject deals that older members might have once accepted. These internal generational gaps are now driving much of the conflict we see.
Why Research Matters
For unions, this environment presents both opportunities and risks. A mobilized membership can be a source of strength. But it also means leaders must be attuned to the different expectations across generations. Misreading the mood of younger members risks a rejected agreement, extended conflict, and internal divisions.
This is where research plays a critical role. Just as we advise companies and governments to understand public opinion before making big decisions, unions need evidence-based insights into what their members are thinking—especially when generational gaps are widening.
We have worked with public and private sector unions to design member surveys that don’t just measure headline approval, but probe deeper:
Which issues matter most to younger versus older members?
How do life-stage priorities shape bargaining expectations?
What levels of risk are different groups prepared to accept in pursuit of gains?
By mapping these generational differences, we help union leaders anticipate where fractures could emerge and how to bridge them. The result: agreements that are more likely to be ratified and memberships that feel heard.
The Upshot
The precarity mindset has changed the calculus of collective bargaining in Canada. Workers—especially younger ones—feel anxious about the future, and that anxiety is showing up in higher strike rates, more conflict, and more tentative agreements voted down.
For unions, research isn’t optional. Understanding generational differences in members’ expectations is now essential. It’s the difference between a deal that unites a membership and one that divides it.
That research should be independently designed and executed so members feel free sharing their views without fear of repraisal.
Our expertise in generational analysis and labour research gives leaders the tools to navigate this new reality. In a time defined by precarity and generational divides, listening has never been more powerful.
Reach out to labour expert David Coletto to start a conversation.