Réponses syndicales à la sous-traitance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25071/1705-1436.135Abstract
La sous-traitance est l'un des plus importants défis pour les syndicats à l'heure actuelle. Cet article explore quatre positions syndicales en matière de sous-traitance : opposition, défensive, abstention et offensive. Différents exemples tirés de nos observations sur le terrain permettent d'illustrer ici les différentes attitudes adoptées et les ressources susceptibles d'être mobilisées par les syndicats pour répondre à la sous-traitance. Le principal constat demeure que la réponse syndicale à la sous-traitance est bien souvent plus subtile et nuancée qu'une simple opposition inconditionnelle. Afin de conserver une certaine marge de manœuvre dans le développement et l'adoption d'une position en matière de sous-traitance, il est nécessaire pour un syndicat de travailler sur ses ressources de pouvoir. Quelques pistes sont suggérées pour y parvenir : le développement d'une vision globale, la mobilisation à l'interne, la construction de liens de solidarité à l'externe.
Subcontracting is one of the most important current challenges for unions. This article explores four union positions with regard to subcontracting: oppositional, defensive, abstentionist and proactive. It draws on different examples and cases from the author's research in the field to highlight the different union stances and the resources likely to be mobilized by unions in response to subcontracting. The major finding is that rather than a simple position of unconditional opposition, union responses to subcontracting are highly varied and finely nuanced. Moreover, in order to enlarge its scope to develop a position on subcontracting, a union must work on its power resources. Several avenues are identified in order to reinforce these resources. It was found that a global vision, internal mobilization and the development of solidarity with outside groups all contribute to a greater capacity on the part of the union to deal with subcontracting.
References
Atkinson, J. (1987), “Flexibility or Fragmentation? The United Kingdom LabourMarket in the Eighties”, Labour and Society, 12 : 87-105.
Bélanger J., A. Giles and G. Murray (2002), “Towards a New Production Model:Potentialities, Tensions and Contradictions,” in G. Murray, J. Bélanger, A.Giles and P.A. Lapointe (eds.). Work and Employment Relations in the HighPerformance Workplace. London: Continuum, 15-71.
Coase, R.H. (1937), “The Nature of the Firm”, Economica, 4 : 386-405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
Foster, D. and P. Scott (1998), “Conceptualising Union Responses to ContractingOut Municipal Services, 1979-97”, Industrial Relations Journal, 29 :137-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2338.00086
Gagnon, M.-J., P. Avignon and T. Collombat (2003), L’économie politique de la soustraitance et les articles 45 et 46 du Code du travail du Québec, Montreal,research report, Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine.
Helper, S. (1990), “Subcontracting: Innovative Labor Strategies,” Labor ResearchReview, 9:89-99.
Jalette, P. (2004), “Subcontracting in the Manufacturing Sector: A Quebec-OntarioComparison,” Workplace Gazette, vol. 6, no. 4, winter, 73-86.
Jalette, P. and P. Warrian (2002). “Contracting-out Provisions in CanadianCollective Agreements: A Moving Target,” Workplace Gazette, vol. 5, no. 1,spring, 64-76.
Kumar, P. and G. Murray (2003), “Strategic Dilemma : The State of the UnionRenewal in Canada”, in Fairbrother P. and C. B. Yates (ed.), Trade UnionRenewal : A Comparative Study, New-York : Continuum, 200-220.
Kumar, P. and G. Murray (2001), “Union Bargaining Priorities in the New Economy: Results from the 2000 HRDC Survey on Innovation and Change in Labour Organizations in Canada”, Workplace Gazette, vol. 4, no.4, winter, 43-55.
Lévesque, C. and G. Murray (2005), “Union Involvement in Workplace Change : AComparative Study of Local Unions in Canada and Mexico”, British Journalof Industrial Relations, vol.43, no.3, 489-514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2005.00366.x
Levine, J. (1990), “Subcontracting and Privatization of Work: Private and PublicSector Developments”, Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector,vol. 19:275-282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/WQUX-E098-2FME-EULD
Martin, L.L. (1999), “Public-Private Competition : A Public Employee Alternativeto Privatization”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, winter, 59-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X9901900106
Poirier, I. (2005), Les conséquences de la sous-traitance pour le syndicat et la main-d’œuvre : une étude de cas dans le secteur des pâtes et papier, Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Montréal, École de relations industrielles.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2005-10-01 (2)
- (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All reproduction, electronic or otherwise, of the material from Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society, is allowable free of charge for education purposes.
The content of the reproduced material must not be altered in any way. Institutions and organizations must notify the Centre for Research on Work and Society (CRWS) of their intention to reproduce, distribute and/or require monetary compensation for Just Labour material.
Any monetary compensation derived from the sale of Just Labour material must not exceed the minimum recovery cost of reproduction.
The Centre for Research on Work and Society reserves the right to review this policy at any time with no retroactive consequences for institutions and individuals who have received permission to reproduce material.