Thank you for that important question.
In my experience at the bargaining table, what compels workers to go out on strike isn't, in general, wages and benefits. It's that something is at risk, whether it's their job security, respect and dignity at work or wages that are so far off base that there needs to be an economic strike in that way. However, arbitrated decisions don't generally get to the heart of those more complex issues, whether the issue is automation, how it's being used and how many jobs will be displaced; whether it's AI in terms of decision-making; or whether it's tariff-specific threats that a particular employer and the workplace need to manage.
Arbitrators will cut the baby in half, give a bit to both and say, “Here you go. Here's your new collective agreement. See you in three years' time.” We hope it won't, but that's usually what happens.
We need to find a way for the parties to stay at the bargaining table and to really drill down on the issues that are at stake in this moment. We are living in a vastly and quickly changing economic reality right now—with threats of tariff issues, threats of AI and automation, youth unemployment—that we're navigating. We have many challenges, and those challenges are best discussed and best resolved at those bargaining tables, not by an arbitrator who doesn't necessarily understand that particular sector of the economy or that geographic location of the economy.