Assignment task:
How do Smith and Stevens understand contemporary anti-unionism in Canada. What do they mean by "gradualism" (and how does this align with Tucker's characterization of "selective weakening")? What are the key elements of Wagnerism that have been weakened or croded? What do Smith and Stevens mean by permanent exceptionalism?" How has the normalization of back-to-work legislation in the public sector and its growing use in private-sector conflicts undermined the basic tenet of Wagnerism? What effects has this had on worker mobilization? When it comes to the private sector, why has state-led anti-unionism in Canada most often focussed on the process of union certification itself? How does making it harder to certify unions amplify employers' own anti-union strategies? How does this undercut a central tenet of Wagnerism: the right of workers to pursue collectivo representation? How have private-sector employers ramped-up pressure on governments in recent yoars to weaken Wagnerism, and how have governments responded? Why have most businesses generally been disinterested in abolishing Wagnerism when right-to-work has been proposed by right-wing and populist politicians? How have the courts limited the erosion of labour rights in Canada, and what have they declined to do? Does constitutional litigation offer an effective means by which Canadian unions might resist the erosion of Wagner rights? Does it supply any remedy for the majority of workers who are currently excluded from unions? From this, what is their ultimate argument, What sets Canadian anti-unionism apart and why? And does this anti-unionism create an insurmountable barrier? This is the article to clarify those questions: Smith, C., & Stevens, A. (2018). The architecture of modern anti-unionism in Canada: Class struggle and the erosion of workers' collective freedoms. Capital & Class, 43(3), 459- 481. For clarity