THE MUSEUM STRIKES BACK: MOMENTS FROM CANADIAN CULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS

 Research Column | Brooke Downey

---

In this series for the Research Column, I’m going to look back at moments in Canadian labour history that shaped the cultural sector. These moments will show us how neoliberal policies in Canadian museums lead to precarious work, union-busting, and an overall erosion of high-quality employment. At the same time, these moments offer opportunities to see how widespread labour movements and actions can shape museum employment for the better.

Before we get started, let’s define neoliberalism as it’s important to understand the context of these strikes. Sociologist Suzanne Staggenborn said: “Neo-liberal economic strategies rely on trade and free-market mechanisms, rather than investment in social services and education, to promote economic growth” (2012, p.109). They became particularly prominent in the 1980s; think Margaret Thatcher in the U.K., Ronald Reagan in the U.S., and Brian Mulroney in Canada.

A quick overview of Neoliberalism

Royal Ontario Museum

In 1985, the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) faced the first strike in its history. 75 museum security and maintenance workers went on strike for better pay and job security. At the time, they were paid an average of $9.44/hour (or $20.23/hour today), placing them among the lowest-paid staff at the museum (Ferguson, 1985, Sep 25).

 
Two days after the strike started, a negotiated agreement was reached. However, this strike was only the beginning. One week later, union members representing teachers, exhibit designers, program co-ordinators, conservators, technicians, and secretaries voted to strike (Ferguson, 1985, Sep 26). The average salary for these workers was $18,000/year, or $38,583 when adjusting for inflation (Globe and Mail, 1985, Aug 16).

 
This strike lasted six weeks. The parties eventually agreed to a 5% annual wage increase, increased job security, and improved benefits (The Citizen, 1985, Nov 04). Management also agreed to align wages with similar organizations like the Ontario Science Centre and AGO (The Citizen, 1985, Nov 04).

Not only were these strikes significant because they took place at one of Canada’s largest museums, but also because they occurred against the backdrop of the 1970s recession. That recession led to governments and employers adopting neoliberal and global capitalistic policies (Fanelli & Lefebvre, 2012). In the decades since those strikes, employers became more likely to offer shift work, short-term contracts, and seasonal/casual employment. Gill (2014) notes that this shift resulted in the “shared experiences […] of people working in the cultural and creative field [to be ones] of precariousness and job insecurity” (p.14). Although the agreement was seemingly a win for employees at the ROM, it also serves to highlight the emerging problem of neoliberal policies at museums which we continue to see the ramifications of today.

Photo of protest sign saying "Amplify Your Voice" | Source

Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum

More recently, in 2009 over 400 workers at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum went on strike. Like ROM employees in the 1980s, the union was bargaining for less outside contracting, more permanent employees (only 6 out of 55 guides were permanent), and increased pay (The Globe and Mail, 2009, Sep 22). The majority of those on strike were women. Some of the employees had been “temporary” workers for decades (Gail, 2009; Fanelli & Lefebvre, 2012).

This strike lasted 12 weeks, eventually resulting in outside contracting restrictions, 7 new permanent positions, improved parental leave, and attrition to avoid layoffs (The Globe and Mail, 2009, Dec 17). However, relationships between the striking workers and museum management deteriorated. Management initially resisted calls from the federal government to use binding arbitration (i.e., both parties agree to an arbitrator’s decision), which would prolong the strike (Bradshaw, 2009, Nov 19). Additionally, management hired private security to videotape the strike (Fanelli & Lefebvre, 2012). Unlike the ROM, the new contract did not guarantee wage parity with other similar corporations.

In Fanelli & Lefebvre’s study of the strike, they argued that it shows how “increasing trends in non-standard, temporary, and contract work are making inroads into the public sphere” (2012, p.122). In the wake of the 2008 recession, museums were not immune to the call for austerity and cuts, as I noted in a previous article. After decades of neoliberal policies reaching into the cultural sector, a win for employees at one institution does not guarantee that those improvements will be permanent or systemic in the sector.

Conclusion

These two cases highlight the importance of collective bargaining and the ongoing precarity in museum employment. While the museums remained open to the public during both strikes, certain programs and activities couldn’t be offered. Both strikes were characterized by demands for better pay, job security, and increased benefits. The museum workers were successful on some of these issues, but the ongoing problem of precarious, low-paid employment remains.

It is important to consider that these two cases represent employees working for provincial and federal corporations. Today, they receive benefits and pay aligned with government employees. Cultural workers in non-union, privatized, and/or municipally run operations have even less protection. Although these cases give workers hope that solidarity can result in change, there is a need for more widespread, direct improvements for museum workers. Whether that be policy protection or increased unionization rates, there is at least a need for something to be done to change the path we find ourselves on.