Mandatory agency shop laws as an explanation of Canada-U.S. union density divergence

X. Conclusion During a period of strength the Canadian labor movement was able to secure enduring legislation providing for their institutional protection. In the 1940s Justice Rand justified his decision by invoking the spirit underlying the operationalization of a collective bargaining regime. In the 1990s the Canadian Supreme Court continued this tradition by refusing to hollow out unions’ rights to a secure financial base and autonomy in decision making. Between the 1940s and the 1990s, the unions' voice was heard in legislatures throughout the country through the NDP. Canadian unions now benefit from, among other things, first-contract arbitration, job protection for striking workers, and a card process of union certification. Thus, although current Canadian attitudes towards unions show considerable detachment, the embeddedness of legal protections helps hold such challenges as RTW in Alberta at bay. During the same years, American labor was unable to translate its strength of numbers into gains in public policy: in fact, as union density peaked, legislation such as the Taft-Hartley Act and Landrum-Griffin Act eroded union institutional protections. An earlier version of this article appears as “Union Security in Canada,” in The Internal Governance and Organizational Effectiveness of Labor Unions, edited by S. Estreicher, H. C. Katz, and B. E. Kaufman, Kluwer Press. We are grateful for their permission to reproduce portions of the chapter. Comments from Dennis Nolan (University of South Carolina) and John Godard (University of Manitoba) are greatly appre-ciated. The article benefited from their excellent suggestions. Research assistance from Fred Jacques is acknowledged. We follow the Canadian spelling of “labour” for accuracy when it is used in citations, quotes, and titles.