Postwar Compromise Debate: Did Canadian Workers Gain More or Lose More?

The debate is on whether Canadian workers gained more or lost more in the post-war compromise. Strikes and negotiations led to changes in the industrial aspect of the country. The For team argues that workers gained more, while the Against team argues that they lost more.

POSTWAR COMPROMISE DEBATE

Resolution (made by the “for” team): Be it resolved that Canadian workers gained more in the
post-war compromise than they lost.
Argument: Today I will argue about the concept, which states that Canadian workers and
employees gained many resources in the post-war nation and after the compromise that Canada
went through. There were strikes, which were massive, and these strikes were carried on
throughout the country from the year 1945 to the year 1947. The labor unions of the parties,
which normally contested against each other, the social democratic party and the communist
party, decided in unison that they have to be hard regarding the notions of the bargain with the
company and industry owners (Fowler, 2016). Various industries like the Ontario rubber
industry, the British Columbia logging industry, the Southern newspaper chain, the central
Canadian ports, different mass production units, and steel industries in Canada came to face the
strikes and were shut down unless the company owners met the expectations of the workers. This
grew to be a national strike in the country Canada and the battles fought between the labor
unions, workers, and the industrialists marked a huge change in the industrial aspect of the
country. There was a huge shift of paradigms and Canada came out of the conservatism it had
followed for years. The employees maintained a mass picket line for days on end, and the
working class of the country rose to power (Paquet et al. 2018). For a long time, the owners and
bosses avoided the workers and ignored, their demands hoping that the young unions will soon
melt away. However, the constant protest turned out to be a favorable stance for the workers, and
they got their compensation as well as consolidation. (A member of the For Team must open the
debate by making ONE ORIGINAL argument in favor of the resolution.)
Rebuttal (against the first argument by the “against” team): Be it resolved that Canadian
workers lost more in the post-war compromise than they gained. (Then, a member of the
Against Team will rebut this argument.)
Argument (made by the “against” team): I would like to counter argue on the point discussed
above, which is whether the workers in Canada gained more from the post-war compromises or
did they lose more of their resources. There were some issues, which arrived when the strikes
were going on. The workers were involved in lengthy strikes along with the union members.
Page 2 of 4

However, these strikes were accompanied with a long and time-consuming process of
negotiation, which involved the union leaders, the industry owners, and the government of
Canada (Paquet et al. 2018). These negotiations were observed closely by government and state
official and for the period when the strikes were on the workers got no job and earned no money.
The strikes were all considered to be a part of one huge revolutionary process, and government
officials used forces to mitigate or curb the resistance (Thomas and Tufts, 2016). The workers
had to go to poorly paying private jobs, had to move around a lot as the tyrannical industries
promised daily work, and increased wages. Canada accepted immigrants and opened their gates
for them, which again posed as a competition to the workers seeking jobs as the people who will
arrive from other countries will also be looking for jobs and will accept whatever was offered to
make the protestations harder. (Next, a member of the Against Team may then make ANOTHER
ORIGINAL argument against the resolution.)
Rebuttal (against the earlier rebuttal of the “against” team): Be it resolved that Canadian
earned a great deal in the post-war compromise than they lost. (A member of the For Team must
provide a rebuttal of the last argument against the resolution)
Argument (made by the “for” team): The conditions being discussed here also posed an
effective relationship between the unions and the workers and between the employers with the
unions (Fowler, 2016). The strikes and compromises made based on it were able to provide a
workplace where authoritarianism has been mitigated. Reservoirs of the activities of the working
class opened. New skills were developed as people from small towns and villages came in to join
in the workforce. The government had to mitigate the ongoing protests and therefore, they
established proper wage structures and price control. (before another argument for the resolution
can go ahead.)
Page 3 of 4

References
Fowler, T., 2016. Fighting Back After the Neoliberal Assault: Class Formation, Class Politics,
and the Canadian Autoworkers (Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University).
Paquet, M., Nagels, N. and Fourot, A.C. eds., 2018. Citizenship as a Regime: Canadian and
International Perspectives. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Thomas, M.P. and Tufts, S., 2016. Austerity, right populism, and the crisis of labour in Canada.
Antipode, 48(1), pp.212-230.
Page 4 of 4