With the union representing LCBO workers in a position to begin a strike as early as July 5, I thought it would be useful to quickly read over the various possible implications. This was intended to be just for my own purposes. As I’ve noted in previous columns, I’m not much of a drinker, contenting myself with a few beers a week. So my interest in an LCBO strike truly is a matter of professional curiosity. The more I read about it, though, the more a thought began to emerge, and that’s why I wrote this column. I want to send a warning to the LCBO workers, and it’s a completely sincere one: Be careful. A strike may not go the way you want.
That’s not a comment on their demands. I’m agnostic on those, at least in aggregate. The LCBO workers want higher wages and a shift of part-time workers to permanent jobs, and that seems fine and fair to me. The LCBO workers, in common with the rest of the public sector, had their wage growth limited by the now-struck-down Bill 124, and then inflation hit everyone. There’s nothing wrong with the union demanding wage hikes that bring the worker compensation back in line with the purchasing power they’d have enjoyed before the inflation surge or Bill 124.
On the other hand, the LCBO is demanding guarantees that the province’s continued efforts to reform alcohol sales will not threaten LCBO jobs. This strikes me as unreasonable as a matter of logic: I don’t think government should guarantee jobs in the long term in the abstract, and if a reformed system of alcohol sales ends up meaning we need a smaller LCBO, I’d support that. I’d also support a larger LCBO if required. I’m not locked in on a preferred outcome, and I don’t think the government should be by a contract, either.
(Though I’ll add this: given how keen the government seems to be to give the Beer Store special consideration to avoid job losses there, the LCBO workers can’t be blamed for trying their luck, if only as a matter of strategy.)
So that’s my view on the demands the workers are making: I agree with some, disagree with others. I understand why they’re making the ones I disagree with and think they could well succeed in getting what they’re asking for (or something close to it). But on the matter of going on strike, I’d still urge caution. I suspect it could be counterproductive.
As noted above, I spent some time trying to figure out what an LCBO strike would mean, because the alcohol-distribution system in Ontario has already changed, and I wasn’t sure what role the LCBO played anymore (or, to be more blunt, whether people would notice an LCBO strike as much as they would have, say, 10 years ago). It would take me a very long time to explain it all at any length. Alcohol distribution in this province remains complex, and it is, if anything, getting more complex. But here’s my best effort at summarizing it concisely.
In the event of an LCBO strike, the LCBO’s outlets, of course, would close. Ontarians would still be able to buy beer from the Beer Store, and in theory, from grocery stores. Sales of hard liquor would stop, as only the LCBO may sell that (exceptions apply, though, so hang on). The LCBO sells most wine, as well, but, again, exceptions apply: Ontario has the Wine Rack, though that is limited to Ontario wines.
This is where things start to get more complicated.
As noted above, there are other options to purchase alcohol that would remain open during a strike. But. The LCBO also functions as an importer of alcohol. Foreign beer, for example, unless it’s produced domestically under a licence, comes in through the LCBO, even if it’s eventually sold elsewhere. That would stop.
The LCBO also provides products, typically on a just-in-time delivery basis, to restaurants and bars (most of those businesses don’t have the cash on hand or the storage space to order in bulk in advance). LCBO deliveries to the hospitality sector might stop. The LCBO has said it has plans to maintain customer service in the event of a strike, but hasn’t said what those plans are, and I don’t honestly know how to evaluate how effective it’d be at keeping the local watering holes in water, as it were.
It gets more complicated.
Something not addressed above is that Ontario has domestic producers of beers, as well as independent wineries and spirit distillers. They can sell directly to the public. Most of these places don’t have huge operations, so the loss of the LCBO as an importer would still constrain overall supply, but local beers, wines and spirits would remain available for sale to whoever moved first to snap them up.
The above is general, and I’ve tried to be concise while also being thorough. I am sure I have missed some nuances and details in the pursuit of reasonable brevity. But I trust that the overall point is made: an LCBO strike will be disruptive, but beer and wine will remain accessible, and even spirits, to a limited degree, if you are willing to support a local supplier. Indeed, it is more possible than ever for a consumer, be it an individual or a restaurant, to bypass the LCBO and seek out local suppliers.
And it’s also clearer than ever that, even though they’re doing it belatedly and slowly and frankly bizarrely, the Ford government is prepared to make big, structural changes in how Ontarians can access alcohol.
The LCBO workers know this, of course. They’re clearly worried about it — they’ve made a point of noting the strike wouldn’t start before the Canada Day long weekend. But that’s why they should move very carefully. They are threatening a job action that will give the customers they depend on a chance to seek out alternatives, and a government a chance to consider whether those alternatives should be a bigger part of the system. And if they annoy the public by disrupting summer barbecue season, the public might support, even demand, those changes.
I don’t wish the LCBO workers any harm. As said above, I think some of their demands are fair, and I think they can probably succeed in getting even some of the demands I don’t agree with. But my sense is that the LCBO’s workers could hurt themselves and their interests here if they aren’t careful. I think there would be public support for big changes — changes the LCBO might not like, if said public is irritated.
And we’ve got a premier, after all, with a proven track record of ever-so-slowly being open to giving the public what it wants when it comes to crowd-pleasing booze measures. What Doug Ford thinks is good for him may not end up looking much like what LCBO workers think is good for them.
Clarification: An earlier version of this article made reference to Wine Rack locations in grocery stores. However, the Wine Rack also operates standalone retail outlets.
Donate