“In any situation, a 97% strike mandate vote is extraordinarily high, though the workers at Loblaw are dealing with very exceptional conditions. Loblaw’s contract offer includes a proposed 25% cut to workers’ wages, increased waiting time for benefits eligibility, a reduction in full-time jobs, and the imposition of availability-for-work rules on part-time workers that would make it almost impossible for them to hold another job or attend school while working for Loblaw. Loblaw says that these concessions, as well as the greater “operational flexibility” resulting from the reduction in full-time jobs and the imposition of availability-for-work rules for part-time workers, are necessary for them to compete in an industry in which the majority of workers are no longer unionized. In an e-mail to the Toronto Star, Julija Hunter, Vice-President of Public Relations for Loblaw, justified the wage concessions and the greater job instability the company is asking their workers to accept by claiming that Loblaw pays “10 percent more than competitors and have 15 percent less flexibility.” She claims that this situation creates “a real competitive disadvantage” for the company and is “not sustainable.” Loblaw president Allan Leighton claims that Loblaw is at a disadvantage because most of its rivals are non-unionized, pay their employees less, and have more “flexibility.” Leighton has said, “This is a watershed period in our industry. It’s time for a change.” This shows the much broader importance of the battle currently being waged by Loblaw workers.”

•