The worst thing you will read all day

There are days that I feel that gradual, transitional change is possible, that we can reason our way into a better world, that the force of persistent activism, voting, lobbying, boycotts, and letter-writing will achieve, through peaceful means, what one typically aims to achieve through violent revolution.

This is not one of those days.

Because in our supposed democracy, most workers, in theory, have the right to organize in a trade union. It's kind of a basic human right in a civilized and free society. There's a grueling process involved in getting said trade union officially recognized that, in practice, tends to marginalize grassroots (read effective) unions and that ties the hands of business unions, but nevertheless, in theory, the right to unionize exists.

Unless, of course, you do shitty, demeaning, exhausting labour under horrible conditions. Then, according to the highest court in the country, you're pretty much screwed.

The reasoning is truly moronic:

Agriculture has long been a sore point with the labour movement. They have been critical of successive governments for sympathizing with arguments from employers that their operations are uniquely vulnerable to the effects of collective action.

They contend that family farms cannot withstand the ill effects of strikes or other work action, and that the short planting and harvesting seasons can be easily devastated by a work stoppage.

In short: Work action is illegal for farm workers because it might actually be effective.

From 2000-2010, 33 migrant farm workers in Ontario alone have died on the job. Another 1,129 were sent home because of on-the-job injuries and illnesses. Farmworkers work 12-15 hour days without overtime or holiday pay, are frequently forced to use toxic chemicals without adequate training or protection, and are excluded from basic human rights' protection. (And more; see Justicia For Migrant Workers' website.)

The idea of the idyllic family farm is also a misnomer. A family might own a farm, sure, but most farms employ a number of the most severely oppressed workers in the country. From the same Globe article:

The mushroom workers case provided the labour movement with a worst-case scenario it hoped could lead to a constitutional breakthrough.

Workers at the plant – which has been sold since the dispute began – alleged that they were kept in a state of fright and intimidation, warned repeatedly that attempting to organize a union would cost them their jobs.

Pitting a group of immigrant workers who worked gruelling hours in conditions they described as horrendous and humiliating, the case revolved around a Rol-Land Farms facility near Windsor, Ont. Workers alleged that it was dark, mouldy and cockroach-infested.

About 300 workers, who had immigrated from countries such as Cambodia and Sudan, harvested the crop, were referred to by numbers and banned from speaking any language but English.

A far cry from Old McDonald and his sheep. We're talking large-scale industrial operations here. (Even if we weren't—does a small employer have more right to violate the human rights of his workers than a large corporation?)

The Supreme Court is as high as a legal challenge can go. They've all but sanctioned indentured servitude. I'm no legal expert, but I think that actually puts us in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pity international law has no teeth.