A2. Green Unionism

Harm reduction services and nonprofit supportive housing play a vital role in addressing the overlapping crises of opioid overdose, mental health, and homelessness that are causing so much hardship in many parts of Canada. These services have been widely debated and researched, but this discourse often overlooks the workforce that provides these services, whose skills and knowledge are often taken for granted.

During the summer of 2026, a research team based at the University of British Columbia’s School of Social Work undertook a study involving 30 online and in-person interviews with frontline workers and managers working in harm reduction and supportive housing in Vancouver’s downtown eastside (DTES). The interviews explored the knowledge and skills of harm reduction workers, and what changes they would recommend to strengthen this work. The findings documentd the wide array of finely-honed skills, knowledge and practices used by these workers, as they endeavour to provide dignity and care for those facing the challenges of homelessness, mental illness and addiction.

The findings of this innovative research are contained in a new report, ‘Do More for Less and Get Blamed for It’: What Harm Reduction Workers Bring to their Jobs and their Community, by Donna Baines, Oliver Hsueh and Denise Cheung. Their research confirms that the workers providing these frontline services bring a rich and multi-dimensional set of skills, both formal and informal, to their jobs. Investing in those workers, including through expanded training, improved safety and working conditions, and adequate compensation and benefits, must be an essential aspect of future efforts to improve these services and better help the populations they serve.

The post New Research Documents Vital Skills of Harm Reduction Workers appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s abrupt and erratic trade policies have caused substantial disruptions around the world. But no countries have been more exposed to the twists and turns of his policies than Canada and Mexico: America’s neighbours and largest trading partners.

The three-country trade agreement, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) that Trump himself negotiated and implemented in 2020 has not held back his unilateral and illegal actions.

For labour and equality advocates, Trump’s actions create a quandary: they oppose his policies (which have hurt workers in the U.S., as well as other countries), but without seeming to endorse the pre-Trump status quo as the ideal model. After all, the CUSMA (and the 1994 NAFTA, before it) imposed a very one-sided, corporate-friendly set of rules on the continental economy. The previous trade deals guaranteed freedom of movement and special protections for investors and multinational corporations, while curtailing the ability of national and sub-national governments to limit the economic, environmental, and social fallout of corporate decisions.

It is possible to both oppose Trump’s tariffs, but also oppose the corporate-oriented trade arrangements which he now ignores. And it is possible to envision a continental economy that supports development, living standards, and sustainability in all parts of North America, rejecting the false worker-versus-worker ideology which Trump has weaponized in his trade war.

To that end, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford recently participated in a tri-national project to develop a proposal for North American trade and cooperation that prioritizes living standards, labour and human rights, environmental protection, and income equality. The project was hosted by an initiative called Game Changers, based at the University of Massachusetts—Amherst. The Game Changers network assembled progressive proposals in numerous policy areas in advance of the coming U.S. mid-term elections, with the goal of showing Americans (and others) that there are workable, hopeful alternatives to the increasing authoritarianism of Trump and his compliant MAGA base.

Stanford joined Thea Lee, Hector de la Cueva, Luis Ranger, and Jasper Andrée in developing a proposal titled ‘Democratizing North American Trade.’ The proposal is described more fully in:

A two-page policy brief which summarizes its main features.

A full 25-page paper including a critique of both Trump’s tariffs and the previous CUSMA deal, and a summary of six priority features of a more democratic approach to continental trade.

A two-minute shareable video dramatizing the major themes.

A one-hour webinar where the authors describe the paper and discuss how to advance these ideas in the current political and economic crisis.

Readers are invited to share any of these materials throughout your own networks. We are grateful to the Game Changers network for the opportunity to participate in this tri-national project, showing that a better North American economy is indeed possible.

The post A Tri-National Vision for a North American Economy that Works for Workers appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

National Emergency Briefing Film – What about the workers?

Photo by Ashley Gorringe on Unsplash

Review by Mick Holder

I attended a showing of the campaign film National Emergency Briefing in St John’s Church, Leytonstone recently. Whilst I have issues with its focus on parliamentary action and failure to address work and trade unions I’d still recommend everyone tries to attend a showing, even if you have no knowledge or plenty. It presents a very honest but equally bleak picture and the campaign around the showing of the film locally is to try and get more action on the issue of climate change, which is no bad thing.

In case you don’t know already, the film is based on an event held in Westminster Central Hall last year where experts gave their stark opinion on how far we’re in the shit already climate wise and what the future looks like. At the time we said to them their focus missed out work, workers, the role of unions etc. and we were told they were too far down the line to change, although we were welcome to join in from the floor. They subsequently haven’t picked up on the issue in the film and today’s event wouldn’t have said anything about that if I hadn’t said my piece towards the end – FBU, wildfires and floods, Unite bus workers strike over impossibly hot cab conditions etc. 

And maybe that’s where we are. Showing this film seems to have momentum so perhaps it’s down to us to attend and do our usual “What about the workers?” call. And a warning – celebrities are involved!

Today’s screening was attended by 200+, mainly a mix of people in their thirties upwards and it was reported there have been 4,000 screenings nationally so far. It is not currently available to watch online, deliberately trying to create events involving local communities rather than individuals watching in isolation at home or on their phones. Today’s session was kinda TU Ed style, watch film, break into small groups, report back etc. although I felt the activities were too touchy feely and not enough get active, and too reliant on parliament alone.

The campaign would benefit from a bit of history, not just Greenpeace and FoE but the trade union led Lucas Plan of the 70s calling for a move away from manufacturing for war to making renewable energy sources to end our reliance on fossil fuels, the 1972 book The Limits To Growth which warned us all of the problems we might face if we don’t act and which is still relevant now. I’m sure you can think of more examples. And details of how governments have used growth and de-regulation as an excuse not to act or to act in a way that weakens or removes worker and environmental protections (Grenfell, WHO air standards, many other exposure limits, shitty water etc.). And how global industry spends billions of their profits on making sure governments’ and regulators don’t do what they all know they really should all in the pursuit of profit.

Maybe the film wants to avoid the blame game. I don’t. We should call these fuckers out for what they truly are and ensure they are held to account. We also need to show the personal side of what their actions or inactions mean to us, our families and friends and people around the world, many who will probably suffer far more than we will, at least in the near future.

I think the film is being made available to local groups for free and would encourage people to consider this. Just make sure there’s someone on the panel who knows their stuff about work, trade unions and a bit of analysis too.

A further contribution we can make at any local showings is to complement the focus on lobbying MPs with organising – set up a local campaigning network where none exists, help coordinate existing groups where they do. To create a just transition we need organised forces pushing for it on the ground, as well as pressuring MPs to make the right decisions.

The Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union group has produced an excellent 13 minute version specifically to be shown in union branches. GJA strongly urges all supporters to get this shown in their union branch, to coincide with the COP in November if possible, but any time soon if not. A link to this is here.

We also have this draft motion that could help focus discussion. 

The individual sections of the National emergency briefing are available here

Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post National Emergency Briefing Film – What about the workers? first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

Ever since Canada’s negotiators ended talks for a new trade agreement with the U.S., President Donald Trump’s insults and threats to America’s northern neighbour have become more aggressive, and bizarre, than ever. He has renamed a Great Lake, imposed new 50% tariffs on further Canadian-made products, compared us unfavourably to North Korea, threatened still more tariffs because we use a different dollar, and posted AI images insulting our Prime Minister.

Underneath all of the trolling lurks a more sinister strategy: Trump wants to convince Canadians that we will pay an enormous economic price for resisting his demands, to the point that Canada’s viability as a nation will be jeopardized. In this commentary, originally published in the Toronto Star, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford dissects five of Trump’s most far-fetched lies – and argues Canada’s economic resilience in the past 18 months has already disproved Trump’s claim that we cannot exist without him.

Lies the President Told You by Jim Stanford

Donald Trump can’t tolerate being trumped. What’s left of his influence – with voters, with other countries, with increasingly restive Republicans – depends on a cultivated image of dominance. No matter what you think of his policies, don’t get in his way, or you will face retribution.

There’s no other way to understand Trump’s desperate and seemingly unhinged response to Canada’s decision to end fruitless trade talks. If a band of polite Canadians can stand up to his extortion, what sort of resistance might be inspired among others harmed by his policies?

So Trump has unleashed a northward torrent of abuse – ranging from the economic (imposing still more tariffs), to the ridiculous (renaming Lake Ontario), to the disturbing (an AI image showing him threatening a supine Mark Carney with a hockey stick).

Comedian Jon Stewart summed up Trump’s strategy as trying to “troll [Canada] into submission.”

Amidst all the nonsense, Trump and his lieutenants are rolling out new justifications for targeting Canada. Like his initial excuses when he launched the trade war last year (fentanyl smuggling, military underspending, Canadian content rules), they’re all unfounded. Here’s a handy guide for debunking his latest doozies:

The trade deficit with Canada is $90 billion: Trump’s numerical claims about the Canada-U.S. trade imbalance have always been imaginary. Last year he threw out several invented numbers, ranging as high as $200 billion. This week he claimed $90 billion.

The true deficit for 2025, based on official U.S. government data, was $27 billion. That consisted of a $55 billion deficit on merchandise, partly offset by a $28 billion U.S. surplus on services. (Yes, Donald, services count.)

That’s just 3% of the massive two-way $900 billion bilateral flow. America’s trade with Canada is far more balanced than with the rest of the world – adding to the mystery of why Canada is suddenly Public Enemy Number One.

The deficit constitutes a subsidy to Canada: Whatever its size, Trump claims a trade deficit is equivalent to a subsidy. In reality, a trade deficit simply means one country buys more from another country, than it sells to that country.

When you spend $200 at the grocery store, it’s not a “subsidy.” You’ve bought things you need. America needs what it buys from Canada; our exports are better or cheaper than from other sources.

Any actual subsidy goes the other way. Other countries (including Canada) supply the U.S. with trillions of dollars of capital each year. That’s what allows the U.S. to run a perpetual trade deficit, every year for the last fifty.

The U.S. would save money by cutting off trade with Canada: Canada is the largest market for U.S. exports, $426 billion worth in 2025 alone. Ending that would cause massive recession in the U.S., not just Canada.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn’t make you feel better. It doesn’t save money, either.

Canada cheats at trade with its dollar: One of Trump’s most bizarre recent posts claimed that Canada’s dollar (presently worth about 72 cents U.S.) is used to rip off America. He pledged to stop this, without specifying how.

Yes, our currency has the same name. But that hardly means it should be worth the same. 25 other countries also have “dollars”. Are they cheating, too?

Exchange rates are determined by capital flows, investor expectations, comparative inflation, and many other factors. By boosting inflation and destabilizing investor confidence with his enormous deficits, Trump’s policies might indeed drive down America’s dollar. Then he can stop blaming Canada.

Canada can’t survive without the U.S.: This is Trump’s biggest, and most dangerous, lie. And getting us to believe it is central to his intimidation strategy.

Despite reduced U.S.-bound exports, Canada’s economy has continued growing. Two-thirds of those lost merchandise exports have been offset by new exports to other countries. And almost 80% of our GDP is produced and consumed right here, by Canadians, for Canadians. Trump can’t touch that.

Yes, it will be a bumpy ride to disentangle our economy from overreliance on what is now a failed democracy next door. But as the 10th largest economy in the world, with a wealth of natural and human resources, and a stronger capacity to solve problems together, we will most definitely survive without Trump’s America.

The post Debunking Five of Donald Trump’s Big Lies About Canada appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Farmworker leaders from the CIW (Nely Rodriguez, speaking, and Lupe Gonzalo, to her immediate left)  join plant nursery workers with WeCount! at a press conference on the Planting Justice initiative earlier this year.

Sixteen years ago, the Fair Food Program ushered in a new day for farmworkers in the United States, replacing generations of poverty and powerlessness with a groundbreaking system built to guarantee fundamental human rights in the fields.  The Program’s unique standards include protections against wage theft, sexual harassment, retaliation, modern-day slavery, and — as of just over two years ago — protections the Washington Post called “America’s strongest workplace heat rules“. Today, the Presidential Medal-winning FFP has become a beacon of hope far beyond the fields where it began, demonstrating to workers around the world that even the most deeply rooted abuses can be overcome when workers themselves are empowered to monitor and enforce their own rights.

In recent years, workers and human rights advocates from industries across the U.S. and around the world have traveled to CIW’s headquarters in Immokalee to learn firsthand about the Worker-driven Social Responsibility (WSR) model based on the Fair Food Program — and explore how they can adapt that model to confront abuses in their own workplaces. Among them have been members of WeCount!, a worker-based human rights organization from Homestead, Florida, whose members have long marched alongside the CIW in the Campaign for Fair Food and participated in multiple worker-to-worker exchanges in Immokalee, learning directly from workers on FFP farms how worker-led monitoring and binding market commitments have transformed life in the fields.

Over the past several years, that longstanding solidarity has grown into a deeper collaboration between WeCount!, the CIW, and the Fair Food Standards Council to adapt the lessons of the FFP to another corner of Florida agriculture: the sprawling plant nursery industry. As that partnership has developed, nursery workers have taken the lead in shaping Planting Justice — Sembrando Justicia — a new WSR initiative designed to put workers themselves at the center of monitoring and enforcing their rights, backed by the same binding commitments from the corporations with the power to change conditions on the ground as are found in the FFP. Today, workers are calling on Costa Farms, one of the nation’s largest growers of houseplants, to become the initiative’s first corporate partner.

A powerful new feature article from Grist shines a national spotlight on the latest chapter in that collaboration — and on an industry where the beautiful plants lining floors in Home Depot, Lowe’s, Whole Foods, Walmart and Costco stores across America can conceal a far harsher reality for the workers who grow them. Nursery workers describe extreme heat, inadequate access to clean water, a lack of shade and rest breaks, pesticide exposure, and other dangerous conditions, even as traditional avenues for securing protections have narrowed. But the story is also one of exciting possibility: Drawing on years of organizing and the proven lessons of the Fair Food Program, workers are building a path to safeguarding their dignity in the workplace.

Check out excerpts from Grist’s powerful feature below, and click here to read the full article.

America’s houseplants come at a steep price for greenhouse workers The people who grow houseplants aren’t often thought of as agricultural workers, but they face many of the same hardships — especially in extreme heat.

…Since 2021, WeCount has been advocating on behalf of outdoor workers who lack meaningful protections from extreme heat. Based in South Florida, WeCount previously campaigned for a municipal heat standard in Miami-Dade County, where deaths from heat exposure are estimated to spike by 60% (opens in new tab) during extremely hot periods. But those efforts were cut short in 2024, when industry groups complained(opens in new tab) and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis passed a law preempting local governments from enacting their own heat standards. (DeSantis said such regulations could cause “a lot of problems.”(opens in new tab)

Planting Justice, WeCount’s new campaign to protect outdoor workers across the South, aims to bring corporations like Costa Farms to the table and create consumer awareness around where their plants come from — and the human cost of growing them.

This model of mobilizing for stronger workplace protections is known as worker-driven social responsibility. WeCount’s campaign is heavily inspired by the Fair Food Program, which farmworkers have successfully used for years to boost their labor conditions and is considered the highest standard of labor protections for farmworkers in the U.S. The Fair Food Program, launched in 2011 by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, has proven effective as a framework for workers to continually surface and address their needs. For example, while access to drinking water is one of the core tenets of the program, this year, workers won the right to electrolyte beverages or supplements year round.

CIW staff provide an on-the-clock, worker-to-worker education session as part of the FFP, on Rancho Durazno

“We know that every year this crisis is getting worse,” said Londoño, referring to how summer temperatures climb year to year, driven by human-caused climate change. “But increasingly, legislative avenues are more and more limited.”

Heat is the deadliest form of extreme weather(opens in new tab). In the U.S., official counts of deaths from extreme heat exposure vastly underreport the scope of the problem(opens in new tab), as a two-year investigation by Boston University and NPR recently demonstrated. For years, labor advocates and community groups have pushed for the creation of a federal heat standard — a set of guidelines that would apply to employers across the country designed to reduce workers’ risk of heat illness. While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration — or OSHA,  the nation’s workplace regulator — seemed to be making progress toward such a rule under the Biden administration, those efforts have since stalled out. Meanwhile, agricultural workers, a category that includes plant nursery workers who handle the greenery directly, are excluded from federal collective bargaining protections under the National Labor Relations Act. And yet, agricultural workers are also more than 35 times more likely(opens in new tab) to die from heat-related complaints than workers in other industries.

The goal of the Planting Justice campaign is for Costa Farms to sign onto a code of conduct developed by workers. The agreement outlines relatively straightforward demands: educating workers and supervisors on the signs of heat illness; providing access to shade, water, and rest breaks; and creating systems for monitoring and responding to heat stress.

Organizers believe the agreement would help directly address issues that workers themselves see on the job. For example, while Costa Farms reports that the company provides access to hydration stations on very hot days, workers industry-wide have reported water with a strong chemical smell, as well as seeing mold in water coolers, said Londoño.

Alejandro Gonzalez, a plant nursery worker originally from Guatemala, told a Florida rally that the summer days have topped 110 degrees Fahrenheit on occasion. “They don’t give us cold or clean water,” Gonzalez said emphatically, in Spanish. “They don’t provide any breaks or shade.”

Eighty-six percent of nursery workers who responded to a survey by WeCount(opens in new tab) reported dangerous incidents on the job, stemming from heat illness, pesticide exposure, and workplace accidents. Over two-thirds reported being entirely denied breaks and days off. The visa conditions of many houseplant workers — dependent on H2-A or other visas, or entirely undocumented — leave them with few rights to recourse, often entirely dependent on their employers for housing, and unable to rely on much of federal labor law for support should they speak out.

Stay tuned for more exciting updates about new WSR initiatives!

The post Nurses Ask Challenge appeared first on ANHE.

By Jeremy Brecher,
Senior Strategic Advisor, LNS Co-Founder

Listen to the audio version >>

This is the first of a new series on the Green New Deal 2.0.

Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, United Nations, New York addresses the audience during the session ‘Time Is Running Out for Water’ at the Annual Meeting 2008 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 24, 2008. Photo credit: Remy Steinegger, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.

In 2008, in the depths of the Great Recession, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for “investment that fights climate change, creates millions of green jobs and spurs green growth.” He said what the world needs, in short, is a “Green New Deal.”

The project of a Green New Deal rapidly picked up momentum around the world. Green New Deals became official policy in many countries, endorsed by the UN, the international trade union movement, and even by the IMF. China, India, and the European Union began “implementing some of the policies envisioned by the Green New Deal.” But within a couple of years a global counterattack demanding austerity stymied much of the drive for massive investment to implement climate protection and economic justice. The Green New Deal appeared dead.

The Green New Deal was reborn a decade later when the youth Sunrise climate movement in the U.S. held a sit-in in the office of Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi demanding she support a resolution for a Green New Deal proposed by newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Drawing on the proposals a decade earlier for a Global Green New Deal, the resolution called for a “new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal.” The Green New Deal amassed support among congressional representatives, progressive organizations, and young people across the country. A poll found that more than 80% of registered voters “strongly support” or “somewhat support” the general concepts behind a Green New Deal. A poll five years later found that “the Green New Deal is still incredibly popular.”

Notwithstanding its popularity with the public the Green New Deal met implacable opposition from the fossil fuel industry and hostile forces in both the Democratic and Republic parties. Upon his election as president, Donald Trump declared the Green New Deal dead and proceeded to devastate both climate protection and social justice.

Nonetheless, even in the Trump era the Green New Deal has continued as a force in American life – from below. It has continued to be implemented through little-noticed initiatives by community groups, unions, city and state governments, tribes, and other nonfederal actors pursuing the climate protection and social justice goals of the Green New Deal. I have described it as the “Green New Deal from Below.”

The Green New Deal has proved perennial because it addresses the basic problems faced by our people and planet. It is a project that in all its varied manifestations takes the necessity for climate protection as the basis for a broad program for social reconstruction — a visionary program designed to protect the earth’s climate while creating good jobs, reducing injustice, and eliminating poverty. It can be the basis for what many have called a “just transition” to a climate-safe world.

The Green New Deal 2.0 and the Polycrisis

Environmental activists protesting for change – A group of activists gather in an urban setting, holding signs that call for action against climate change. Their placards bear powerful messages. Photo credit: Lomb, Adobe Stock

The Green New Deal project is more necessary than ever. But many things have changed since the earlier Green New Deals. We need to redefine the Green New Deal for today, tomorrow, and the long-range future. Let’s call it the Green New Deal 2.0.

The Green New Deal 2.0 will not be defined by one or another thinker or leader, but by a broad social process of dialogue and experiment. This series is offered as a contribution to that social process.

In earlier Green New Deals, the elimination of fossil fuel extraction and burning was a costly though necessary duty. Today, “Greentech” — technology that reduces or repairs harm to the environment – is transforming the economics of energy and therefore of the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal 2.0 will be potentiated by a Greentech revolution that makes fossil free energy cheaper and more competitive than fossil fuel energy.

The emergence of the first Green New Deal coincided with the end of a long period of economic globalization combined with the geopolitical hegemony of the United States. That has been followed by what is often referred to as the “Polycrisis,” a period of global disorder that continues to intensify day by day. The Green New Deal 2.0 will have to survive and develop under the conditions created by the Polycrisis. And to succeed it will need — working with other forces — to quell the Polycrisis and establish a viable world order.

Here are some of the key dynamics of the Polycrisis that a Green New Deal 2.0 will have to contend with:

• Climate devastation: The extraction and burning of fossil fuels has continued to grow, leading to a rapid increase in fires, floods, storms, heatwaves, and other devastating manifestations of global warming.
• Inequality: The world’s 12 richest billionaires now have more wealth than the poorest half of humanity, or more than four billion people; meanwhile, one in four people globally face hunger.
• Democracy Deficit: Countries around the world face autocratic, plutocratic, and kleptocratic rule; repression of political opposition; degradation of electoral procedures; and monopolization of communications media.
• Rise of Fascist and Para-Fascist Movements: Parties and movements with fascist characteristics, such as authoritarianism, racism, hostility towards migrants, abuse of women, suppression of dissent, expanded policing powers, celebration of violence, and might-makes-right ideologies control many countries, exercise de-facto veto powers in many others, and impose terror and brutality on many peoples.
• Fragmented Globalization: While globalization as a regulated system has largely broken down, international trade has continued to grow, but it is increasingly shaped by geopolitical economic warfare focused on the struggle to control global economic networks, such as data flows, platform rules, AI systems, and the critical minerals and energy infrastructures that power them.
• Unleashed Warfare: There are at least 65 active conflicts across 35 countries, the highest number recorded since World War II – with a doubling of international conflicts from four to eight since 2024. The objectives of military power have expanded from defense and domination to outright plunder; as the International Crisis Group put it, Trump’s “lawlessness, revisionism and cavalier use of force” risk “normalizing the idea that war is an OK way for powerful states to get what they want.” According to an analysis of “Systemic Risk And Escalation Dynamics In Global Politics,”

“The 2026–2027 period marks a critical phase in the international system, best described as a systemic crisis of governability. Across multiple regions, crises—both active and latent—are increasingly interconnected, creating conditions in which local tensions can quickly escalate into broader instability. . . and trigger escalation beyond political control.”

• Vicious Circles of Conflict: Conflicts aggravated by tit-for-tat escalation are creating dangers that are in nobody’s interest and that nobody can control. The war between Ukraine and Russia, with their European, Chinese, and other backers and their American manipulator seeking opportunities for plunder provides a prime example: the war has produced growing levels of devastating bombing of civilian areas on both sides; cycles of drone war escalation; and threats of nuclear escalation.

  Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the Parliament of Lithuania. Photo credit: The Presidential Office of Ukraine, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY 4.0

• Breakdown of International Cooperation: International cooperation for peacekeeping, arms limitation, climate protection, economic cooperation, water use, fighting pandemics and other public health threats, and action to address threats from new technologies, such as nanotechnology, drones, and Artificial Intelligence, have atrophied or worse. Donald Trump has withdrawn the U.S. entirely from 66 international organizations responsible for addressing such global needs.
• Rising and Resisting Powers: The Polycrisis is marked by the rivalry between China and the U.S. –an example of what is sometimes known as the “Thucydides trap” of conflict between rising and dominant powers.
• War Crime Wave: Israel, backed by the U.S., has conducted what the International Court of Justice has found may constitute genocide in violation of international law. Both Russia and Ukraine are conducting massive attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure that are clearly crimes against humanity. The US attack on Iran is nothing but a war of aggression – itself a war crime. International law, often flouted in practice, is now being openly scorned in principle. Donald Trump said in a recent interview with The New York  Times, “I don’t need international law.” His aide Steven Miller explicitly spelled out the doctrine of might makes right: “We live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
• Geopolitics Trumps All: The wellbeing of people, democratic governance, and even the survival of humanity have all been made subservient to the pursuit of superpower domination. This reality was recognized in Canadian prime minister Mark Carney’s widely publicized Davos proclamation of “a rupture in the world order” where “geopolitics is submitted to no limits, no constraints. Call it what it is – a system of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests, using economic integration as coercion.” Polycrisis geopolitics is now shifting, to borrow a term from Richard Falk, toward “nihilistic geopolitics” oblivious to meaning, morality, or knowledge. Rational, realistic pursuit of national self-interest is increasingly passing over into bullying and plunder, with little regard to their actual consequences.
• Incoherence: The Polycrisis is complex, contradictory, and chaotic. Apparent trends and tendencies conflict. Policymaking is increasingly erratic, incoherent, and self-contradictory, with results far different from those intended.
• Unpredictability: The world order has become even more unpredictable. As Margaret MacMillan put it in the New York Times, “We are living in a time of what’s been called radical uncertainty. We are in a transition in which the previous system is unraveling but we don’t yet know what comes next.”
• Decline of Social Learning: World actors increasingly plunge into self-destructive actions without recognition that past experience has proven their futility. Aggressive use of tariffs in the past has regularly led to trade wars and mutual impoverishment, yet it is burgeoning. Rearmament and other preparation for war predictably leads not only to mutual impoverishment, but to increased likelihood of military conflagration, yet it continues to escalate. Maniacal investment in bubbles like AI have repeatedly led to devastating crashes, yet the mania continues without either public or private restraint.
• The folly factor: As the Polycrisis deepens, the gap between rational self-interest and foolishness grows wider. As Monica Duffy Toft pointed out in the New York Times, the withering of cooperation to address common threats leads to “more flashpoints among nuclear-armed powers, more nuclear proliferation, less cooperation on global threats and a system structurally incapable of mitigating the risks it creates.”

While each of these dynamics is devastating in itself, their interaction makes the Polycrisis appear even more intractable.

Every aspect of a Green New Deal 2.0 will be affected by every aspect of the Polycrisis. Obviously, the Green New Deal 2.0 will not be able to quell the Polycrisis all by itself or all at one blow. But quelling it must be the horizon and provide the perspective from which it works. In particular, the Green New Deal 2.0 must

• Halt fossil fuel burning to halt global warming
• Implement the Greentech revolution to halt fossil fuel burning
• Use the Greentech revolution to reverse deteriorating social conditions for people in the U.S. and around the world
• Establish global cooperation sufficient to achieve these objectives

The next commentary in this series will present an overview of the Green New Deal 2.0. 

Get “Strike!” via EmailGet “Strike!” via Substack DONATE ONLINE

The post The Green New Deal 2.0 vs. the Polycrisis first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

NEU sets a Just Transition framework for workplace organising, campaigning and bargaining

The NEU has just done a massive service to the whole climate movement.

Its Model Just Transition Framework for Schools is not simply a statement of principles but an organising tool for union Reps and activists to use in their workplace.

Schools are a particular kind of workplace, but the approach could be used more widely by other unions if recast appropriately for each sector.

In setting out a checklist of actions that schools can take – under three headings, leadership, workplace, impact and opportunities –  it establishes a baseline for what is already being done, and a set of demands for further action where a school falls short.

It helps that the proposals in the checklists are often backed by the existing DFE “Net Zero Strategy”, introduced under pressure from the mass student strikes before COVID  very positive proposals like every school having a climate action plan, a sustainability lead and the option of joining up into the National Education Nature Park. However, all of this was left to schools discretion which, in the context of a climate emergency is a bit like setting off the fire alarm and saying that leaving the building is voluntary. 

This framework can be used by Reps, but most effectively done where school union members discuss and agree it in a union group, and where there is a drive by union Districts to coordinate use of the framework across a whole Local Authority area and through Multi Academy Trusts, with a Committee member responsible for driving it.

The emphasis on having “an inclusive, formally recognised, just transition group that gives voice to staff from all areas and roles” and “an active student eco club/group or nature club/group for

younger children and the opportunity for student voice to develop green policies” and schools using their “role as a community educator to drive change and climate awareness and action in its local community and with local businesses and stakeholders” makes this a tool for the wider social mobilisation we need.

A Just Transition will not be handed to us on a plate. We will have to fight for it. Where there is a national Jobs Transition Commission, as in Scotland or the North of Ireland, Just Transition work at the grassroots will add heft to their recommendations. Where there isn’t, as in England and Wales it will point up the need for them, as well as building the full scale social mobilisation we will need to make it a reality.

This is particularly the case because success in reducing a school’s carbon footprint, as with any other workplace, will depend on investment; for example to replace gas heating systems and Air Con with reversible heat pumps. So that can’t help but become a campaign for resourcing from central government, so each mobilisation at local level has to feed into a coordinated national campaign for that investment.

This framework is a terrific lever to that end.

Paul Atkin NEU Climate Change Network

 

Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post NEU sets a Just Transition framework for workplace organising, campaigning and bargaining first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

Scotland launches its Third Just Transition Commission – England waits for its First

Stephen Smellie, UNISON, is one of two trade union members of the third Just Transition Commission to be set up by the Scottish government. The other is Richard Hardy of Prospect. Co-Chaired by Dave Reay formerly of Edinburgh University and Satwat Rehman of One Parent Families Scotland,  it has 15 members from Academia, Business, Unions and NGOs. Set up to advise the Scottish government on what it needs to do it will have to build on the stinging critique made by the outgoing Second Commission.

Our assessment is that progress has fallen short of what is needed. Unless we renew our ambition and redouble our efforts, the enormous opportunity – both for meaningful climate action and for building a fairer and more prosperous country – will be lost.

And follow up on its outgoing recommendations.

• Progress has fallen short of what is needed. Instead of planning for success, we are reacting to crises.
• Deliver anticipatory place-based planning for at-risk sites and regions and progress sectoral plans. There is no just path to Net Zero through deindustrialisation.
• A just transition is still possible but requires courageous action across sectors. To maintain the social license for climate action, the Scottish Government must now use all levers at its disposal.
• Investment for the just transition must be mobilised through financial leadership and market-shaping interventions. This includes incentive structures, conditionalities and community wealth building measures.
• Communities and local authorities need capacity and resource to keep pace with developments, shape the transition and influence major decisions affecting their area.
• Improve delivery with more meticulous monitoring and evaluation, applying data effectively in partnerships at local and regional level.

A similar Just Transition Commission has been set up in Northern Ireland. The work done in consulting, organising, mobilising and advising is invaluable, and we need the same thing in England, and the English regions, and Wales.

Stephen’s article is the first of what we hope will be a series, so the movement in the rest of the UK can learn from the Scottish experience – what to copy – what to avoid – while we push for similar bodies here.

Scottish Just Transition Commission re-launched

The third Scottish Just Transition Commission has now been launched. This follows the commitment given by First Minister John Swinney that a Just Transition remains one of his government’s priorities.

Scotland was the first nation to establish a JTC to advise the government on the necessary steps to take to achieve a Just Transition. Others have followed, such as Northern Ireland, but not England. The JTC brings together representatives from the environment and trade union movements, industry, academia, health, economists and anti-poverty activists who work to a plane related to government planning and their own identified priorities.

The second JTC published its final report ahead of the Scottish Parliamentary election. Its title, No Time to Lose, summed up its message, not enough had been done to deliver on Just Transition. During its term it had reported on the closure of Grangemouth, the continuing loss of jobs in the North Sea, the failure to develop supply chains for the renewable sector and therefore a disappointing record on new jobs, and the continuing failure to deliver the potential community wealth that public or shared ownership of renewables could have meant for communities.

This latest Commission therefore starts from a position critical of past action or inaction.

The Government have proposed that the Commission look at Adaptation and Climate Resilience alongside a range of issues from skills and jobs to how a Just Transition can impact on the Government priorities of health and eradicating child poverty.

As Net-Zero no longer has a political consensus of support and the faith in delivering a Just  Transition amongst many workers is much diminished there is a need to restore public trust that the move to a low carbon economy will be fair, that alternative industries will provide quality work and that communities will benefit through sharing in the profits being made by companies and, mostly, foreign corporations.

That is a job for governments, not the Commission, but they have a part to play in identifying the actions that government ministers and industry must deliver on.

No Time to Lose: Final Report of the 2nd Just Transition Commission (2026) – Just Transition Commission

 

Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post Scotland launches its Third Just Transition Commission – England waits for its First first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

The post Environmental Health & Antiracism: Change Makers, Place, and Crossroads for Health Equity appeared first on ANHE.

Read and subscribe to our monthly newsletter and support our work.

The post Latest Newsletter first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Muzammal is a Muslim Kashmiri-Pakistani immigrant to the United States whose work is rooted in a deep commitment to socio-economic justice and development, with a focus on building working class power. Muzammal grew up as a refugee in Pakistan during the United States’s war on terror and the Pakistani Army’s dictatorship rule.

Muzammal holds an undergraduate degree in Economics, an MPhil in Economics, and a second master’s in Labor and Global Workers’ Rights—fields that inform both professional work and personal philosophy.

After a decade-long movement organizing in Karachi, Pakistan, Muzammal has recently worked with the Asian American Community Fund of Pennsylvania and the Asian Pacific Islander Political Alliance, where they led initiatives that uplifted Asian American communities across Pennsylvania. Muzammal is currently working as Executive Director of the Philadelphia Area Jobs With Justice, a coalition of unions, community organizations, students, and faith groups where they launched Power School 2026, an annual, free, week-long, in-person advanced and comprehensive organizer training program which also provides Spanish interpretation and scholarships to participants.

Fluent in eight languages and well-versed in the diverse cultures of South Asia, Muzammal brings a rich global perspective to the labor movement. Their extensive experience spans community and labor organizing in both South Asia and the United States. Muzammal finds joy in sloganeering, dancing, fashion, cooking and Muay Thai.

The post October LNS Spotlight: Muzammal Afzal first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Worried that Trump and MAGA may steal the upcoming mid-term elections? LNS co-sponsored a September 22 webinar on “Building and Defending Democracy in November’s Elections” that addresses the fightback to block attempts to interfere with free and fair elections. This webinar was designed to help frame priorities, including actions as well as policy commitments, that state and community-based movement leaders should be thinking about as we approach November’s elections. It features LNS co-founder and senior strategic advisor Jeremy Brecher.

To watch the webinar: https://cpdcs.org/watch-building-and-defending-democracy-in-novembers-election/

LNS has also just published Brecher’s commentary “ Election Protection vs. MAGA Tyranny.” Here’s an excerpt:

Trump, MAGA, and their supporters want to ensure that the upcoming mid-term elections are not free and fair, but rather a vehicle to perpetuate their power. Their goal is permanent and uncontested power – an equivalent to Hitler’s Thousand-Year Reich. Trump/Republican attempts to prevent free and fair elections have been going on for years, and have escalated since his inauguration. Successful recent actions have included the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and extreme gerrymandering. Key methods include intimidation, confusion, induced hopelessness, physical obstruction, and legal obstruction. There is a wide swath of groups organized to defend a free and fair election against authoritarian subversion. They represent not one or the other political party, but rather nonpartisan social self-defense. I have described them elsewhere as a “Movement-Based Opposition.” Many of these groups are initially focusing on training. For example, Indivisible and the ACLU are collaborating on a series of “Hands Off Our Vote” online webinars. The Freedom Trainers network of nonviolence trainers has run in-depth trainings for thousands and makes available an 83-page handbook presenting possible scenarios and how to deal with them. The May Day Strong coalition has held 750 “Solidarity Schools” and actions from late August through mid-September nationwide, bringing together labor organizers and community members. The Voter Advocate Network is building a nationwide network of trained and certified voter advocates. According to Deepak Bhargava of the Freedom Together Foundation, “Over one million people have been trained in organizing and nonviolence over the last year.”

The commentary lays out the details for six “lines of defense” for unions and communities to ensure free and fair elections:

1. Make clear to people why they need to vote against Trump and MAGA.
2. Encourage an overwhelming turnout to oppose Trump and MAGA.
3. Forestall interference with elections.
4. Contest intimidation through rapid response.
5. Foil electoral coups.
6. Lay the groundwork for democratization.

To read the full commentary: https://www.labor4sustainability.org/strike/election-protection-vs-maga-tyranny/

To hear the webinar: Building and Defending Democracy in November’s Elections

The post Unions and Communities Fight for Free and Fair Elections first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

LNS president Joe Uehlein’s book-and-music tour continues with dates around the country. Here is the schedule for the entire tour:

The post “With the Sincerity of a Prophet”: Uehlein Tour Rolls On first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Joe in Amherst

By John Harrity

John is the former President of the CT State Council of Machinists and a long-time member of the LNS Board.

On Monday, September 14, I attended the Amherst stop of Joe Uehlein’s cross-country book tour, in support of his newly published Three Roads: Labor, Music, Ecology. Joe tells the story of a life-long love of the union movement, songs, and nature fostered first as a boy outside of Cleveland. Both his parents were dedicated trade unionists. Free time was spent listening to or singing the songs of working-class artists like Woody Gurthrie and Leadbelly, while the lakes provided good fishing until the fish started floating belly-up due to the runoff from the steel mills that kept everyone working.

Joe does not simply tell his tale; he sings it too. The stages, and stories, of his life roll out through plenty of great labor music. Joe is a skilled guitarist with a strong voice. There’s a union song appropriate to every step in his journey, and Joe sings out the truth in these verses with the passion and conviction they deserve.

Joe’s life is guided by principles propelled forward by genuine courage. He spent many years in the South as a union organizer, a sometimes-harrowing occupation. With a family to raise he came off the road, ending up highly placed in the AFL-CIO, as head of the Industrial Department. But when he became fully aware of the dangers to the world from climate change, and the AFL-CIO’s obstinate denial of the problem, Joe left a cushy job behind to found the Labor Network for Sustainability. As Joe conveys to the audience with the sincerity of a prophet, the Labor Network for Sustainability works every day to raise awareness in the labor movement about the absolute necessity of confronting the climate crisis.

The audience in Amherst was visibly moved by Joe’s engaging presentation. Many of the fifty-or-so in attendance lined up to buy signed copies of the book. The presentation took place at UMass, sponsored by the UMass Labor Center and the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), and many faculty and staff members were in attendance. Not all of them were familiar with LNS before Joe’s talk, but they had all gained a healthy respect for the group after hearing Joe Uehlein.

The post “A Life-Long Love of the Union Movement” first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

By Joshua Dedmond, Labor Network for Sustainability Executive Director

The Black Climate Leadership Summit, co-hosted by Taproot Noire (a global Black climate network rooted in Taproot Earth) and SOL Nation as part of the Queen City Climate Convergence on September 16–17 in Charlotte, North Carolina, brought together Black-identifying frontline and environmental justice leaders, organizers, and advocates from across the globe. The gathering focused on building the trust, deep relationships, shared power, and principles for collaboration needed to advance a unified, Black-led Just Transition Strategy rooted in land sovereignty and human connection that centers Black liberation.

Joshua Dedmond, Executive Director of the Labor Network for Sustainability, participated in the summit. This enriching gathering provided LNS with a vital platform to connect labor movement entities and labor-climate strategies directly with other Black-led formations and movement spaces. Throughout the summit, participants engaged in facilitated wisdom circles, strategy workshops, skill-building sessions, and panels that illuminated collaborative pathways toward economic and climate justice.

Special gratitude goes to LNS Board member Colette Pichón Battle and her dedicated krewe at Taproot Earth for hosting, as well as Tiffany Fant and the SOL Nation team for warmly welcoming Black climate leaders to Charlotte.

The post Queen City Climate Convergence first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Photo collage: Background photo by Tedder, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.

By Tyler Turner

(Tyler Turner is president of the Office and Professional Employees International Union which represents 90,000 workers in industries ranging from tech and healthcare to higher education and non-profits.)

Opposition to datacenters grows on both sides of the political aisle as developers plan to invest $8tn to build them in the coming years. The bet is massive – roughly a quarter of our country’s entire GDP – but AI CEOs think it will pay off because they believe this technology will allow businesses across industries to rake in profits by cutting out their largest expense: labor. If all goes according to their plan, AI data centers will enable corporations to redistribute workers’ salaries to themselves.

This is why I have been so concerned to see the North American Building Trades Unions (NABTU) sign agreements with corporations such as Blackrock, Meta and OpenAI to collaborate on this massive data center expansion. While I applaud the NABTU’s success at securing well-paying temporary jobs for their members, these deals ignore the fact that all workers, including construction workers, are part of a class whose replacement is the explicit purpose of AI, and that data centers themselves produce a minuscule number of long-term jobs. With these deals, union members will build the factories of computerized labor that put millions of other workers out of jobs – potentially even themselves.

Until strong regulations are enacted that ensure our livelihoods, community and planet are permanently protected, unions should focus on passing the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act, introduced in Congress by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and support statewide moratoriums like the one recently signed by the New York governor, Kathy Hochul. Once we have achieved a moratorium, the labor movement must unite around a set of demands to ensure workers across industries receive our fair share of AI’s potential benefits.

The AI revolution means nothing but loss for the average person if its benefits are concentrated among the already-wealthy. In a survey of the Office and Professional Employees International Union’s membership last year, we found members are already being adversely impacted by AI in myriad ways ranging from layoffs to surveillance to being punished for errors created by AI models.

We should not allow corporations to balloon our energy consumption while wildfires, superstorms and extreme heat ravage our country. If unions worked together rather than pitting our members against each other, we would not be begging billionaires for temporary jobs that will poison us and our children.

At the end of the day, our data fuels their algorithms, our taxes fund their development, and our communities host their hardware. The least we should demand is our fair share.

Excerpted from an article in the September 14th Guardian. For the full article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/14/labor-unions-ai-datacenters

The post Union Prez Sez “Labor Unions Must Unite Against AI Data Centers” first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

UE’s Green Locomotive Project is an innovative model for grassroots union initiative to create good union jobs, address climate change, and clean up pollution in the low-income communities and communities of color which bear the brunt of pollution from rail yards. The project came about through conversation with members who build locomotive engines that currently run on diesel fuel. These members know their own jobs have been tied to fossil fuels but also understand the threat of climate change. They see opportunities for a different path in the future, one that creates good union jobs and improves air quality, particularly in and around rail yards where these idling engines pollute the air. The technology already exists to run cleaner and more energy-efficient engines on our rail lines; zero-emissions technology is available for use in rail yards. The Green Locomotive Project builds the worker and community power necessary to compel the railroads to upgrade their locomotive stock and adopt green technology, and to ensure that new technologies lead to jobs at existing union factories.

Here are initiatives the Green Locomotive Project has taken so far this year just in California:

• The Barstow International Gateway (BIG) is a heavily subsidized, $1.5 billion rail expansion project being pursued by the Class-I railroad BNSF. Together with EarthJustice and other allies, the GLP mobilized 50 workers and residents to speak out at a Barstow city planning commission hearing to demand clean technology on the BIG. GLP is also supporting a local leader who is holding weekly community gatherings and mobilizing residents to Barstow City Council meetings.
• The Alameda Corridor, which serves the dual ports of LA and Long Beach, is a prime candidate for electrification. To make it happen, the GLP partnered with the Moving Forward Network and Californians for Electric Rail to form the Communities for Electric Rail Only (CERO) Coalition. In March, CERO secured the CA Air Resources Board’s commitment to work with them on electrifying the Alameda Corridor. Air quality is a major issue for railyard workers and nearby communities. The GLP is advocating to add stronger emissions reduction measures to the Clean Air Action Plan for the ports of LA and Long Beach and supporting our allies’ push for AB 1777, which would grant CA Air Resources Board (CARB) the power to create Indirect Source Rules for railyards. It is also monitoring the progress of In-Use Locomotive Rule II, which would ban the use of outdated, heavy-polluting locomotives in CA.

For more on UE’s Green Locomotive Project, visit https://www.ueunion.org/green-locomotive-project

The post UE’s Green Locomotive Project Steaming Ahead first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Collage (Art: alonesbe, Envato | Photo Credit of Trump: Gage Skidmore, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0)

In a new commentary, LNS co-founder and senior strategic advisor Jeremy Brecher warns, “As long as the US opposes rather than joining the Greentech revolution, it portends not only climate catastrophe, but economic catastrophe as well.”

“The Greentech revolution is transforming energy production and use worldwide. Along with its other advantages, fossil free energy has become radically cheaper than fossil fuel energy. More than 90% of utility-scale renewable projects commissioned in 2025 delivered power below the cost of the cheapest new fossil-fuel plant built in their market. Natural gas energy is currently 3–4 times more expensive than solar and wind. Meanwhile, fossil fuels are increasingly vulnerable to disruptions like the Ukraine and Iran wars, which destabilize whole economies with shortages and higher prices for energy, food, and other necessities of life.

“Donald Trump and the US government are doing everything possible to shut down fossil free energy and to expand our dependence on fossil fuels. That is already having a devastating effect on American workers and communities, and it is likely to get far worse in the future. We are being marooned on what two energy experts call a fossil fuel “energy island” as the rest of the world turns to an ‘electric world order.’

“If Trump and his fossil fuelers succeed in defeating the Greentech revolution in the US, the result is likely to be a growing affordability crisis; devastation for the most fossil-fuel dependent industries like autos, coal, iron, and gas; a general decline of the fossil-fuel intensive US economy; disinvestment; a loss of international competitiveness; and macroeconomic effects like inflation and recession or both.”

To read in full: “America’s Future: Fossil Fuel Island in a Greentech World?”

The post Will the US be a “Fossil Fuel Island” in a Greentech World? first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Jim Stanford was recently invited to give testimony to the Senate’s National Finance committee, regarding the state of Canada’s macroeconomy in the wake of Donald Trump’s trade war and other geopolitical uncertainty. Stanford emphasized the continuing resilience of the national economy, which has avoided recession and recently chalked up decent growth and job-creation numbers – despite the damage done by U.S. tariffs to our exports and business investment. He warned Senators that diversifying the destination for Canadian exports is not an adequate response to current risks: Canada must also focus on diversifying the composition of exports, using pro-active measures to add value to Canadian resources through processing and manufacturing (rather than depending mostly on exports of unprocessed resources, which now account for over 50% of total Canadian merchandise exports). He also stressed that the challenge of the trade war does not justify jettisoning core labour, social, and environmental criteria in economic development policies. Stanford specifically criticized the federal government’s intention (in its Bill C-39) to codify ministerial powers to ban strikes in the federal sector of the economy, on vague and subjective grounds of ‘national interest’.

Stanford’s opening remarks to the Senate committee are posted below. They draw on more extensive analysis contained in several recent public presentations; see Stanford’s presentation slides here for more detail.

Opening Remarks Senate Standing Committee on National Finance Hearings on Canadian Economic Outlook, Sep. 29, 2026 By Jim Stanford, Economist and Director Centre for Future Work

Thank you very much, Senators, for the opportunity to meet and share my views on Canada’s economic and fiscal situation as you prepare for the upcoming federal budget.

The Centre for Future Work is a labour economics research institute, founded in Canada in 2020. We conduct research on the full range of economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages and income distribution, skills and training, sector and industry policies, globalization, the role of government, public services, and more. The Centre also develops timely and practical policy proposals to help make the world of work better for working people and their families.  The Centre is independent and non-partisan.

Today I will provide some short comments on the current state of Canada’s economy, how it is withstanding the uncertainty caused by the erratic changes in U.S. trade policy, and themes that the federal government should emphasize in its future actions. Then I will welcome your questions and comments.

Recent economic indicators confirm that Canada’s economy is maintaining its stability and momentum despite the disruptions arising from U.S. tariffs and other uncertainty on the international front. Second-quarter growth was both strong and well-balanced. All major cylinders in Canada’s economic engine were firing: with significant growth in consumer spending, government expenditure (on both current services and capital investment), business non-residential investment, residential investment, and exports. Even our exports to the U.S. grew, as well as our exports to other countries. The overall rate of growth (2.3% annualized) would have been much stronger but for a major inventory drawdown during the quarter, as businesses worked down excess inventory accumulated in previous less vibrant quarters. That portends continued strength in future quarters, as firms adjust to renewed growth and readjust their inventories accordingly.

In the labour market, job-creation has been decent if not spectacular, with over 200,000 jobs created in the last 12 months, most of them full-time. Even manufacturing (which has borne the brunt of U.S. trade actions) has seen year-over-year job growth of over 20,000 new positions, which attests to the diversity and resilience of this vital sector. Ironically, the weakest employment numbers are presently arising from the public sector, including education (mostly due to job reductions in colleges, adjusting to the whiplash effects of erratic immigration policies for international students) and public administration (mostly due to headcount reductions in the federal civil service). This public sector downsizing is unnecessary. The public sector is relatively insulated from President Trump’s trade actions, and should be a source of stability as the economy adjusts to the new global environment. The federal government in particular should rethink this downsizing, which will also affect the quality of federal service delivery to Canadians.

One warning sign from the labour market is a noted deceleration of wage growth, which had been quite robust over the previous four years. The initial inflation shock following the COVID pandemic required a pickup in wage growth in Canada, to try to restore real purchasing power for Canadian workers damaged by the temporarily high inflation of 2022 and 2023. That repair job worked: wage growth exceeded inflation significantly from late 2023 until the present, allowing real wages to recover and then some. Real wages are now higher than they were before the pandemic, and this has been essential in helping Canadian address affordability challenges. It is testament to Canada’s labour relations system that real wages, on average, have been more than fully repaired. Strong improvements in minimum wages in most provinces (and the federal jurisdiction), and Canada’s strong collective bargaining system, explain why real wages have performed better here than in many other countries – including the U.S., where real wages are falling.

However, a combination of slower wage growth and a rebound in inflation (resulting from the U.S. war against Iran) are now threatening that success. Hourly nominal wages were up only 2.0% year-over-year in August, the slowest in 5 years – and not enough to keep up with current inflation. Placing continued priority on strong wage gains for Canadian workers will be essential for protecting purchasing power and sustaining consumer spending, which after all accounts for half of total GDP. In this context, I must express alarm regarding the federal government’s intention to codify restrictions on normal collective bargaining rights in its proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code, as part of its current Bill C-39. Codifying the government’s right to interfere arbitrarily in bargaining and suppress constitutional rights (including the right to withhold labour) on the basis of vague and subjective measures of ‘national interest’, is a step in the wrong direction, that would heighten the risk of future deterioration in real wages in Canada.

Canada’s trade performance has also been surprisingly robust despite the impact of swings in U.S. policy. Exports of goods and services in nominal terms have increased to both the U.S. and other countries, partly due to higher prices (especially for oil) and partly increased volumes. Since the end of 2024 (when President Trump won election), Canada’s exports to countries other than the U.S. have grown by 18% (to the second quarter of 2026). Even our exports to the U.S. are up 9%. The share of our total exports going to the U.S. has fallen to 67%. There is a lot going on behind these numbers (including the rise in world petroleum prices following the U.S. war on Iran), but it seems clear that efforts to diversify Canadian trade ties are paying off.

Let me conclude with some high-level thoughts about the broad task facing Canada’s economy in the coming years. The attacks on our economy, and indeed our sovereignty, from south of the border are forcing us to redefine how we orient Canada’s economic and social development. Instead of relying on access to the huge U.S. market as our key advantage in investment location, we must develop a more self-reliant and diversified vision for future investment, innovation, trade, and growth. This means attracting more investment here (from both foreign investors, but also more investment of our own capital, such as the trillions held by Canadian entities, including our pension funds, in the U.S. and other foreign markets). It means strengthening our trade ties with the rest of the world. But it’s not just the quantity of investment and exports that matters: it’s also the composition of those flows, and the quality of the economy – and society – that we build. There is a current temptation, as we gird our national loins to withstand the irrationality of the Trump administration, to double down on anything we can do, and do quickly. This has contributed to a great rush to expand resource extraction and exports.

However, reinforcing Canada’s dependence on extraction and export of unprocessed primary products has its own risks to our economic capability and sovereignty – including well-known vulnerability to global demand and geopolitical swings, as well as (in the case of fossil fuels) environmental risks that are more urgent every year (and which continue to accumulate regardless of the climate denialism of the U.S. government and some others). Our vision should be to build an economy that is not just viable in the face of Trump’s attacks, but retains the core values which motivate Canadians to defend our country as an entity distinct from that south of the border. That means preserving a balance in our economic strategy between getting big things done quickly, and making sure we are doing the right kinds of big things, and doing them properly – including with due attention to sustainability, Indigenous consultation and consent, and basic social and labour values and rights. In that regard, it is more important than ever for Senators to play their full oversight role, to ensure that the federal government’s response to this dangerous moment does not dismiss those values and priorities in a rush to sign deals and accelerate projects.

Thank you again for your attention, and I look forward to your questions or discussion.

The post How Canada is Surviving Trump’s Trade War appeared first on Centre for Future Work.