LCBO Workers Strike To Combat Doug Ford’s Privatization Plans

Workers at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) have been on strike since July 5 in a pitched battle to protect the Crown corporation’s place in the alcohol retail sector and the good jobs that come with it.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), which represents workers at the LCBO, will likely face massive job losses if the Ontario government’s plan to complete the privatization of alcohol retail is implemented.

The further outsourcing of alcohol sales will also drain money away from public services. The LCBO operates more than 800 retail locations across Ontario and invests roughly $2.5 billion a year into public services such as health care and education.

In other words, OPSEU, which represents more than 9,000 workers at the LCBO across the province, is engaged in a fight of historic proportions — its first in the liquor retailer’s history.

The Ontario government claims expanding alcohol sales is about offering consumers “more choice and convenience.” But as OPSEU has argued, nothing about offering Ontario consumers additional convenience requires outsourcing alcohol sales to grocery and convenience store corporations.

In response, the union has pitched a set of core demands meant to both address the needs of its members and to garner the support of the broader Ontario public. These include: “expanding public retail locations and opening hours, expanding LCBO warehousing, logistics and e-commerce capacity in-house,” as well as fighting for “better jobs at the LCBO.”

A contentious round of bargaining at the LCBO was all but inevitable. As the union reported to members in early May, LCBO bargaining representatives refused to discuss the Doug Ford government’s ongoing plans to expand alcohol sales to private retail outlets — “the elephant in the room,” as OPSEU put it.

In late May, Ford announced his government’s full plan to fast-track the sale of beer, wine, cider and ready-to-drink cocktails in convenience stores and all grocery stores from 2026 to this year. The plan includes expanding the range of alcoholic items sold by grocery stores starting August 1, moving into convenience stores after September 5 and completing the rollout in grocery stores by the end of October.

Under the proposed framework, the LCBO would continue its wholesaler role and remain the only retailer of high-alcohol spirits, but the gutting of its retail sales footprint would be a major blow to workers.

The fast-tracked scheme also includes paying the Beer Store up to $225 million dollars to compensate for breaking an agreement signed with the previous Liberal government that made the Brewers Retail corporate partnership the exclusive seller of 12 and 24 packs of beer. It seems the plan is to, like with the LCBO, rollback the Beer Store’s retail footprint, while continuing to rely on its distribution network and recycling program.

As the CBC reported, the LCBO expects Ford’s plan to result in a net revenue loss of between $98 million and $150 million per year. This is in addition to the millions in rebates, subsidies and other payments to private sellers that the fast-tracked plan will necessitate. For a government projecting a nearly $10 billion deficit, this hardly seems like the most fiscally prudent initiative.

Of course, the Ontario Conservatives aren’t much interested in fiscal prudence when it comes to funnelling public money to private corporations.

OPSEU characterized Ford’s announced plan as “a corporate handout to big-box grocers,” which in part, it certainly is. “Expanding private alcohol sales is just the latest scheme to transfer public funds into the pockets of CEOs and Ford’s friends while further gutting our public services,” OPSEU president JP Hornick said.

In response to Ford declaring his plan, the union updated its demands and the urgency with which it is pursuing them publicly. The union held its strike vote June 12 through June 15, which returned a 97 per cent “yes” vote with 86 per cent of members participating, and then hit the picket lines shortly after.

A week before OPSEU’s strike deadline, however, the LCBO released its own “strike preparedness” plan, which included shuttering all retail outlets for two weeks. The union understandably interpreted this as the employer showing an unwillingness to bargain. Indeed, throughout the bargaining process, the LCBO seems to have been largely towing the government’s line.

Adding insult to injury, just days into the strike, the Ford government premiered an online tool — “a searchable digital map” — advising consumers where to buy alcohol during OPSEU’s strike at the LCBO. The union countered with a demand that not a single LCBO job be lost through Ford’s privatization plan.

A few days into the strike, the union added additional pressure by picketing distribution centres and delaying the entry and exit of delivery trucks. Yet thus far it seems Ford is continuing with the privatization plan, despite the escalating pressure of OPSEU’s strike.

As Steven Tufts has argued, the “decentralization” of alcohol sales away from the LCBO in Ontario didn’t begin with this round of bargaining. Rather, it’s been a slow process ongoing for decades. Tufts aptly calls it “union-busting by stealth,” highlighting the long-term strategy to bust unions and “erode good jobs in the alcohol retail sector.”

In many ways, OPSEU is fighting a come-from-behind battle when trying to protect good jobs at the LCBO. Tiered contracts imposed on the union long ago introduced huge numbers of part-time and casual positions, with those in such jobs earning much less than their full-time coworkers and struggling to obtain consistent and reliable hours. According to OPSEU, 70 per cent of LCBO workers are casual, a situation they want to see changed.

The challenge OPSEU faces involves building a broad base of public support around their strike demands. So far the union is employing a familiar “bargaining for the common good” strategy where workers’ issues in the workplace are connected with those of the broader public. However, such an approach is more challenging in their sector than it is in other public services, such as health care or education.

Indeed, as Tufts again points out, Ford and other MPs from his party have successfully mobilized their own populist narrative about alcohol that centres consumer access, which is likely to have particular appeal in rural areas.

OPSEU’s campaign, meanwhile, has focused on the public revenue impacts of Ford’s privatization plan. As the union succinctly put it, “When you buy a beer, that should help build a hospital – not pay for a billionaire’s new yacht.”

There is certainly much to be concerned about when it comes to the shift of retail revenue from the LCBO to supermarket corporations. At the same time, this issue may be slightly overstated. Under Ford’s scheme, the LCBO would continue to operate as a wholesaler and thus still funnel money into public coffers, and the government itself would continue to tax alcohol retail products.

The bigger issue, therefore, may turn out to be the impact of shuttered LCBO locations on workers. Shifting more alcohol sales to retail chains, convenience stores and other small outlets will erode union density and generally put downward pressure on wages and working conditions in the sector. Responding to this threat requires building broad solidarity and making the case to the public that LCBO workers deserve better wages and working conditions.

By fighting for more LCBO locations and expanded hours, alongside more full-time positions and better wages, the union has begun this process. The challenge remains maintaining the connection between workers’ demands and the public facing campaign.

Earlier in the bargaining process, the union outlined two possible futures. In the first, the Ford government hands over alcohol sales to big-box retailers and convenience stores like Loblaws and Circle K, in the process gutting public revenues and eroding working conditions. In the second option, workers and the public demand the LCBO grow its retail and distribution footprint, continue to help fund public services, and expand access to good jobs.

It’s clear which future Ford prefers. It’s up to us to ensure he doesn’t get it.

Share on Twitter