By Nicolas Maltais 
The question of whether unions should endorse political parties has long stirred passionate debate within the Canadian labour movement. It is a question that goes to the very heart of what a union is for and whom it is meant to serve. Is a union merely a bargaining agent, narrowly focused on wages, benefits, and grievances? Or is it something larger, an organization that embodies the collective aspirations of working people, taking on the full political, social, and economic struggles that shape their lives? Nowhere is this debate more pressing than in the relationship between labour and the New Democratic Party, a bond that has defined the Canadian political landscape for decades and yet remains fraught with tension, disappointment, and hope.
Unions have always been political, whether they admit it or not. Every contract signed, every grievance pursued, every safety rule defended is shaped by the laws and policies of governments. Collective bargaining does not exist in a vacuum. It depends on labour codes, arbitration systems, and the right to strike. When governments rewrite these rules, they change the very terrain upon which unions fight. To pretend that unions can somehow remain “non-political” is to ignore this reality. But being political is not the same thing as endorsing a party. To be political can mean lobbying all parties, mobilizing members around issues, and pushing governments to do better no matter who is in office. Endorsing a party, on the other hand, binds the union to a particular political vehicle, with all its flaws, compromises, and contradictions. That distinction is where the debate lies.
The NDP was born out of this very tension. In the early 1960s, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation came together to form the New Democratic Party. It was an experiment in formalizing labour’s political voice, creating a party rooted in the trade union movement but open to all progressive Canadians. For generations, unions funnelled money, organizers, and members into the NDP, believing it to be the best chance for working-class Canadians to have a seat at the political table. And indeed, the NDP has achieved much: Medicare, stronger workplace standards, human rights protections, and more. These were not gifts from benevolent governments but the fruits of a party that carried labour’s demands into Parliament.
Yet over time, cracks have emerged. Many unions have grown frustrated with the NDP’s inability to form government at the federal level, its frequent compromises when it does win power provincially, and its tendency to drift away from the bread-and-butter issues of workers in pursuit of broader electoral appeal. Some unions have flirted with endorsing Liberals, hoping for pragmatic gains. Others have withdrawn from partisan politics altogether, choosing to lobby whoever holds power. The once unshakable bond between labour and the NDP has loosened, leaving many union members questioning whether it is wise—or even responsible—for their union dues to flow into the coffers of a political party.
There are strong arguments on both sides. Those who favour endorsements argue that without political action, unions fight with one hand tied behind their back. Governments set the minimum wage, regulate pensions, and decide whether workers can strike or are legislated back to work. Why wouldn’t unions want allies in Parliament to defend their rights? Supporting the NDP provides a direct line from the shop floor to the legislature, ensuring that workers’ voices are not drowned out by corporate lobbyists and Bay Street interests. Without such a connection, unions risk becoming merely reactive, begging hostile governments not to erode hard-won rights.
On the other side, critics contend that endorsing the NDP has too often led to complacency and disillusionment. The party takes union support for granted, while members feel disconnected from decisions made at the political level. Worse, aligning with one party can alienate members who may vote differently, creating internal divisions. Some workers see it as an imposition, a hijacking of their dues for partisan purposes they may not share. In an era where union density is declining and organizing is already difficult, do unions really want to risk alienating their own base?
This is where the nuance comes in. The question is not simply whether unions should endorse political parties but how they should wield political power. Perhaps the old model of blind loyalty to the NDP no longer works. But neither does the fantasy of neutrality. Unions must engage politically, and they must do so in a way that reflects the diversity and aspirations of their members. That may mean supporting the NDP when it stands up for workers, but also holding it accountable when it drifts. It may mean mobilizing members directly around campaigns on housing, healthcare, and climate, using electoral politics as just one of many tools.
The truth is that no party, not even the NDP, can substitute for an organized, militant labour movement. Endorsements are only effective when backed by strong, independent unions willing to push politicians to deliver. If unions weaken themselves by outsourcing their political struggle to the NDP, they will inevitably be disappointed. But if they approach the party as a partner—sometimes an ally, sometimes a target of pressure—then endorsements can be part of a broader strategy to advance workers’ interests.
In Canada today, this question is more urgent than ever. Governments of all stripes are pressing for austerity, restricting strikes, and attacking public services. Employers are emboldened, pushing concessions and resisting organizing drives. The working class faces not only stagnant wages but also soaring costs of housing, food, and energy. Against this backdrop, political action cannot be an afterthought. Workers need a voice in the halls of power, and the NDP remains, for all its flaws, the only party structurally linked to the labour movement. The challenge is to make that link meaningful again.
Unions should not be cheerleaders for the NDP, but nor should they retreat into apolitical isolation. They should demand that endorsements be earned, not automatic. They should insist that the NDP place workers’ struggles at the centre of its agenda, not as one issue among many. They should use their resources not only to elect politicians but to build grassroots power, to train organizers, and to connect with members on the ground. And above all, they should never forget that their true power does not lie in Parliament but in the workplace and in the streets.
So, should unions endorse political parties? The answer, I think, is yes—but with caution, with independence, and with clear-eyed recognition of what that means. Endorsements are not gifts. They are investments of workers’ hard-earned money and energy, and they must yield real returns. They should never replace the day-to-day work of organizing, but they can amplify it. They should never divide members, but they can unify them around a shared political vision. And they should never be permanent, but conditional on a party’s willingness to fight alongside workers.
In the end, the labour movement is at its strongest when it is both political and independent. The NDP is part of that story, but it is not the whole story. The future of unions in Canada will not be written in backrooms of party conventions, but in the courage of workers who organize, strike, and demand a better world. Endorsements matter, but they are only one piece of a much larger struggle. And if we remember that, we can ensure that labour’s political voice remains not an echo of someone else’s agenda, but a force of its own.