More from Tasha Kheiriddin available More fromavailable here

‘Solidarity Forever’ may be the motto of the union movement; politics is something else entirely. The Canadian Press reported this week that five hundred employees of the federal NDP are leaving their union, Unifor, for, er, friendlier representation.

The staffers reportedly had been exploring other options for some time when Unifor sealed the deal by backing the Liberals instead of the NDP in the recent Ontario provincial election. It wasn’t alone: The Ontario Federation of Labour did the same, to prevent the election of a Progressive Conservative government. The New Democrats fear that this scenario will repeat itself federally in 2015, which would directly threaten the staffers’ jobs — which the union is supposed to protect.

Unifor doesn’t seem fazed by the decision. Its president, Jerry Dias, had this to say: “This will be an amicable divorce … Their position is they want to belong to a union that has complete, blind loyalty to the party and I understand that … But the facts are that one local union within Unifor is not going to dictate the politics of an organization of over 300,000 people.”

Indeed. The mega-union was formed just under a year ago through the merger of the Canadian Auto Workers and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. Its website boasts that its “large and diverse membership (that includes nearly every sector of the economy), makes it one of the most representative voices of our national economy.”

Unfortunately for the NDP, that also makes it a powerful voice encouraging those workers to (strategically) vote Liberal. Federally, the CAW urged its members to do this as far back as 2006, in an unsuccessful bid to keep Stephen Harper out of 24 Sussex. And that was well before the federal government embarked on its downsizing spree after 2011, when the Conservatives finally got a majority and started paring back the ranks of the civil service — which had grown under their first and second minority mandates.

In the U.S. and Canada, unionized manufacturing jobs have dried up or moved overseas, reducing unions’ political clout. In industrialized countries, workers are increasingly protected not by unions but by the laws they fought for: rules on maternity leave, overtime and compensation.

The NDP is not the only left-wing party revisiting its relationship with trade unions. In Australia, Bill Shorten, leader of that country’s Labor Party, remarked in April 2014 that “the role of unions within our party has developed into a factional, centralised decision-making role”. Shorten is proposing to end the rule requiring any prospective member of Labor to join a union.

Meanwhile, in Great Britain, Labour Party Leader Edward Miliband championed a proposal to allow union members to choose whether to financially support the party, and eliminated the unions’ guaranteed 50 per cent representation in leadership votes in favour of one-member, one-vote. The policy passed with 86 per cent support at the party’s convention in March of this year. (Here at home, the NDP changed its leadership rules to one-member-one-vote in 2006.)

And in the United States, some foresee a “divorce” between the Democratic Party and its labour supporters. President Barack Obama’s procrastination on the Keystone XL pipeline, a project loved by labour but loathed by environmentalists, hasn’t helped the situation.

Why this global push to redefine the relationship between organized labour and political parties? There are many factors. In the U.S. and Canada, unionized manufacturing jobs have dried up or moved overseas, reducing unions’ political clout. In industrialized countries, workers are increasingly protected not by unions but by the laws they fought for: rules on maternity leave, overtime and compensation.

Membership in civic organizations — whether unions or the Knghts of Columbus — is declining. At the same time, right-to-work laws in many American states have given workers the choice of opting out of a union membership. And the nature of work is changing in the “new economy” — becoming less permanent, more part-time, freelance or self-employed.

As a result, unions are struggling to stay relevant in the lives of both their members and the politics of their nations. Tying themselves to one party no longer serves their interests — particularly if that party isn’t likely to form government. They also find themselves at odds with other interest groups also positioned on the left, such as environmentalists.

Just like unions, labour-based parties likely will have to find allies on an issue-by-issue basis, as opposed to relying on bedrock union support. This could help them reach out to new supporters — but the challenge will be to hold on to their identities as parties of the left, and redefine what “the left” even means today.

If there’s any comfort in this for the NDP, it’s that it’s not alone. Solidarity isn’t forever anymore, anywhere.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. In her student days, Tasha was active in youth politics in her hometown of Montreal, eventually serving as national policy director and then president of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation of Canada. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.