INTRO:

Stephen Harper finds himself waging war on multiple fronts this election campaign.

With formidable opponents in Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau on either side of him, and the spectre of Mike Duffy lingering close behind, the battle looming ahead also pits the prime minister against the public service he's led since 2006.

As more and more labour unions join the 'ABC' bent -- urging their members to vote Anyone But Conservative -- even public sector unions that have traditionally remained neutral are now entering the fray.

The latest is the Professional Institute of Public Servants of Canada, who last week abandoned their long-held policy of neutrality in blasting the government's "intimidation" tactics following last week's justice department memo warning public servants against engaging in political activism during the campaign.

While PIPSC defends their members' rights to engage in all sorts of political activity outside of the workplace -- rights upheld in a landmark 1991 Supreme Court of Canada ruling -- the union didn't stop there.

In a departure from the usual union rhetoric of their brethren, PIPSC went far beyond labour woes in launching an attack on the overall Conservative record.

But some experts fear the unions are "playing with fire" by picking sides and sticking their noses where they don't belong.

***

The now-infamous memo circulated around government offices, sent as a not-so-gentle reminder of a public servant's duties during an election campaign, was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Reaction from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada was swift and unflinching, with PIPSC president Debi Daviau coming out swinging with both fists.

The memo, interpreted by the union as an "intimidation tactic" to warn government employees against political activism in the lead-up to the Oct. 19 vote, "is just part and parcel to a whole package of goodies that this government has put in play to unlevel the playing field," said PIPSC president Debi Daviau, whose union, representing some 317,000 federal workers, has traditionally remained silent and steadfastly non-partisan during the writ period.

"But that's only part of the entire package of reasons why we've gotten to this place, where we're in exceptional circumstances, and exceptional measures are now required."

Other unions and special interest groups have long been on the ABC bandwagon, including the usual suspects ETFO, CUPE and PSAC, while some surprising allies are jumping aboard, including the Union of Correctional Officers and the Canadian Veterans' Campaign.

According to Daviau, while labour strife has been brewing for years within the federal public service, her membership's opposition to the Conservatives actually "all starts with non-labour issues."

She rhymes off changes to the election process through the Fair Elections Act, robocall scandals, changing of riding jurisdictions -- "All those external issues that makes you wonder about the fairness of the democratic process."

Which isn't to say that cuts the Conservatives have made to the public service aren't on the union's mind.

"The deeper these cuts went, the less able we were to deliver on these critical programs," said Daviau.

"I have people now whose life work has been completely eliminated or incapacitated, and there is a critical service that is now not being delivered to Canadians... There's been billions of dollars in cuts to programs, so there are fewer programs to protect our health and environment and the safety of families.

"So we put all that together and find ourselves somewhat in a do or die position."

Daviau cites the recent devastating oil spill in Vancouver's English Bay, where a well-equipped Coast Guard station minutes away from the site had already fallen victim to government cutbacks.

"There were emergency response teams set up to effectively contain those types of spills, but those teams don't exist anymore," said Daviau. "The people on those teams were dispersed to other programs and they watched on the sidelines as this spill could not be contained."

As Daviau makes clear, the union has never engaged in political activism in a federal election -- "until this one."

"And we find ourselves, in light of all of the circumstances, with no choice but to try to affect a change, so that we can have a government that reflects our values, our concerns and interests as federal employees."

***

But experts and longtime political observers warn public sector unions are "playing with fire" in an election campaign foreshadowed by unprecedented acrimony and strain between federal employee and employer.

"Are there things the government did that the unions find offensive? Yes, of course," said Donald Savoie, Canada Research Chair in public administration and governance. "But those issues should be sorted out at the collective bargaining table. I don't think they should become political issues.

"The public service, including unions, are there to serve the public interest. That's what public service is all about -- it's not there to serve their own interests.

"They're playing with fire and they ought to be very careful. Because when you're dealing with politicians, if you ask for trouble, you will get trouble."

Savoie said it's a "recent phenomenon" for public service unions to take their fight to the public sphere.

"When they did it before, they did it quietly," he said. "But to go out on a limb and become public actors and to stake out a position, I think it's inappropriate, and I would caution them to be careful. Because if I've learned anything about politicians over a lifetime of studying them, it's that politicians of all stripes, they have long memories. They do know who helped them and they do know who tried to hurt them.

"On the day after the election, if the party they don't support happens to win power, (the union) ought not to expect a friendly welcome."

Daviau insists PIPSC remains non-partisan, and unlike some of the usual union suspects, will not be endorsing a candidate.

"I want to be totally clear. We are non-partisan and we are completely in line with what has been for a long time our non-partisan policy," said Daviau.

"But that policy enables me to let our members and Canadians know about important evidence and information they need to make an informed choice about who their government should be. And we are leveraging that part of our policy to the max.

"We had the opportunity to be a leading country in wellness of public services," said Daviau. "And that is just being denigrated so far, so fast, that we are truly concerned that even a complete change in government is not going to fix what is now in a shambles." > > > nnn > > > It might be a losing battle, Savoie says.

If the union supports a party that wins election, the unions may feel that party is now in their debt, said Savoie.

On the flip side, if the party opposed by the unions wins re-election, that government could then be "hostile" to union interests.

"How do you serve the public interest if you're working for a government whose party you opposed or if you're working for a government whose party you supported?" said Savoie.

"Do you want a government that's in your debt? Or do you want a government that is hostile to your interests? Do you not think there will be some sort of ramifications?

"I think it's ill-conceived and I would issue a warning: Be careful what you wish for."

Carleton University political science professor Conrad Winn shares that sentiment.

Union campaigning, according to Winn, affects more than just the union membership.

"It contributes to an atmosphere where (the voter thinks) 'Well, maybe everyone is criticizing Harper.'

"On the other hand, if the voters get to realize that unions are paying for this, it could well give Harper a majority," said Winn.

"If it gets into the electorates' consciousness, they may well say, 'If my choice is between these anonymous union leaders running the country and Stephen Harper, I'll stick with the devil I know.'"

Savoie believes the unions "are trying to influence much more than their members."

"And to say they oppose cuts in spending, well, we have democracy, we have a Parliament, we have a Cabinet, we have a government shaped by the will of the people," said Savoie.

"A duly elected government with a majority has every right to introduce spending cuts, and they don't have to ask anybody's permission.

"If the leaders of public sector unions feel so strongly about it, then take a leave, run for office, get elected and then shape the public agenda."

Twitter: @OttSunHelmer