I think it is certainly arguable, it’s fairly standard political hyperbole. Singh must remember not three months ago Bill c_58 came into effect, banning scabs (replacement workers) from being brought in during a strike or lock out.
The claim “proven again and again he will always cave to corporate greed” is, frankly, demonstrably false.
Yes, and while I am a liberal who generally supports the Liberals in Canada, I absolutely will vote to keep Pierre out of power, whatever that means at the time.
Yes, they did, and it’s arguable still. Given how many downstream jobs and the lives attached to them would be hurt by a sustained lock out of our dual member rail oligopoly I think binding arbitration is a preferrable option.
Binding arbitration is often opposed by both employers and employees, for different reasons. Amongst employers it’s because Canadian arbitrators don’t take ability to pay / fund into consideration when determining compensation and benefit changes, and so actually favor employees more.
If there’s that much of an issue, then rail employers should actually acknowledge the power of the union, negotiate, and fucking deal. The state stepping in to kill collective action here, because it might affect people over there is done not to protect the people over there, but to ensure they don’t get any ideas of their own.
I don’t beleive that cynical take for a second. The federal government has an obligation to consider the nationwide impact of a work stoppage, especially in a natural oligopoly like rail that moves a billion dollars of goods accross the country every day.
In the end the arbitration is likely to favor the workers as it has on average in Canada.
I think it is certainly arguable, it’s fairly standard political hyperbole. Singh must remember not three months ago Bill c_58 came into effect, banning scabs (replacement workers) from being brought in during a strike or lock out.
The claim “proven again and again he will always cave to corporate greed” is, frankly, demonstrably false.
Bans scabs.
Forces arbitration.
(Polinever is still a shit face baby nazi weasel)
Yes, and while I am a liberal who generally supports the Liberals in Canada, I absolutely will vote to keep Pierre out of power, whatever that means at the time.
Yes, they did, and it’s arguable still. Given how many downstream jobs and the lives attached to them would be hurt by a sustained lock out of our dual member rail oligopoly I think binding arbitration is a preferrable option.
Binding arbitration is often opposed by both employers and employees, for different reasons. Amongst employers it’s because Canadian arbitrators don’t take ability to pay / fund into consideration when determining compensation and benefit changes, and so actually favor employees more.
If there’s that much of an issue, then rail employers should actually acknowledge the power of the union, negotiate, and fucking deal. The state stepping in to kill collective action here, because it might affect people over there is done not to protect the people over there, but to ensure they don’t get any ideas of their own.
I don’t beleive that cynical take for a second. The federal government has an obligation to consider the nationwide impact of a work stoppage, especially in a natural oligopoly like rail that moves a billion dollars of goods accross the country every day. In the end the arbitration is likely to favor the workers as it has on average in Canada.