If a certain group of workers is too critical to be allowed to strike, then they’re too critical to be forced to work in poor conditions. “Back to work” legislation should not exist to bind the workers, but bind the companies.
“Sorry, you’re too important to Canada’s infrastructure, you can’t be allowed to mistreat your workers. As punishment for letting it get this bad, you must agree to ALL of their terms, and in return, they’ll begin working first thing tomorrow. Guess you should have been more agreeable BEFORE the strike.”
I dunno, forcing strikes to end in any situation seems dangerously close to forced labour. But maybe I’m just a dirty commie.
BC port workers do not provide what the Canadian government defines as ‘essential services’. Minister O’Regan’s statement, implying that the membership’s rejection of the latest agreement means a settlement might be impossible and an alternative solution must be reached quickly, demonstrates the government supports the employer despite its self-claimed obligation to neutrally mediate the dispute. (Maybe the employer’s inadequate contract offers demonstrate its unwillingness to negotiate in good faith? Why must the needs of the employer and its customers determine the time frame for negotiation, and not the needs of the employees performing the work? Why must the government intervene in a legal negotiation progress?)
His trial-balloon proposal of binding arbitration is simply not acceptable if the membership itself outright rejected a deal. If the government takes that step – or even worse: back-to-work legislation – the NDP will be forced into an existential decision: support the government and make the final break away from organized labour, or force an election that both they and their Liberal counterparts do not want. It would also force union leadership and its members to demonstrate their approval/disapproval with their votes (or refusal to support political parties that show contempt for working people), or else risk irrelevancy.
This situation is politically risky for almost everyone involved.
I’d be more disgruntled if I was forced back. I’m ignorant, I have no idea what that law actually entails but I’m the kind of person I’d be so disgruntled I’d probably just walk and do something else lol.
If a certain group of workers is too critical to be allowed to strike, then they’re too critical to be forced to work in poor conditions. “Back to work” legislation should not exist to bind the workers, but bind the companies.
“Sorry, you’re too important to Canada’s infrastructure, you can’t be allowed to mistreat your workers. As punishment for letting it get this bad, you must agree to ALL of their terms, and in return, they’ll begin working first thing tomorrow. Guess you should have been more agreeable BEFORE the strike.”
I dunno, forcing strikes to end in any situation seems dangerously close to forced labour. But maybe I’m just a dirty commie.
(edited a spelling mistake)
Agreed 100%.
BC port workers do not provide what the Canadian government defines as ‘essential services’. Minister O’Regan’s statement, implying that the membership’s rejection of the latest agreement means a settlement might be impossible and an alternative solution must be reached quickly, demonstrates the government supports the employer despite its self-claimed obligation to neutrally mediate the dispute. (Maybe the employer’s inadequate contract offers demonstrate its unwillingness to negotiate in good faith? Why must the needs of the employer and its customers determine the time frame for negotiation, and not the needs of the employees performing the work? Why must the government intervene in a legal negotiation progress?)
His trial-balloon proposal of binding arbitration is simply not acceptable if the membership itself outright rejected a deal. If the government takes that step – or even worse: back-to-work legislation – the NDP will be forced into an existential decision: support the government and make the final break away from organized labour, or force an election that both they and their Liberal counterparts do not want. It would also force union leadership and its members to demonstrate their approval/disapproval with their votes (or refusal to support political parties that show contempt for working people), or else risk irrelevancy.
This situation is politically risky for almost everyone involved.
Why would the NDP have to force an election? You mean like a non confidence vote or something?
34r34r
I’d be more disgruntled if I was forced back. I’m ignorant, I have no idea what that law actually entails but I’m the kind of person I’d be so disgruntled I’d probably just walk and do something else lol.