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.
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