Ugh. Canada may soon have outlawed "scab" workers.

[yllus]

Don't let C-257 become law

If the C-257 becomes law, airports and airlines, railroads, shipping companies, mines, broadcasters, banks, ports and cable and telephone providers could be forced to close during strikes. Not only would the law forbid outside workers from being brought in to replace striking unionists, workers from other bargaining units within the same companies would be barred, too. Only executives and managers would be permitted to assume union jobs, which in most cases would mean the large federally regulated companies covered would have to cease operations for the duration of the dispute.

If, for example, airport refuellers struck, other ground crew would be forbidden from assuming their duties, so passenger and cargo planes would be grounded.

In other industrialized jurisdictions with replacement worker bans, strikes are 60% longer than in jurisdictions without such laws. Union wages, too, rise out of proportion to market forces since employers are eager to sue for peace during negotiations, just to prevent a lingering strike.

Thanks Liberals, I'm glad to see that your political interests in getting the union vote on your side before the upcoming election has outweighed the consequences of this proposed law. :roll: I swear to Vishnu that party is utterly falling apart at the seams.

Update: Last night at 5:30 PM, bill C-257 was put up for its final reading. It was defeated 177-122 via votes by the Conservatives and a majority of the Liberals, with the Bloc and NDP in support. More: Globe & Mail.

 

[Amused]

So much for equal protection under the law. :roll:

 

[ShotgunSteven]

If that passes, the Canadian government will probably move to unionize.

 

[leftyman]

Just keep that Canadian beer flowing.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

I heard a rumor that all Canadians are vampires. I asked a Canadian friend of mine, but he said it's not true. But to me that sounds like something a vampire would tell you.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
I heard a rumor that all Canadians are vampires. I asked a Canadian friend of mine, but he said it's not true. But to me that sounds like something a vampire would tell you.

We Canadians proudly boast a 99.8% vampire-free population.

*lunges at your neck*

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
I heard a rumor that all Canadians are vampires. I asked a Canadian friend of mine, but he said it's not true. But to me that sounds like something a vampire would tell you.

We Canadians proudly boast a 99.8% vampire-free population.

*lunges at your neck*

So .2% of your population are politicians?

 

[bignateyk]

Fvckin unions. IMHO, in the event of a strike, the company should have no obligation to have your job waiting for you when you decide to return.

 

[meltdown75]

I wonder if you would have the same attitude if you were working on a line somewhere and went on strike only to have some scab come in and do your job for half the money.

That's the problem with union talk on this board. Most of the people that run unions and their members through the mud have never been a part of either. Put yourself in their position.

I'm not pro-union by any stretch but the anti-union attitude here is has always irked me.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: yllus
Don't let C-257 become law

If the C-257 becomes law, airports and airlines, railroads, shipping companies, mines, broadcasters, banks, ports and cable and telephone providers could be forced to close during strikes. Not only would the law forbid outside workers from being brought in to replace striking unionists, workers from other bargaining units within the same companies would be barred, too. Only executives and managers would be permitted to assume union jobs, which in most cases would mean the large federally regulated companies covered would have to cease operations for the duration of the dispute.

If, for example, airport refuellers struck, other ground crew would be forbidden from assuming their duties, so passenger and cargo planes would be grounded.

In other industrialized jurisdictions with replacement worker bans, strikes are 60% longer than in jurisdictions without such laws. Union wages, too, rise out of proportion to market forces since employers are eager to sue for peace during negotiations, just to prevent a lingering strike.

Thanks Liberals, I'm glad to see that your political interests in getting the union vote on your side before the upcoming election has outweighed the consequences of this proposed law. :roll: I swear to Vishnu that party is utterly falling apart at the seams.

They must have been paid buckets of cash for that one.

 

[dennilfloss]

Quebec has had antiscab legislation for years.

 

[mugs]

Those are exactly the types of business that shouldn't be forced to close for a strike.

 

[JS80]

Didn't canucks just elect a Republican equivalent PM (Martin?)?

 

[fenrir]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I wonder if you would have the same attitude if you were working on a line somewhere and went on strike only to have some scab come in and do your job for half the money.

That's the problem with union talk on this board. Most of the people that run unions and their members through the mud have never been a part of either. Put yourself in their position.

I'm not pro-union by any stretch but the anti-union attitude here is has always irked me.

So, the union workers are getting paid twice as much as what a non-union shop would pay, but they are still striking? That is what is wrong with unions. If you are getting paid twice as much as what a non-union shop would pay, you have no business striking unless it is related to safety issues.

 

[Sphexi]

There was a railroad workers strike a few weeks back, the government was considering passing legislation to force the workers back to work to prevent business losses from mounting. Even if this does pass, the government can still force striking workers back to their jobs if they see the need to, which in the case of airlines I think they would.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: fenrir

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I wonder if you would have the same attitude if you were working on a line somewhere and went on strike only to have some scab come in and do your job for half the money.

That's the problem with union talk on this board. Most of the people that run unions and their members through the mud have never been a part of either. Put yourself in their position.

I'm not pro-union by any stretch but the anti-union attitude here is has always irked me.

So, the union workers are getting paid twice as much as what a non-union shop would pay, but they are still striking? That is what is wrong with unions. If you are getting paid twice as much as what a non-union shop would pay, you have no business striking unless it is related to safety issues.

I was using that as an example and was exaggerating at that. I think we can all agree that scabs do the jobs in question for less money, obviously undermining the effectiveness of the striking workers. All scabs do is interfere with the inevitable, which is the company and the union working out their issues. If unions don't have power through action then they are completely useless. Again, probably something most of this board would concede anyway until their jobs and rights thereto are being protected by a union.

 

[Tobolo]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I wonder if you would have the same attitude if you were working on a line somewhere and went on strike only to have some scab come in and do your job for half the money.

That's the problem with union talk on this board. Most of the people that run unions and their members through the mud have never been a part of either. Put yourself in their position.

I'm not pro-union by any stretch but the anti-union attitude here is has always irked me.

Don't complain. They have it great. If I up and decided to "strike" I would not have a job. It is like when the Delta pilots were going to strike if they cut their pay. They could keep there jobs and there money no matter what. But it would have put thousands of others out of work because of their selfishness. No "scabs" could replace them and we would have the same issue as in Canada.

People use to strike for fair wages and fair treatment. Now they strike if they don't make 6 figures or only have 2 coffee breaks a day.

Thats why I fn hate unions.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: fenrir

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I wonder if you would have the same attitude if you were working on a line somewhere and went on strike only to have some scab come in and do your job for half the money.

That's the problem with union talk on this board. Most of the people that run unions and their members through the mud have never been a part of either. Put yourself in their position.

I'm not pro-union by any stretch but the anti-union attitude here is has always irked me.

So, the union workers are getting paid twice as much as what a non-union shop would pay, but they are still striking? That is what is wrong with unions. If you are getting paid twice as much as what a non-union shop would pay, you have no business striking unless it is related to safety issues.

I was using that as an example and was exaggerating at that. I think we can all agree that scabs do the jobs in question for less money, obviously undermining the effectiveness of the striking workers. All scabs do is interfere with the inevitable, which is the company and the union working out their issues. If unions don't have power through action then they are completely useless. Again, probably something most of this board would concede anyway until their jobs and rights thereto are being protected by a union.

unions are an impedance to decent society.

i say do away with them in their entirety. forcefully, even where not necessary.

 

[fenrir]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I was using that as an example and was exaggerating at that. I think we can all agree that scabs do the jobs in question for less money, obviously undermining the effectiveness of the striking workers. All scabs do is interfere with the inevitable, which is the company and the union working out their issues. If unions don't have power through action then they are completely useless. Again, probably something most of this board would concede anyway until their jobs and rights thereto are being protected by a union.

I understand it was just an example, but by using an exaggeration, you feed into the bad rep that unions have.

While I like the concept of unions, there is serious abuse of power by many of them. By not allowing replacement workers, the union has all the power. The company can either give in to demands or fold up shop. This leads to the abuse of power that we see from many unions. There has to be some balance.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I wonder if you would have the same attitude if you were working on a line somewhere and went on strike only to have some scab come in and do your job for half the money.

That's the problem with union talk on this board. Most of the people that run unions and their members through the mud have never been a part of either. Put yourself in their position.

I'm not pro-union by any stretch but the anti-union attitude here is has always irked me.

If the company has to shut down when there is a strike, that gives the union a lot more leverage than they should have. They shouldn't have any more leverage than they can exert by not coming to work. If the company can hire replacement workers for less money, why should they have to bother with union workers who are demanding more money? This will force companies to pay union workers above market value.

 

[cyclistca]

The bill is being sponsored by the opposition (The Bloc Quebecois to be exact). It would go against everything the present party in power stands for. I hope it goes down. Unions already have too much power.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: fenrir

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I was using that as an example and was exaggerating at that. I think we can all agree that scabs do the jobs in question for less money, obviously undermining the effectiveness of the striking workers. All scabs do is interfere with the inevitable, which is the company and the union working out their issues. If unions don't have power through action then they are completely useless. Again, probably something most of this board would concede anyway until their jobs and rights thereto are being protected by a union.

I understand it was just an example, but by using an exaggeration, you feed into the bad rep that unions have.

While I like the concept of unions, there is serious abuse of power by many of them. By not allowing replacement workers, the union has all the power. The company can either give in to demands or fold up shop. This leads to the abuse of power that we see from many unions. There has to be some balance.

I agree on the abuse of power issue and I see a lot of it where I work & live, with such a huge portion of the local workforce working for the Big 3 auto companies. However I just do not support the involvement of scab workers when the real workers are striking. One way you have the scabs working and the absolute power of the company, and the other way you have the strike being effective (or somewhat effective) and the union still retaining some power. I guess I am biased because I have been and still am a member of a union which has went to bat for my job more than once... so I'm biased and should probably just shut up.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I wonder if you would have the same attitude if you were working on a line somewhere and went on strike only to have some scab come in and do your job for half the money.

That's the problem with union talk on this board. Most of the people that run unions and their members through the mud have never been a part of either. Put yourself in their position.

I'm not pro-union by any stretch but the anti-union attitude here is has always irked me.

If the company has to shut down when there is a strike, that gives the union a lot more leverage than they should have. They shouldn't have any more leverage than they can exert by not coming to work. If the company can hire replacement workers for less money, why should they have to bother with union workers who are demanding more money? This will force companies to pay union workers above market value.

Why don't we just move all the jobs to Mexico? I hear the market value of workers is pretty cheap down there.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I wonder if you would have the same attitude if you were working on a line somewhere and went on strike only to have some scab come in and do your job for half the money.

That's the problem with union talk on this board. Most of the people that run unions and their members through the mud have never been a part of either. Put yourself in their position.

I'm not pro-union by any stretch but the anti-union attitude here is has always irked me.

If the company has to shut down when there is a strike, that gives the union a lot more leverage than they should have. They shouldn't have any more leverage than they can exert by not coming to work. If the company can hire replacement workers for less money, why should they have to bother with union workers who are demanding more money? This will force companies to pay union workers above market value.

Why don't we just move all the jobs to Mexico? I hear the market value of workers is pretty cheap down there.

A good way to encourage companies to move manufacturing to Mexico would be by demanding wages above market value. :thumbsup:

If you want to use a union to increase your bargaining power, that's fine. But the government shouldn't increase your bargaining power even more at the expense of your employer. Forcing them to shut down would be tipping the balance way too far in the favor of the union.

 

[blakeatwork]

I remember first hearing about no-scab laws in 1994, when MLB was on strike, as the Blue Jays were going to be forced to pay at their Spring Training Complex, due to Labour Law forbidding replacement players taking the field...

It's a ridiculous concept, especially in industries that run 24/7/365, such as transport. Too bad unions wouldn't get back to the basics of protecting workers from unfair working conditions, not pushing to drive business OUT OF business (see Chrysler)