NDP Leadership # 141

Unionist wrote:

Kinetix wrote:

The government that Mulcair was a part of was much of the reason why that 'economic tide' has hit Quebec, and his votes have directly opposed aforementioned union benefits and the right of workers to organize.

Now there's an interesting statement. What, exactly, are you talking about? The "right of workers to organize"... Explain to me what has happened on that front? I must have missed it.

Mulcair helped introduce two bills which together overturned the organization drive of Quebec's child care workers even though they met the legal conditions to organize. Later he voted to discard the current collective agreement with provincial public servants and imposed a new contract unilaterally. Later, he voted in favour of amending the labour code to allow departments of the public service to contract out jobs done by employees of those departments if non-union alternatives were available more cheaply in the private sector.

Mulcair was a cabinet minister in one of the most right wing, anti-labour, anti-progressive, allegedly corrupt provincial governments that this province and this country have ever seen and for some reason the rest of the NDP doesn't talk about it because we either are blinded by the fact that we broke through in qQuebec or because we don't want to discuss news articles that have been written in French. Why not? Because the rest of Canada doesn't follow the news there.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

I think there are some good unions out there, and there are some unions who are too busily protecting their own members interest at the expense of those who dont have unions or are just temp workers. The truth is, if you want to protect the union benefits and the idea of senority, there are less chances for those who are trying to gain entry to the workforce; most people dont have job security at all..as a leader, you have to appeal to the NEW labour, not just old labour.

Unions look out primarily for their own members, especially when company is threatening layoffs,but  the job of a political leader is look out for all members of society.

 

I like unions, but theres got to be a balance; unions do improve the overall standard of workers condition; but increasingly, the main purpose of unions is simply to keep and protect the existing job protections of those who are already in an union...and their rhetoric about soldarity doesnt fly..i am sorry..

I really don't agree with this at all. I see many campaigns and I see where unions are placing their efforts.

Have you had a good look at the campaigns of major unions?

On pensions just for one?

I am pretty bias, i am just speaking from my own recent experience, i saw a press release from a particular union that argued temp workers should be the first one to go ahead of those who are in the unions in time of layoffs , since temp workers are not real workers. I think since so many company uses temp workers as well as unionized workers, there can be alot of tension; but i didnt expect the union to go out of their way to argue temp workers should be let go first in the name of fairness..i dont think its fair at all

i know not all unions are like that, but my personal experience has now made me somewhat angry at unions, maybe even irrationally. I dont think theres anything fair at all about giving the most protection to those who have been in the unions for the longest; i dont understand that logic, those people earned the most money and have the most protection, and i dont see how thats fair that they should be protected at the expense of those who are newer to the workplace and are desperate for income.