Sask government wants to make dues optional
Just announced it this morning.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2012/05/02/sk-union-due...
This is not the first time the province has tried to weasel its way around something that has already been ruled on by the supreme court.
Last time they tried to find a way around the rules requiring marriage commissioners to do their jobs when asked, a move which was called "disturbing" and a waste of tax dollars.
But their are going to try again to see if they can manage a technical squeaker in order to break the law.
Minister Don Morgan also announced they will also look at forcing unions to collect their own dues, instead of having it taken out with payroll.
Course it was also announced this morning that we might be getting a new football stadium paid for by the province, so who cares about that other stuff? Saskatchewan may not be in the film business or the grocery business, but at least they are in the football business.
G-d bless the Rand formula.
If successive NDP governments, starting with Blakeney, didn't attack workers - because workers have nowhere else to go, right, so let's broaden our base by appealing to small business folks, hey, brilliant theory - then maybe the wannabe fascists wouldn't be in power right now.
I hear you, Unionist. But I get the feeling that Brad Wall particularly enjoys his work.
And I don't mean to imply that I don't get your point, but I don't think "broadening their base" was the only factor in winding up with caucus that can all fit in a suburban (as one newly-elected member noted).
And you have a problem with small business folks? *grin*
Absolutely not. But I have a problem with Saskatchewan NDP genius strategists who believe that the way to win the hearts and minds of small business folks is to legislate striking workers back to work on the eve of an election. Who woulda thunk the workers would abandon them - and the small business folks wouldn't rush into their arms either!!!??? Curses, foiled again...
If you need any historical footnoting (I kinda think you already know the history), let me know.
No Unionist, I don't need any footnotes, thanks, but feel free to drop me a line if you need any pointers with politics in Quebec, okay?
And truth be told, I don't need any direction to find shit to throw at the NDP, though as you probably know, it wasn't all to do with labour.They dug themselves into a hole on a number of issues, including some on which labour has been onside, like nuclear power.
And although you mention Blakeney as the turning point, I think Tommy started with the back-to-work legislation in 1954.
Basically, I get your point, but this was not the only thing that went into turning the politics of this province. There was plenty more, including some things that might not be so easy for you to parse.
I didn't mean to give an overall analysis of what went wrong. I don't have the knowledge, besides anything else, and you do. All I meant was to comment on the very narrow issue of the Rand formula. The NDP in power couldn't respect negotiated collective agreements and the Charter freedom of association (including free collective bargaining, although in fairness they could plead ignorance because the Supreme Court hadn't made that explict yet). Even though they pioneered the entrenchment of the Rand formula in Saskatchewan, the fact that Brad Wall and his gangsters would even dare question it (it has not been questioned anywhere else in Canada to my knowledge) is a testament to the many years of betrayal which made such a travesty possible.
Will the Saskatchewan NDP stand up against this attack - or will they play coward as they have for so many years on (e.g.) anti-scab legislation? You know better than I, but my optimism is zero on that front. Labour has no political voice worth speaking of.
Indeed, they are fighting on several fronts, with few resources. It is hard to say how it will all go at this point, especially since the party has yet to decide on a new head and a new direction. THey may yet decide to pick up that shovel again.
And I was just kind of yanking your chain. I know you are on the whole far more familiar with labour issues than I am, regardless of what part of Canada we are discussing.
Though while the subject of this thread is pretty clearly a labour issue; the question about the decline of the NDP is a bit more multi-faceted.
There is no constitutional impediment to Wall legislating the Rand formula out of existence. The Supreme Court said that where a province has a Rand formula that it is not a Charter violation to impose mandatory dues. I don't believe the SCC has ever ruled that the Rand formula is required by the Charter. Religious exemptions are standard and have never been a major issue of contention with most unions.
The writing quality of this piece is extremely poor. The "journalist" didn't know enough about the labour or legal background to tell the story and didn't take the time to learn it before writing a piece of drivel. Pretty typical of CBC news in this day and age.
Yes, those starving people are such an embarrassment. Can't tell their dessert spoons from the soup spoons.
And they just get in there with their hands. ewww.....
That's what they make the comment section for, k. So you can set them straight.
What the fuck are you on about. Your creeptic post has me baffled. Starving people and embarrassment????
Sorry k, I thought for a moment there you were one of the people who think that CBC has been cut back to a worthless shell of itself, in which case I was wondering why you were blaming that lack of resources on the victim.
I guess you are of the opinion that the CBC takes its marching orders from the PMO, and is just another arm of the Harper government. Again, sorry for the false assumption.
In any case, if you think it's a bad piece of writing, fine. I actually think that as a spot news piece it answers all the immediate questions. If it were an editorial or feature I would expect a bit more analysis, but from the looks of it this was posted pretty soon after the announcement.
But if you think something has been left out, or if you want to voice your opinion, by all means write in.
6079 PLEASE quit guessing at what I mean and just read the words I fucking well type. You are annoying with your, "I guess you are of the opinion" bullshit.
I was once a very vocal supporter of the CBC I now am now not.
Well whatever your feeling, I guess we disagree on the piece and the skills of the writer, because I don't think it is drivel at all, just spot news. The writer may be just as aware of Bill 80, and certain campaign platforms as you and I are; that doesn't mean there was time to pen a novella before deadline.
And my advice still stands; if you feel you want to add something, go ahead.
Keep your fucking advice to your self you arrogant twit.
Sorry I thought there for a minute you were one of those people under Harper's control. As it is carry on in the way you always do.
Actually, I was just curious about your strong reaction to the story, Still don't understand what your problem with it is. Hence my wondering what your point was WRT the CBC.
And my only advice was that if you had a beef about it or felt they had left something out you could certainly write in.
In any case, you have a good evening.
All that is accurate - except that the Court (in Lavigne) wasn't necessarily talking about a province that legislates the Rand formula, it was talking about any union that has collectively bargained mandatory dues checkoff.
When I mentioned previous NDP governments not respect workers' fundamental rights, I didn't mean to imply that the Rand formula had any constitutional protection. Of course, it doesn't. All I meant was that a party which had violated constitutional freedoms of workers might have a hard time staunchly defending merely statutory rights.
I'm not really concerned about that U, because certainly they will try, and of course a political party is not one thing. And besides, there is no party that hasn't changed its position on some issue based on circumstance.
I mean I get your point; I just think it is moot.
My point was that labour in Saskatchewan has no political voice. If that's the point you got, fine. If you think it is "moot", then I guess I don't get your point.
No, the only thing I see as moot is the fact that the NDP has attacked labour in the past. I am sure they will do what they can in this, and I don't see that past actions like that will necessarily damage their credibility.
More importantly they are not very strong right now for a number of reasons. So on the larger question you are right.
The only bright light I see in this is that the supreme court has already ruled on part of this, and I wonder why the province once again trying to second-guess them.
As for the dues collection question, I haven't a clue what is going to happen with that.
The CBC story does not make a mention of the place the Rand formula has played in labour stability. If just mouths the corporate story without giving any background into the history. Just minor tinkering at the edges is the distinct imprecision of the piece instead of at least a passing reference to the fact that this is an attack on the very foundations of our labour relations system. But then all those kinds of issues are moot in this Brave New World.
I agree that it was well written from a corporate media perspective. I don't hate the CBC I just put them into the same category as the CTV and Global. The only reason I even mention it is because I at one time had respect for the CBC but that was back in the days when it could be called a public broadcaster not state media. I find the current CBC journalists to be as unbiased as Press TV journalists.
Really?
The third paragraph points out the the most important point in that the supreme court has already upheld the right of unions to collect dues. It doesn't mention Justice Rand by name (since it probably refers more specifically to a later decision) but the principle is pretty clear.
And really, with little else to stand in the way of the government at this point, I think much of this is going to come down to the Supreme Court telling them to fuck off and not waste their time. I see it as less of a corporate story than a story which shows the Wall government acting like weasels.
And I don't know what you have been hearing elsewhere, but some of the later and more detailed coverage on CBC I have heard is asking more explicitly why the government is wasting time and money on something which has been clearly established. And the specific anti-union angle of a lot of their actions and legislation has hardly been hidden or downplayed on CBC. Nor, for that matter, in the dailies, since it has become clear this is an obsession of Mr. Wall's.
But whatever; your opinion is your opinion.
Really you will let me have an opinion that differs from yours. Thank you kind sir. The magnitude of your commitment to noblesse oblige is inspiring. FYI I don't often listen to the CBC anymore or read their shit unless it is posted someplace like this.
If I was given to making suggestions as to the best way to enlighten you I would recommend that you reread Manufacturing Consent. But I try not to be that arrogant so just carry on in your admiration for its wonderful progressive and unbiased coverage.
Yes, k. I just acknowledged that you see it a bit differently than I do.
Apparently this is just one of many pieces of labour and standards laws that are going to be reviewed over the next 90 days before being introduced in the fall. On the noon show today, Terry Parker who is quoted in the article below, questioned whether the province is actually interested in having a genuine consultation, given the scope and the time frame. He suspects that they might have the legislation draughted and ready to go.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2012/05/03/sk-union-rea...