Pay equity - Canada moves back, U.S. forward By: martin dufresne (15 replies) January 29, 2009 - 5:26pm
- Dr. Dawg provides some By: pogge (Mar 7 2009 - 6:41pm)
- Michelle wrote:Is there any By: Bärlüer (Mar 7 2009 - 5:32pm)
- Refuge wrote: I don't know By: Refuge (Mar 4 2009 - 8:27am)
- The fight to keep pay equity By: martin dufresne (Mar 3 2009 - 9:57am)
- The punitive measures By: radiorahim (Feb 25 2009 - 11:21pm)
- Here it is from the By: Refuge (Feb 25 2009 - 7:32pm)
- Does anyone have the exact By: Unionist (Feb 25 2009 - 9:48am)
- Refuge wrote: yeah, IMO I By: It's Me D (Feb 25 2009 - 9:45am)
- yeah, IMO I think that is By: Refuge (Feb 25 2009 - 9:32am)
- Re: Pay equity - Canada moves back, U.S. forward By: Stargazer (Feb 25 2009 - 9:06am)
- Michelle wrote: Is there By: Refuge (Feb 25 2009 - 8:53am)
- Re: Pay equity - Canada moves back, U.S. forward By: Michelle (Feb 25 2009 - 7:37am)
- The way our system works is, By: Maysie (Feb 25 2009 - 6:20am)
- So this means that a human By: Pride for Red Dolores (Feb 25 2009 - 12:46am)
- The more I think about this By: Loretta (Feb 15 2009 - 7:44pm)
Yes: the so-called "Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act", contained in the Budget Implementation Act (Bill C-10), will certainly be subjected to a constitutional challenge (as will probably the "Expenditure Restraint Act", also included in Bill C-10, which legislates wage increases).
The Act is truly atrocious. (This analysis explains reasonably well why that is.) The fact that the Harper government was so heavy-handed (in some respects) in drafting this anti-women legislation—by including fines up to $50,000 for unions who "encourage or assist [an] employee in filing or proceeding with a complaint under [the] Act", to cite one of the most egregious examples—will ironically be helpful to those who will challenge the law.