anti-scab legislation
Fri, 2007-04-06 14:23
#1
anti-scab legislation
Fri, 2007-04-06 14:23
#2
I am somewhat puzzled by Libby Davies' comments regarding anti-scab legislation. I favour it and agree with her that Dion manifested his true lab-rat character by defeating it. But the rationale he gave and which was rightfully attacked by Ms. Davies was flawed for other reasons not mentioned by Ms. Davies.
Essential government services were not affected by the legislation since this legislation did not apply to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Since about 70% of the unionized workforce are public servants, a great number of them would not have been covered by the legislation. Wouldn't it therefore make sense to introduce new legislation dealing with scabbing in the public sector?
[ 07 April 2007: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]
Sun, 2007-04-08 16:23
#3
quote:
[b][url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070321/anti_scab_0... said[/url] he supported the bill in principle but that it was too flawed, although he freed his MPs to vote their conscience.[/b]
Ya right! It's easier when your conscience has been bought off. The Liberals are well-known to be just another wing of the Conservative Party.
quote:
[b]"The bill does not clarify enough the situation of the essential workers,'' he said. "If there is a strike in a port, an airport, bank, the effect on the Canadian economy would be very huge.'' . . .But labour dismissed "apocalyptic predictions'' by business, noting that Quebec and British Columbia have had similar legislation in place for years without major disruptions.
Henri Masse, president of the Quebec Federation of Labour, said no business ever closed down because of a strike in the province.[/b]
Sun, 2007-04-08 16:46
#4
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Ya right! It's easier when your conscience has been bought off. The Liberals are well-known to be just another wing of the Conservative Party.[/b]
Fidel, this is a new thread on Bill C-257, and you missed the point of the opening post.
DonnyBGood is saying that, even had it passed, it would not have covered and federal public service employees (which he says, and I have no reason to doubt, represent 70% of unionized federally regulated employees, vs. I guess 30% who come under the Canada Labour Code).
Thus, even though the attack on Dion is correct, he is saying that Libby Davies didn't mention this glaring omission.
So, he is suggesting that the next time the legislation is brought forward, it ought to amend both the Canada Labour Code (as C-257 tried to do) and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (which C-257 was silent about).
And I agree wholeheartedly with him!
Of course, the Bill was tabled by the Bloc, and we don't know the reason for their omission - but it seems none of the parties mentioned it.
Anyone care to speculate why not - or does anyone know?
Sun, 2007-04-08 16:58
#5
I missed nothing. You still believe there's a ray of sunshine between the two old line parties. NDP'ers are under no such illusion. Dion wanted a clause to allow replacement workers or some such. How scabby can he be ?.
Dion was simply following Harper's lead on the bill proposal, and this was after Liberals indicated support for it after a second reading. Flip-flop!
[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sun, 2007-04-08 17:29
#6
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I missed nothing. You still believe there's a ray of sunshine between the two old line parties.[/b]
Again and again, don't you get tired of cooking up bland food? Where the hell did I say anything like that?
quote:
[b]Dion wanted a clause to allow replacement workers or some such.
[/b]
He wanted the word "essential" added to Section 87.4 of the Code (which actually makes it weaker, for employers, than before, but I think Dion is too stupid to understand this point); and he wanted a "clarification" that managers can still work during strikes and lockouts, which is the case under normal anti-scab legislation (as in Quйbec).
What he really wanted, of course, was for the bill to die on the order paper, so that he could pretend to support it in principle, while helping out the business lobby which was putting huge pressure to kill it.
But Fidel, why wouldn't you want to breathe deeply and realize that DonnyBGood is raising a [b]new issue[/b], namely, that the bill would not have helped federal government employees, and would still have allowed scabbing?
Sun, 2007-04-08 18:26
#7
Why is it that you and DonnyB seem to be the only two people in Canada to be pointing this out to us ?.
Your purpose here is to spew rabid anti-NDP rhetoric, over and over and ...
Sun, 2007-04-08 18:36
#8
Moderators advised. Fidel, you should be ashamed of yourself. I deal with your views, not my nightmares about you.
Sun, 2007-04-08 18:42
#9
Fidel, if you can't handle the thread topic, then post to another thread. Please stop derailing. DonnyBGood brought up a valid point and I think people would like to discuss it. No one is bashing the NDP here, certainly not the opening post.
Sun, 2007-04-08 18:45
#10
They are the exact same party. We've been over this time and again wrt FTA-NAFTA, big banking agendas, GST, 175 restrictive pieces of labour legislation since 1982, electoral reform etcetera. There's no discernable daylight between the two old line parties, still in power and sharing power since troops on horseback policed breadlines in Tsarist era Russia.
And Liberals and Conservatives were in perfect harmony voting down C-257. What's new ?. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2007-04-08 18:50
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Fidel, if you can't handle the thread topic, then post to another thread. Please stop derailing. DonnyBGood brought up a valid point and I think people would like to discuss it. No one is bashing the NDP here, certainly not the opening post.[/b]
I'm merely asking the author of the thread or unionist for a source on this matter, if that's not too much to ask. Has anyone else besides the two people in this thread discovered it to be a real flaw in C-257 ?.
Sun, 2007-04-08 18:55
#12
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
Has anyone else besides the two people in this thread discovered it to be a real flaw in C-257 ?.[/b]
Fidel. If C-257 passed, the federal government could still legally hire scabs. How many people would you like to point out that flaw? 50% + 1?
ETA: The Machinists' Union mentioned on their website that Bill C-257 didn't apply to the federal public service.
[url=http://www.iamaw.ca/campaigns/scabs/whoppers_e.html]The IAM&AW website:[/url]
quote:
WHOPPER #3 We cannot allow the public service to be shut down.
The answer: Bill C-257 is all about workplaces regulated by the
Canada Labour Code. Public Service employees and their labour relations are dealt with by another piece of legislation entirely – the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The same is true for the employees of Parliament, including the House of Commons and the Senate – whose labour relations are governed by the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.
[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sun, 2007-04-08 18:56
#13
source please ?. Of course there has to be an essential worker clause. But what does that have to do with the Liberals chiming in with the Tories with yet another pro-big business anti-worker maneuver ...again ?. And why so upset after I refused to accept your condescending remarks in the first place ?. Fight back, use your words, post actual sources to back it up, is all I'm suggesting.
[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sun, 2007-04-08 19:05
#14
What do you want, Fidel? A "source" to prove that federal public service isn't covered by Bill C-257? They're not covered by the Canada Labour Code, and C-257 only amends the Canada Labour Code - which covers broadcast workers, bank workers, transportation workers, etc. - but [b]not[/b] employees of the federal government or of Parliament.
Do you doubt the truth of what I've just said? You want a "source", meaning, someone other than unionist who says it?
Why don't you just read the legislation for yourself, if you don't believe me, the opening poster, and the IAM&AW.
Sun, 2007-04-08 19:12
#15
Well that's true, now that you've back-tracked and posted an actual source up there. But who was contesting the fact ?. And how many other workers across Canada would the legislation have covered ?.
Liberal, Tory, it's the same old story.
Sun, 2007-04-08 19:16
#16
Ok, I hereby officially give up. We'll resume after the holiday cheer has died down a bit.
Sun, 2007-04-08 19:30
#17
As far as I can tell, C-257 doesn't compromise essential services in the same way that B.C. and Quebec's existing anti-scab laws do not, because essential service workers are covered by Part I of the Canadian Labour Code, another law altogether. And I don't appreciate this rabid personal attack, unionist. It's uncalled for really.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Thus, even though the attack on Dion is correct, he is saying that Libby Davies didn't mention this glaring omission.[/b]
What glaring omission?. In what way are B.C. and Quebec's anti-scab laws superior to C-257, the bill proposal flipped and flopped on by Dion's Liberals ?. Thusly, I think the "glaring omission" is much ado about nowt if you ask me. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sun, 2007-04-08 19:53
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
In what way are B.C. and Quebec's anti-scab laws superior to C-257, the bill proposal flipped and flopped on by Dion's Liberals ?. [/b]
B.C. and Quйbec's laws cover [b]ALL[/b] provincial-jurisdiction enterprises in their respective provinces.
Bill C-257 covers only [b]SOME[/b] federal-jurisdiction enterprises - the ones governed by the Canada Labour Code. It [b]OMITS[/b] all employees of the federal government itself - well over 100,000 of them - and of Parliament.
Sun, 2007-04-08 20:30
#19
Well Videotron workers in Quebec were not covered by anti-scab, and 350, 000 work days were lost during that strike. And Secur workers faced replacement workers in 2002 after voting for strike action.
And Ontario's very first NDP government enacted anti-scab, and one year before B.C. did, in 1992. It lasted until Mike Harris and his scabby outfit were hired on.
Of course, they are two different levels of government with different essential workers.
quote:
IAMAW on C-257: Essential services are already defined and protected under Part One of the Canada Labour Code – in section 87.4 to be specific ... [b]"This reasonable balance[/b] is consistent with the laws that have been in place in Quebec for 30 years and British Columbia for nearly 15 years."
And how many times have federal employers used scabs in a labour dispute?
[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sun, 2007-04-08 21:06
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Well Videotron workers in Quebec were not covered by anti-scab, and 350, 000 work days were lost during that strike.[/b]
That's right, Fidel. Videotron workers are federal jurisdiction. They're covered by the Canada Labour Code. Quйbec has no constitutional power to legislate for them - nor for airline workers, railways, interprovincial truck-drivers, bank employees, marine workers, or (to get back to the original point) federal government employees working in Quйbec.
That's why a bill is needed in the federal House. But to Donny's point, it should cover not only the Canada Labour Code, but also the PLSRA.
I have no idea why the Bloc left out the PLSRA (federal govt. employees) when they tabled Bill C-257, but none of the parties picked up on it.
[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sun, 2007-04-08 21:12
#21
Are scab workers a problem for federal employees in strike situations ?. Maybe they didn't pick up on it because employers like Videotron and Sйcur are more of going a concern?.
quote:
NUPGE says: In June 2002, a security worker hired by International Truck (Navistar) in Chatham Ontario to break the CAW strike, drove over a picketer and injured four others in the process. The strike was prompted by demands for concessions and aggravated by the use of a strike-breaking company.
These workers would have been covered by C-263(tabled in 2004) and C-257, again voted down by the Liberals and Tories and so on and so on. Same-old same-old. It just doesn't matter when we have an effective pro-big business majority of Liberals and Tories working "synergistically" together to put the kibosh to workers.
[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sun, 2007-04-08 21:31
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Are scab workers a problem for federal employees in strike situations ?. Maybe they didn't pick up on it because employers like Videotron and Sйcur are more of a concern?.[/b]
You mean federal government employees? I don't really know the extent of the problem. I'm sure you're right about the problem being more visible in non-governmental federal enterprises. In the old days, when the post office was still a government department, I know they used to keep hiring casual labour (or trying to) during CUPW strikes. Bill C-257 wouldn't have stopped that in its present form.
Sun, 2007-04-08 21:46
#23
In my hometown, post office jobs were traditionally reserved for veterans of war and the like. Now they've got private courier services delivering mail to drop boxes and delivering parcels to postal outlets. That citizen purports to be a shining example for private enterprising success because he wangled the contract. I do believe he's a connected "party member" and dues paid in full. Mail is still delivered by unionized workers though ... I think ?.
[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Tue, 2007-04-10 14:13
#24
What I am seeing (inside the belly of the whale as they say) is that the proportion of unions that are effective is quite small. Probably about 15% of the workforce.
Public sector unions have virtually no real power to affect things like staffing, rates of pay, and pension entitlements. The protections we have are those that have been grandfathered in the last century.
How can you have a meaningful picket if after a strike the employer simply tells employees that they will "look the other way" when time sheets are not submitted reporting lost days?
Banning scabs might prevent managers buying employees with their own wages in the face of a neutered management that cannot bat an eyelash without the consent of the Treasury Board.
Tue, 2007-04-10 14:23
#25
quote:
Originally posted by DonnyBGood:
[b]
Public sector unions have virtually no real power to affect things like staffing, rates of pay, and pension entitlements. The protections we have are those that have been grandfathered in the last century.[/b]
That's a vital point that few non-public service workers are aware of.
Federal public service collective agreements don't mention seniority - it's actually illegal to use anything other than "merit" in deciding who gets a position, a promotion, or who gets laid off. Thus, there is no mention of layoffs or of advertising jobs and bidding for them. They don't mention health benefits (those are handled by the NJC). They don't mention pensions - those are provided by the Superannuation Act and are non-negotiable. Oh, and classification of positions (which ones are higher, or lower, or by how much) is non-negotiable too!
The Fryer Commission and subsequent "modernization" of the Public Service Employment act and the PSSRA (replaced now by the PSLRA) did nothing to address the above injustices.
In a sense, then, the question of anti-scab legislation doesn't even arise as a priority. The first priority (IMHO) is fully free collective bargaining - the right to put everything on the table.
Tue, 2007-04-10 18:48
#26
quote:
In a sense, then, the question of anti-scab legislation doesn't even arise as a priority. The first priority (IMHO) is fully free collective bargaining - the right to put everything on the table.
Staffing is the key thing without the right to negotiate the alkocation of work and how it is organized corporatism runs rampant.