Canada Post filibuster

Jacob de Zoet wrote:

Unionist, I hope that someone from the NDP caucus offices reads this, but assuming they are kind of busy at the moment, is there some one specific to whom you could email your suggestion?

Done - sent it to Tom Mulcair (my MP) and cc'ed Jack Layton. Thanks for the suggestion.

Quote:

I had a chance to catch about an hour of the filibuster. I see the Harperites are into full redbaiting mode - now referring to the NDP as "the Socialist Party".

This is an excellent opportunity for the NDP to show the people whose side the socialists are on, and thus on whose side the Harpocrites are against.

Quote:

Ginny Sims gave a great speech...

Ginny Sims? Neat! Is there an Ish Kabibble in the caucus as well?

Quote:

In the time since I made that last post (#5) the SGEU caved and accepted the government's first and final offer of 5.5%, in the face of a big show trial in the legislature against the enemies of the people.

Uh oh.

That's my union. We're in contract limbo right now, and aren't even negotiating any more. Last February the negotiating team told us they were holding off on striking until the contracts of some of our brothers and sisters in other fields came up for negotiation, and then we'd all go out together. It looks as if that plan isn't going ahead.

By the way, I'm happy to see the NDP standing up for the Canadian working class with this filibuster.

Mulcair is replying to the Minister, this could be winding down, it sounds like a summation and the House is full. Parliamentary democracy is making a come back. I am waiting for him to cite Unionist.

How about Yvon Godin who just asked if parliament would agree to pay new MPs less than re-elected MPs? Brian Topp has piece:  http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brian-topp/2011/06/we-finally-have-real-...

Apparently, the MPs are no longer taking the opportunity to debate for the sections subsequent to section 2, even though it is sections 3 through 6 that actually force the workers to go back to work.

Now unto amendments. First amendment to be considered, introduced by Yvon Godin, seeks to remove "final offer selection" from the parameters that would govern the arbitrator's mandate. (From what I understand.)

http://www.cupw.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/13410/la_id/1.htm

Lisa Raitt just said that the bill was aimed at serving the interests of "real Canadians"—or something of that ilk.

Apparently, Canadians who believe in (the constitutionally-protected right of) collective bargaining are "fake Canadians".

We now have our own Bachmann/Palin clone (cf. their "real Americans" comments)...

Real Canadians are of course (in the view of the government):

1) those who vote conservative

2) those with incomes over $100k

3) those who own their own businesses (provided they vote Conservative and are not involved in the arts)

4) Those who hate unions

5) Those who vote Conservative

Oh yes and those who buy little Harper dolls for the kiddies along with games like "Stop the immigrants"  "Shoot the protester" and "Monopolies"

I find it hilarious that the shadow tories (other opposition) wants a compromise on rights... You can't compromise on a right, you can't split it in half.

JeffWells wrote:

 

Godin is showing himself to be a giant. Very impressed by him every time I've caught him on his feet.

 

Well... he did say at one point this evening that if we didn't have this "democratic" parliament (those are my quote marks, not his), we'd be like those countries where we have to send our soldiers to bring them democracy. Other than that little lapse (which sounded, curiously, a little like the Harper govt's justification for anti-worker legislation), he's ok I guess.

There are a couple of tweets by Charlie Angus on the purpose of the Filibuster:
. We pushed for dbate this weekend to raise public awareness of harper's attack on pblc service pensions-wages.
. Getting set for the 6am shift. 48 hours til monday. The cons can compromise or argue round the clock.
. Delmaestro blames union thugs in ptbrgh. C alexander calls us commies-moscow. Surprised?

And, in a day or two, this very very long "Thursday" will be up on line (some of it already is):

http://www.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&P...

After watching several hours of the postal debate I would like to make a few general comments.
1. The new NDP MPs equipped themselves very well. They made valid points quite eloquently and kept their cool in the face of some shameless red-baiting from the government benches. I think the initial perception that they are a bunch of placeholders will have to be re-assessed by the media who will have to acknowledge that there is some real talent there.
2. The low level of debate, both in content and delivery, from the Conservative back bench really surprised me. I would have thought, confident in their majority, they would have simply let the opposition talk itself out. Instead they were consistently shallow, mendacious, insulting and rude. It is hard to count the number of cheap slurs: comrades, socialists, union bosses, union thugs, undemocratic. These guys are real knuckle-draggers. No wonder Harper kept them gagged during the election. It is puzzling why he allowed them off the leash during this debate. They are just not house-trained.
3. Some individual NDP MPs were real stand-outs. Angus, Godin and Mulcair in particular. I can’t remember anyone who can dominate the House when he is on his feet as much as Mulcair. He is fully capable of stepping into Jack’s shoes and then some.

Here's hoping the NDP have figured that out with this exercise, N.Beltov. Rather than running away from those words, they can represent the  meaning if them.

I wish this was the start of the fight.  BC Building Trades 1980's, HEU and BCFMWU 2003, USWA, Local 6500.

That is a short list of the struggles my family and friends have been directly involved in.  Harper is not new.  Bennett was new with his out right attacks on unions.  Campbell was vicious and corrupt in his anti-unionism.  Harper, from my perspective, is just continuing on in a two decades old tradition.   

We need new strategies but lets start with real history.  Every single one of the above had rallies and speakers and the support of the NDP.  In the end once the government ruled that the unions lost the support evaporated.  In BC we have been waiting over 9 years for relief from the nastiest neo-con government in the country.  The powers that be in the union conference rooms and NDP headquarters have been preaching defeat them at the polls, while our most marginalized citizens literally live on the streets.  BC has had the worst poverty of any province in the country for a decade straight. Waving the flag and then furling it on the issuance of a court order has not done anything for at least 20 years so anyone got any new ideas. 

Thats not to say I didn't stand with the posties in this fight or that I think they don't need support, it is just what is the support going to look like once the Harper government uses the law to chain them well.  If a call to elect a different government arises and nothing else it will ring extremely hollow to my ear.

The NDP is supposed to stand with the workers so good for them.  Thumbs up. 

Under the heading of unintended consequences, they seem to be having a hard time getting around the Duty to Protect the economy argument being preached in the MSM as justification for bombing the posties evil collective agreement that is oppressing the taxpayer.

Iread post on cbc and radio-canada.

People have no clue of the implication of the deal

Northern Shoveler wrote:

The NDP is supposed to stand with the workers so good for them.  Thumbs up. 

Under the heading of unintended consequences, they seem to be having a hard time the un getting around the Duty to Protect the economy argument being preached in the MSM as justification for bombing the posties evil collective agreement that is oppressing the taxpayer.

That might be cause to impose an agreement by legislation if negotiations were going nowhere after weeks but I think almost anyone can be made to understand that it was unfair to do so immediately as well as having that agreement be worse than what was in discussion at the time of the lockout.

[url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode... has a good portion of the speeches up now.[/url] It's a joy to read the intelligence and depth of the New Democrats' arguments, and a revelation to see the paucity of the Conservatives'. If only the media did its job conveying this to the public.

For instance, Mattieu Ravignat:

Quote:

I have listened closely to the debate over the past 18 or 20 hours and have come to the conclusion that it is a debate about the role of government in civil society. On that issue, I believe this government must be reminded of the history it seems so easily to disregard. That is odd for a conservative party.

 

The 19th century proved that unbridled capitalism was unrealistic. We have learned that we cannot rely on the good faith of big business and management when it comes to workers' conditions. There are good reasons why we have unions. I would remind the government that the higher the degree of capitalism, the more abuses there are. Sometimes the “big bosses” decided all issues for workers, sometimes even life and death matters.

 

The work week in the 19th century varied from 60 to 70 hours. It was 60 hours in the secondary sector and 70 hours in the tertiary sector. Fifteen-hour days were not unusual. Workers generally did not even have enough time to eat. Children made up 8% of the labour force in Quebec in 1891 and were such cheap labour that demand exceeded supply. They worked to the point of exhaustion in unsanitary conditions, exposed to all risks and without supervision. It was in those extremely difficult conditions that workers established unions to protect themselves from the vagaries of the new, impersonal labour market.

 

Although the first unions were small, local organizations, they immediately triggered hostile reactions from governments and employers. Governments in fact declared the unions illegal. Union movement sympathizers were blacklisted and constantly subjected to intimidation. That is why legislation was introduced to protect workers. Despite the strength of this opposition, the poor wages and the dangerous working conditions, strikes and protests increased, and the unions became established. It is a heroic story, I think.

 

The government often played a negative role in this story, and we have learned a great deal about the nature of government thanks to the union movement. The dark hours in the history of the union movement show that the role of the state should be to protect its citizens and to remain neutral in labour-management disputes, but, instead of remaining neutral, this government shows contempt for workers and their hard-won rights.

 

The truth is that the workers of this country and of the world, the ancestors of the vast majority of us, have bled for the right to organize and protect themselves.

...

And a little later, Conservative Chris Alexander, following Olivia Chow:

Quote:

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Trinity-Spadina for her lecture on why, in her opinion, the class war continues in Canada.

 

Before that, we had the member for Pontiac who has unfortunately departed, giving us...his version of an address to the 15th plenum of the communist party of some country. I have never heard an attack so absolutely outrageous and bombastic against capitalism. He called our system of market economy “savage capitalism”. It takes me back to my days in Moscow.

Bravo, New Democrats, for the stark dividing line down the middle of the House. May it carry over into foreign affairs as well.

Doug wrote:

That might be cause to impose an agreement by legislation if negotiations were going nowhere after weeks but I think almost anyone can be made to understand that it was unfair to do so immediately as well as having that agreement be worse than what was in discussion at the time of the lockout.

That was exactly what I thought of Libya and NATO. That almost anyone would agree that bombing the crap out of a country could not be good for its citizens. Strangely the NDP would have been on the side of the majority of voters if they had opposed Libya and they aren't with their intelligent and valiant parliamentary defence against the government for screwing the posties not out of couple of bucks an hour but out of their right to bargain freely with their employer.

It does not matter what stand the NDP takes on any issue they will be attacked unless like in the Libyan debate they just fit the party into the dialogue box provided by the MSM.

Boom Boom wrote:

The government of Harper wants to be seen as 'standing tough' on unions, and I guess is sending out a message with this action of legislating lower wages than offered by the employer, and the MSM is going along with this BS. Especially CTV.

This should scare the employer too since if their desire shifts, they could easily take the workers side on a given industry for the PR points too

Manufacturing Dissent

The NDP seem to be an effective "Pressure Valve" for working class dissent. NDP members stand up in the House of Commons and make eloquent and passionate speeches on workers' rights and the history of the union movement. Union bureaucrats clap their hands and coo at how wonderful their parliamentary NDP supporters are.

The net result was that the draconian back-to-work legislation against the postal workers passed on Saturday night rather than Thursday. I am not sure if the NDP deserves even savagely critical support, as the Sparts would say. In the end, the CUPW workers got screwed bigtime, NDP or no NDP.

The Liberals were largely irrelevant in all of this. They will probably not be needed by our rulers for a few years.