M.Dancer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 I'm saying I read the link you posted and the inference seems to be that the government acted to prevent economic hardship to the company. If you meant something else, please explain. I'm saying they could be many reasons to force arbitration, a company like AC losing half their equity could be one, or it could be another....but what I did not say or imply is: strikes should be abolished because they might have an economic impact on the employer? Although I do believe a strike that destroys an entity, the management and union should be sued for losses. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Wilber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 I'm saying they could be many reasons to force arbitration, a company like AC losing half their equity could be one, or it could be another....but what I did not say or imply is: This could happen during any strike at any company. Do you think arbitration should be forced any time any company's value could be threatened by a strike? Strikes are two way streets. Employees lose income during a strike and their jobs or careers if the entity is destroyed. Although I do believe a strike that destroys an entity, the management and union should be sued for losses. Sued by who, the shareholders? They are the employers. They control who is on the BOD and management. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 Voting shares that are held by a shell (think a pension fund) would be Canadian, if the shell is located and managed in Canada, yet owned by another entity... Any pension manager that invests pension funds in any airline shares should be instantly fired. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 Sued by who, the shareholders? They are the employers. Pardon? But they are not management....and I think they should be able to sue unions or management. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 This could happen during any strike at any company. Do you think arbitration should be forced any time any company's value could be threatened by a strike? Strikes are two way streets. Employees lose income during a strike and their jobs or careers if the entity is destroyed. And it has happened. I remember when Montreal had two english newspapers. A strike fixed that. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Wilber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 Pardon? But they are not management....and I think they should be able to sue unions or management. They are responsible for who makes up the management, not the employees. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 And it has happened. I remember when Montreal had two english newspapers. A strike fixed that. To shut down one of the papers was a management decision, not the employees. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 Should government have intervened to ensure Montreal continued to have two english newspapers? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 To shut down one of the papers was a management decision, not the employees. It was a decision made because the strike killed the business. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 Should government have intervened to ensure Montreal continued to have two english newspapers? The provincial governement could of....but the Quebec government intervening in an english language newspaper strike would have been a remote possibility... I believe the federal governement should only intervene in a concern that has national scope Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 They are responsible for who makes up the management, not the employees. Yes, and management should be accountable...so litigate..and unions should be accountable too. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Wilber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 It was a decision made because the strike killed the business. I doubt it. The problems of the newspaper business go far deeper than management, labour. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) The provincial governement could of....but the Quebec government intervening in an english language newspaper strike would have been a remote possibility... I believe the federal governement should only intervene in a concern that has national scope So provincial governments should intervene in a concern that has provincial scope, and municipal governments should intervene on a local level? Edited June 17, 2011 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 Yes, and management should be accountable...so litigate..and unions should be accountable too. So why don't they? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 I doubt it. The problems of the newspaper business go far deeper than management, labour. I don't. I worked there at the time. The strike dragged on and on and the entire readership left to the Gazette along with the advertisers and in the end there was no money to be made. This predates the intraweb...and prior to the strike Montreal was a thriving 5 1/2 paper market... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) So why don't they? They do...just not often enough Edited June 17, 2011 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Jack Weber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Posted June 17, 2011 And it is about time. And in this non-union RTW utopia you're hoping for,could you tell us what you think the direction of wages/benefit plans ,and most importantly,standard of living will be? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Wilber Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 I don't. I worked there at the time. The strike dragged on and on and the entire readership left to the Gazette along with the advertisers and in the end there was no money to be made. This predates the intraweb...and prior to the strike Montreal was a thriving 5 1/2 paper market... I can understand why you might be bitter about it. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Tilter Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) Agreed!!! Why is'nt the federal government getting involved in the LOCKOUT of USWA Local 1005 in Hamilton at the US Steel (former Stelco) plant??? The same issues apply AND the company is trying to welch on a deal they signed in "good faith" with the union and federal goverment as it relates to pensions? Actually, the feds did get involved with the USSteel lockout. They took USS to court & won a huge verdict--- USS is still appealing it but if it does come thru we'll see a union owned steel Company in Canada & production will start again. Edited June 18, 2011 by Tilter Quote
RNG Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 Actually, the feds did get involved with the USSteel lockout. They took USS to court & won a huge verdict--- USS is still appealing it but if it does come thru we'll see a union owned steel Company in Canada & production will start again. That will be interesting to watch if this should come to pass. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Jack Weber Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 Actually, the feds did get involved with the USSteel lockout. They took USS to court & won a huge verdict--- USS is still appealing it but if it does come thru we'll see a union owned steel Company in Canada & production will start again. This is essentially what happened to Algoma Steel in the early '90's after managment ran it into the ground... The issue here is that US Steel bought Stelco under the condition it would take care of the pension liability problem...Now they are doing to the employees in Hamilton what they did to the employees at Nanticoke last year in direct contravention of the agreement they signed. Did I not read recently that the CEO of US Steel got a huge bonus? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.