Ontario announces plan to destroy its economy

[?Impact]

What credibility did the Liberals have?

Very little, the problem however is relative.

[H10]

It is true that Wynne has ruined Ontario, and it is also true that the conservatives were so abominable selling off public assets like highways and hydro they in a manner have created this crisis of energy.  I just see no viable alternative.  The conservatives will have no solutions because they made this crisis, the liberals are thieves and corrupt and the ndp has no chance of winning because the leader is boring.

[H10]

On 6/16/2016 at 3:26 PM, Smoke said:

Can you give some examples of how he was incompetent. Thanks!

He basically said he was going to create millions of jobs, then announced he would fire 100,000 civil servants.

Given the plan to have increased immigrants (most of who aim to come to Ontario, Bc and Quebec) up to 300k.  Does it make sense that a province adding 200k-150k people a year is going to cut doctors, nurses, teachers, court staff, and government staff on the provincial level where all the services for newcomers come from?  At best he'd destroy the province.

He also lacked charisma and wynne seemed more friendly and outgoing.  It is hard to vote for a guy who you don't know if he will cut your job and leave you homeless in the streets.  You go to school for 8 years to be a doctor, and now hudak leaves you homeless and unable to repay your debt.  INCOMPETENT.

 

Ontario can only grow out of its failed economy.  you cannot cut your way out, firing public workers like fire and police etc. will just deepen the crisis because you'll have less tax paying people.  You need to lower energy cost, stay away from carbon plan, and finance a large tech industry here to fuel the economy.

[Ash74]

6 hours ago, hernanday said:

He basically said he was going to create millions of jobs, then announced he would fire 100,000 civil servants.

Given the plan to have increased immigrants (most of who aim to come to Ontario, Bc and Quebec) up to 300k.  Does it make sense that a province adding 200k-150k people a year is going to cut doctors, nurses, teachers, court staff, and government staff on the provincial level where all the services for newcomers come from?  At best he'd destroy the province.

He also lacked charisma and wynne seemed more friendly and outgoing.  It is hard to vote for a guy who you don't know if he will cut your job and leave you homeless in the streets.  You go to school for 8 years to be a doctor, and now hudak leaves you homeless and unable to repay your debt.  INCOMPETENT.

 

Ontario can only grow out of its failed economy.  you cannot cut your way out, firing public workers like fire and police etc. will just deepen the crisis because you'll have less tax paying people.  You need to lower energy cost, stay away from carbon plan, and finance a large tech industry here to fuel the economy.

When did Hudak say "fire 100,000 civil servants?".

The plan was to cut those jobs. Retirement packages and buy outs.

The Liberal fear tactics went in full force on those job cuts

Nobody is better at the fear campaign than the Ontario Liberals.

Now with secret talks going on to bribe the Teachers unions for labor peace during the next election how can there be a Liberal that can talk about integrity?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/teacher-contract-extension-potential-ontario-liberals-1.3789313

[H10]

7 hours ago, Ash74 said:

When did Hudak say "fire 100,000 civil servants?".

The plan was to cut those jobs. Retirement packages and buy outs.

The Liberal fear tactics went in full force on those job cuts

Nobody is better at the fear campaign than the Ontario Liberals.

Now with secret talks going on to bribe the Teachers unions for labor peace during the next election how can there be a Liberal that can talk about integrity?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/teacher-contract-extension-potential-ontario-liberals-1.3789313

 When he first announced it he said fire 100,000.  He got instant backlashed and back tracked and then claimed he'd do it through attrition, but no one trusted him by that point so cat was out the bag. And how are you going to cut a job without firing someone, cutting a job means firing the person.

 

Hudak blew the election, liberals did not win it.  I don't have a problem with well paid teachers, I am not a teacher hater nor do I have educator hatred, if you want good education, you will have to pay for it, Ontario has some of the best public schools on the planet. Its not #1, but it is the top 10-15 world wide.  Most people don't even bother with private schools here, although tutors are prevalent among the rich.  I went to a public catholic school that had infrastructure and teachers that match or surpass the private sector, and my nephew goes to a $50,000 a year private school in Ontario.  Take away education from Ontario, and we basically become a larger version of the maritimes or a west virignia like crap hole without the coal.

[Ash74]

8 hours ago, hernanday said:

 

Hudak blew the election, liberals did not win it.  I don't have a problem with well paid teachers, I am not a teacher hater nor do I have educator hatred, if you want good education, you will have to pay for it, Ontario has some of the best public schools on the planet. Its not #1, but it is the top 10-15 world wide.  Most people don't even bother with private schools here, although tutors are prevalent among the rich.  I went to a public catholic school that had infrastructure and teachers that match or surpass the private sector, and my nephew goes to a $50,000 a year private school in Ontario.  Take away education from Ontario, and we basically become a larger version of the maritimes or a west virignia like crap hole without the coal.

I was not starting a teachers union topic, that is in several different posts.

I was talking about the attempting to bribe the union for pure election gains.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/ontario-offered-contract-extensions-to-education-unions-on-the-sly/article32223050/

With talk of there being more money after the election. I am wondering where that money is going to come from.

[H10]

5 hours ago, Ash74 said:

I was not starting a teachers union topic, that is in several different posts.

I was talking about the attempting to bribe the union for pure election gains.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/ontario-offered-contract-extensions-to-education-unions-on-the-sly/article32223050/

With talk of there being more money after the election. I am wondering where that money is going to come from.

The province had ilegally imposed contracts on teachers anyways and they lost in court and now the union is putting together there new demands.

The province has unlimited money for bailing out rich and for giving money to scandals, it is about time they pay up to teachers.

[Ash74]

1 hour ago, hernanday said:

The province had ilegally imposed contracts on teachers anyways and they lost in court and now the union is putting together there new demands.

The province has unlimited money for bailing out rich and for giving money to scandals, it is about time they pay up to teachers.

That is the problem with the Liberals. They think there is unlimited money for the scandals and bailing out the rich.

 

[TimG]

2 hours ago, hernanday said:

The province had ilegally imposed contracts on teachers anyways and they lost in court and now the union is putting together there new demands.

The province has every right to impose whatever terms it wants when a contract expires. It would be insane to suggest otherwise.
What the BC government is rip up an existing contact which was ruled unconstitutional by the SCC.

[H10]

20 hours ago, TimG said:

The province has every right to impose whatever terms it wants when a contract expires. It would be insane to suggest otherwise.
What the BC government is rip up an existing contact which was ruled unconstitutional by the SCC.

The province of Ontario already lost in court, the union is now making the list of demands. People cannot be forced into a contract unless declared essential workers, of course which would go with essential worker pay.

[TimG]

1 minute ago, hernanday said:

The province of Ontario already lost in court, the union is now making the list of demands. People cannot be forced into a contract unless declared essential workers, of course which would go with essential worker pay.

Any strike can be ended with legislation and has been done time and time again. The pay for 'essential workers' is whatever the government says it is. I don't know the details of this court case they lost but it can't be just about the question of imposing a contract. 

[H10]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

Any strike can be ended with legislation and has been done time and time again. The pay for 'essential workers' is whatever the government says it is. I don't know the details of this court case they lost but it can't be just about the question of imposing a contract. 

Yes a strike can be ended with legislation but there are heavy consequences.  People have a legal right to strike unless they are declared essential workers.  The pay is what the courts say it is not the ruling party.  Actually it is entirely about the imposition of contracts.  The union had no striked in a very long time, and is in a position where they can essentially strike for the entire year probably even longer, without teacher's having any cut in pay.  The government knew this, so they forced a contract on them (illegally) and the court agreed they did not have the power to do this.  The union now is back to the bargaining table but needs to gather demands from teachers.

 

The ruling party could easily pass legislation forcing teachers back to work that would stand up in court, they would just have to declare them essential workers and give them essential worker pay (likely a 30-40% increase).  And most teachers are not even asking for that kind of pay increase because everything over 100k in income is taxed very heavily.

[TimG]

40 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Yes a strike can be ended with legislation but there are heavy consequences.  People have a legal right to strike unless they are declared essential workers.

It really depends on whether the public supports the move or not. If the union is being unreasonable the government can impose any contract it wants with any pay it wants and use the notwithstanding clause to forestall any runs to the court. This is as it should be. Labour unions or  the courts do not dictate how much tax money there is to spend on any given service. Those choices are the prerogative of the elected government.

The essential service designation has no basis in the constitution and that is just a convention adopted by some civil service unions. The government is not bound by that.

That said, governments know that resorting to the notwithstanding clause is the nuclear option so they would prefer to avoid it. But choosing to negotiate does not mean the government has to negotiate. You should understand the difference.

Edited November 30, 2016 by TimG

[H10]

22 hours ago, TimG said:

It really depends on whether the public supports the move or not. If the union is being unreasonable the government can impose any contract it wants with any pay it wants and use the notwithstanding clause to forestall any runs to the court. This is as it should be. Labour unions or  the courts do not dictate how much tax money there is to spend on any given service. Those choices are the prerogative of the elected government.

The essential service designation has no basis in the constitution and that is just a convention adopted by some civil service unions. The government is not bound by that.

That said, governments know that resorting to the notwithstanding clause is the nuclear option so they would prefer to avoid it. But choosing to negotiate does not mean the government has to negotiate. You should understand the difference.

Sure the ruling party can impose any contract, and they will lose in court, and if they lose in court and try to do it again, they will be in violation of a court order, which can lead to their arrest and held in contempt of court until they comply with the court order.  They cannot use the notwitstanding clause in this instance because it only applies to certain areas of law.  Brad Wall was going to try to do something similar in 2015 after losing in court in a similar type labor dispute but was likely advised that the clause does not apply universally to all court rulings and the clause could not be invoked in these type of labor disputes.  I also hope you are not trying to suggest that a province can simply block someone from going to the courts. The notwithstanding clause would not be applicable to labor rights in most cases anyways.

 

The courts are bound by the essential service doctrines that have been developed over time as a manner of convention and the fact the government has in the past used this as a justification for making forced labour and pay, will be used by the courts as a standard.  Sure the ruling party can try to pass any law they want, but they are not going to be in contempt of a court order, unless they are prepared to sit in a jail cell indefinitely for contempt of court.

The notwithstanding clause is not a nuclear option.  A nuclear option is the most drastic thing you can do in the confines of law. Since the legislature cannot actually invoke (legally) this option, it is not nuclear.  It is at best temporary and entirely ineffective.

The government is not choosing to negotiate, they tried the most extreme thing they could do and it failed and they had to pay union lawyers millions in cost.  They can choose to not negotiate at all(meaning teachers are without a contract).  Teachers can strike, or teacher can take this to arbitration. Negotiating will benefit the government because there is going to be a great deal of back pay.

[TimG]

1 hour ago, hernanday said:

Sure the ruling party can impose any contract, and they will lose in court, and if they lose in court and try to do it again, they will be in violation of a court order

I suggest you learn about the notwithstanding clause. The applies to all charter rights inferred by the court. It was put their as a safety valve because people realized the last thing we want is a country where the elected representatives could not make decisions about how to balance rights. Brad Wall did not use the clause because the union was willing to negotiate (probably because it knew Wall would use the clause if they did not moderate their demands).

Essential service designations and the binding arbitration process that has evolved is not part of the constitution and the government is not bound by those rules unless it chooses to be bound.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by TimG

[H10]

41 minutes ago, TimG said:

I suggest you learn about the notwithstanding clause. The applies to all charter rights inferred by the court. It was put their as a safety valve because people realized the last thing we want is a country where the elected representatives could not make decisions about how to balance rights. Brad Wall did not use the clause because the union was willing to negotiate (probably because it knew Wall would use the clause if they did not moderate their demands).

Essential service designations and the binding arbitration process that has evolved is not part of the constitution and the government is not bound by those rules unless it chooses to be bound.

 

 

Notwithstanding clause  applies to section 7-15, labor rights are in section 2 freedom of association, it is beyond the scope of the notwithstanding clause to be applied to freedom of association and union bargaining and as such is impossible to deploy against labor unions and the negotiating process!  However you did not even read the clause, or you would have seen that.

Well as long as the province wants to keep public education, they have to negotiate a contract, eventually one side will drag the other side to court, which will order mediation and then arbitration.  However the province has tried to duck arbitration knowing they are underpaying teachers for decades.  So they tried to pass laws that do not stand up to merit.  Eventually the province will lose.

[TimG]

40 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Notwithstanding clause  applies to section 7-15, labor rights are in section 2 freedom of association, it is beyond the scope of the notwithstanding clause to be applied to freedom of association and union bargaining and as such is impossible to deploy against labor unions and the negotiating process!  However you did not even read the clause, or you would have seen that.

Well as long as the province wants to keep public education, they have to negotiate a contract, eventually one side will drag the other side to court, which will order mediation and then arbitration.  However the province has tried to duck arbitration knowing they are underpaying teachers for decades.  So they tried to pass laws that do not stand up to merit.  Eventually the province will lose.

 

Section 33.

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

[Ash74]

We have all argued the fact that teachers are over/under paid. That is not the argument here. If it was "the right thing to do" when paying off the unions expenses than why was the it covered up?

Why was the Government quietly seeking a contract extension for after the next election claiming there would be more money than?

Why is the government only talking about the extra cost of cap and trade on fuel and heating gas and not how much everything else will cost?

Why are they today filling the news with planned bills to get the conversation away from the damming AG audit?

The Ontario Liberals have gone past their best before date if they ever had one and it is time for another government to form. The next Government will have a nightmare of of a time trying to fix this provinces finances and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy but we cannot afford another Liberal Government at Queens park. 

 

[H10]

4 hours ago, TimG said:

 

Section 33.

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

 

4 hours ago, TimG said:

 

Section 33.

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

Yes, it does broadly fall under those sections, but it is not limited strictly to those sections although it does fall larger under those sections(in part).  There are other areas of constitutional law it would fall under.  It would be almost impossible to craft it in such a manner to fall exclusively under those 3 parts of the charter and not affect other areas of the constitutional law and common law that makes up the constitution.  It still does not apply to union bargaining in an areas of common law, that the courts have enshrined through practice in common law but do not form party of the charter!  As such, any such use of the clause could just be re-litigated in manner, if not already done so, relying on the non-charter provisions in law.

[H10]

3 hours ago, Ash74 said:

We have all argued the fact that teachers are over/under paid. That is not the argument here. If it was "the right thing to do" when paying off the unions expenses than why was the it covered up?

Why was the Government quietly seeking a contract extension for after the next election claiming there would be more money than?

Why is the government only talking about the extra cost of cap and trade on fuel and heating gas and not how much everything else will cost?

Why are they today filling the news with planned bills to get the conversation away from the damming AG audit?

The Ontario Liberals have gone past their best before date if they ever had one and it is time for another government to form. The next Government will have a nightmare of of a time trying to fix this provinces finances and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy but we cannot afford another Liberal Government at Queens park. 

 

Because there is a perception in public that teachers are overpaid so they paid the union in a quiet manner.  It was bad pr, but the right thing to do.

The government was trying to get teacher support without publicly getting it, because teachers are an important liberal voting bloc but are also widely disliked by other middle class and poor people.

Because Wynne and the liberals are corrupt and want to destroy the economy to turn us into a have not province for revenge of supporting the rest of the country for decades. You cannot say it publicly because it is not pc, but why should Ontario be the responsible province, running balanced budgets and growing economy while Quebec and the rest get to blow their money and we have to pay their bills?

 

Because the liberals are corrupt

We tried the conservatives and they destroyed the province and had us with literal blackouts like a third world country and ecoli water.  People had no electricity and couldn't drink water when Harris was in power and he was wagging war on nurses, teachers, native indians and civil servants, ran up huge deficits and sold off the public utilies.  The PC party are worse than the liberals in ontario as hard as it is to believe.  Maybe the NDP could be a viable alternative.  Also lets not forgetting they ran John Tory as the PC candidate, the same guy putting tolls on the roads in Toronto and increasing taxing and spending every year in Toronto to expand the gravy train.  Do you want to pay tolls to go to the grocery store?  Because this is the kind of candidates they are giving us in Ontario.

[Ash74]

5 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Because the liberals are corrupt

We tried the conservatives and they destroyed the province and had us with literal blackouts like a third world country and ecoli water.  People had no electricity and couldn't drink water when Harris was in power and he was wagging war on nurses, teachers, native indians and civil servants, ran up huge deficits and sold off the public utilies.  The PC party are worse than the liberals in ontario as hard as it is to believe.  Maybe the NDP could be a viable alternative.  Also lets not forgetting they ran John Tory as the PC candidate, the same guy putting tolls on the roads in Toronto and increasing taxing and spending every year in Toronto to expand the gravy train.  Do you want to pay tolls to go to the grocery store?  Because this is the kind of candidates they are giving us in Ontario.

Which blackouts?

The giant one where it was proven not to be Ontario's fault?

Did I deny that Hydro was ignored?

Every audit say's the same thing. The hydro plan the Liberals brought in was ill conceived and poorly implemented.

The Government is now engaged in constant labor relations with teachers and even after the raises they still have work stoppages and constant threat of strike or work to rule.

Deficits?????  Really? Comparing the deficits of any government compared to the Ontario Liberals is really not telling it like it is.

The Liberals doubled the debt since taking office.

The Walkerton water scandal was terrible. Not gonna dispute that.

I wonder how many have died because of the ORNGE?

I wonder how many have died because the Ontario Liberals contracted out snow removal to companies that did not have the equipment?

How many families are without hydro because they cannot afford the bill?

 

I would vote for Harris tomorrow just out of spite to Wynne and her lacky's

 

[H10]

38 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

Which blackouts?

The giant one where it was proven not to be Ontario's fault?

Did I deny that Hydro was ignored?

1. The rolling blackouts and brown outs under earnie eves

2. That was 1 but there were actually hundreds more of what was termed brownouts!

3. No.

 

 

38 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

Every audit say's the same thing. The hydro plan the Liberals brought in was ill conceived and poorly implemented.

The Government is now engaged in constant labor relations with teachers and even after the raises they still have work stoppages and constant threat of strike or work to rule.

Deficits?????  Really? Comparing the deficits of any government compared to the Ontario Liberals is really not telling it like it is.

1. Ok

2. Teachers did not get raises adjusted for inflation their wages have not increased since conservatives left office.  They have not gone on strike, but they have said they'd withdraw voluntary services beyond their contracts because their contracts expired and the government wasn't giving them ANYTHING!  As is their democratic right!

3. Then you are being partisan, Harris ran HUGE deficits and made the ndp debt look minuscule.  He really destroyed the province with huge tax cuts and asset sell offs.

Quote

The Progressive Conservative government of Premier Mike Harris increased the debt from $90.7 billion in 1994-1995 to $132.6 billion in 2002-2003, even while drastically cutting services and downloading formerly provincially run services onto the municipalities.^[9] In the 1999-2000 budget, the Mike Harris government paid $3.1 billion towards the total deficit by selling the rights to the government-owned Highway 407/ETR in the form of 99-year lease to a private consortium for approximately $3.1 billion.

Harris ran deficits every year, even as he drastically scaled back services.

 

38 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

The Liberals doubled the debt since taking office.

The Walkerton water scandal was terrible. Not gonna dispute that.

I wonder how many have died because of the ORNGE?

I wonder how many have died because the Ontario Liberals contracted out snow removal to companies that did not have the equipment?

How many families are without hydro because they cannot afford the bill?

 

1. Yes. And the conservatives increased it by 50%.  However the Liberals actually uploaded the responsibilities Harris had downloaded onto cities which was more than 50% of the debt.  The liberals have actually done a better job than the conservatives in this regard.  Harris just made the cities pay for everything, whereas the liberals took responsibility in that regard.

2. yeah

3. Unsure, I don't deny liberals are corrupt.

4. Now that is kind of silly.

5.

Quote

It began with Mike Harris. In 1998, without a hint of irony, his Conservative government undid what Sir Adam Beck worked so hard to create. They passed legislation to deregulate Ontario's public power.

Promising "lower rates," the Harris government changed Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation and municipal utilities from "at cost" commissions into "for-profit" corporations.

 

This is where the problems start, HARRIS!  Of course the Liberals did not fix it, as I said, they are corrupt, but the conservatives are much more corrupt, much more corporatist, much more creating problems.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/leaders-ignore-real-reasons-for-high-hydro-rates-1918693.htm

38 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

I would vote for Harris tomorrow just out of spite to Wynne and her lacky's

 

That is like saying you are lamb angry at a fox so you will vote for the slaughterhouse.  Harris is a stronger, more corrupt version of Wynne, he is the ultimate crony capitalist.  They function as the same party, the party of the elite, the rich, the party of the donors, the party of screwing the little guy and making money for themselves.  The conservatives are just a little more brazzen about it.

[Ash74]

Where is Harris now?

Is he running the PCs?

Is John Tory?

After 13 years the Liberal scare tactics are still working. By demonizing the past and laying the blame if anybody questions this ridiculous government.

 

[TimG]

7 hours ago, hernanday said:

Yes, it does broadly fall under those sections, but it is not limited strictly to those sections although it does fall larger under those sections(in part).

You are making stuff up to avoid acknowledging that you are completely wrong. In the 80s the SCC ruled that there was no right to strike and for years governments imposed agreements all of the time. The current court decided to reverse that judgement based on Section 2. There is no other constitutional basis for the claimed 'right to strike' and the notwithstanding clause exists to cover situations like this. Personally, your belief that public service unions should be allowed to hold the taxpayers of the country hostage is quite appalling. And the end of the day the elected representatives should have the power to decide how much money the government spends on what. Not the courts and certainly not the unions.

Edited December 2, 2016 by TimG

[H10]

12 minutes ago, TimG said:

You are making stuff up to avoid acknowledging that you are completely wrong. In the 80s the SCC ruled that there was no right to strike and for years governments imposed agreements all of the time. The current court decided to reverse that judgement based on Section 2. There is no other constitutional basis for the claimed 'right to strike' and the notwithstanding clause exists to cover situations like this. Personally, your belief that public service unions should be allowed to hold the taxpayers of the country hostage is quite appalling. And the end of the day the elected representatives should have the power to decide how much money the government spends on what. Not the courts and certainly not the unions.

Yeah common law is made up now.  You just don't like facts and truth because it does not suit your argument.  The gov't can impose agreements in a set of narrow tailored circumstances but they are of course subject to review in the courts, subject to the courts changing those agreements.  The gov't is not a dictator who can just impose whatever contract they choose with no legal reprecussions.  Sure you can declare someone an essential worker and prevent them from striking, but the workers can in turn appeal to the courts for essential worker pay!  The court could reverse a similar decisions not just limited to section 2 but also common law and conventions which form part of law and the constitution in some cases.  The constitution is not limited to the charter, however the nothwithstanding clause is!

 

Its not my belief, it is accurate based on common law, no province has ever been able to successfully pull of what you described because it could not survive any court challenge.  You want to declare a group of court workers essential, ok fine, but if the pay is not matched, they have grounds in common law to sue and in doctrines to sue, having nothing to do with the charter at all and not subject to the nothwithstanding clause!

 

Elected representatives can decide how much money is paid out, but their powers are limited, as they should be.  What they can do is eliminate workers through school closures, increase class sizes and make teachers redundant, reduce pay and benefits of income teachers, they have alot of tools, they can take away all kinds of ece, school psychologist, school nurses, reduce the size of board staff (who get most of the pay anyways).  What they cannot do is remove or minimize teacher pay who are already in place, unilaterally impose contracts on them, force them to work against their will, etc.

 

The same people whining about public sector employees would flip their sh*t if the government came in and regulated pay and reduce salaries in the private sector where they are working and increased their work loads and decreased their resources and stripped away their bonuses etc, etc.