Libs to Ban Scabs

[herbie]

In yet another social benefit pushed by the NDP support deal, the govt is about to pass anti-scab legislation on all federally regulated businesses. That would include Federal employers, transport and communication sectors and more.
So far only BC and Quebec have provincial anti-scab laws.

Dental care
Pharmacare
No damn scabs

3 things to improve your lives... in one term without ever "winning" an election.

Let the whining begin!

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, herbie said:

In yet another social benefit pushed by the NDP support deal, the govt is about to pass anti-scab legislation on all federally regulated businesses. That would include Federal employers, transport and communication sectors and more.
So far only BC and Quebec have provincial anti-scab laws.

Dental care
Pharmacare
No damn scabs

3 things to improve your lives... in one term without ever "winning" an election.

Let the whining begin!

 

One more thing to justify reducing the gov't workforce as much as possible over.  And as usual the union will say "wot happpen" when it occurs.

Socialists are so stupid.

[herbie]

It took the lurker 10 seconds

[Legato]

That's why they want to ban guns. The NDP keep shooting themselves in the foot.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, herbie said:

It took the lurker 10 seconds

Can't dispute what i said, so you dispute when i said it   LOLOL - well that's pretty funny  

This thread's going GREAT for you so far  

[Army Guy]

Dental care is not yet all completed, it is not totally funded for everyone...just a select few.

Pharma care is not even a thing yet... so no win there 

Is there an example of the federal government using scabs while it's employees were out on strikes...one more question i thought all the federal government had to do was declare those jobs essential and order them back to work...

Not sure how much our lives were improved so far, and when you look at the balance sheet, Keeping the worst government in power in our history you'll also have to add all of their minuses to you claims...which kind of out number your plus side...so there is all of that....whoop whoop NDP, you go girls...

[Moonlight Graham]

The Liberals so down in the polls means the NDP will be able to get a lot pushed through on the threat that they can force an election at any time.  Not sure I would even believe that threat from the NDP, they have more power now federally than possibly ever, why would they want that good thing to end if the CPC would very likely win an election right now?

I support union rights but anti-scab legislation is a bit much.  If you walk off the job that's your prerogative but why can't a business hire someone else?

[herbie]

Well good to see some actual discussion.

Yes ouy're correct in that it will not prevent the govt from ordering back to work or even binding arbitration on essential services. They'll include loopholes for that and for management to perform the essential work. More loopholes so maintenance workers to keep working, but no "replacement workers".
What it will do is make outfits like Rogers, Bell and Air Canada bargain seriously and end some of this two years without a contract BS.

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I support union rights but anti-scab legislation is a bit much.  If you walk off the job that's your prerogative but why can't a business hire someone else?

And this one, I do not understand at all. You support unions AND scabs at the same time? You think someone who will demean themselves to do your job for less and screw you out of work deserves respect? You do not support unions.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

And this one, I do not understand at all.

You never understand anything anyway, so this isn't much of an announcement.

It's pretty simple. He supports the right of workers to collectively bargain but not to the point where it's unbalanced. Lets face it - sociopathic socialists would love nothing more than to have laws that force the tax payers to pay whatever they demand.  However there has to be balance - it can't all favour the employed.

Of course - as a socailst you wouldn't think that way but  if you don't want to do your job then you have no right to it, and someone who does want it should be allowed to do it

[herbie]

Like an employers right to hire scabs benefits you HOW?

Do you own a major company? Do you own shares that pay more dividends than you earn in income? Are you a corporate hit man that earns a living screwing people out of their jobs?

No. 99% you're a typical stupid worker for someone else who's Daddy told them unions are just plain BAD, just like he told you about "the left". Without a clue what unions are for, why the exist, what they do or how they work.

[Moonlight Graham]

20 hours ago, herbie said:

And this one, I do not understand at all. You support unions AND scabs at the same time? You think someone who will demean themselves to do your job for less and screw you out of work deserves respect? You do not support unions.

Do you think a worker who crosses the picket lines because they need to work should be harassed and targeted by other unionized workers like how some employers harass people who try to start or join a union?  Do you believe people have a right to work?  There's a difference between "respect" and someone's rights.

I didn't say i support "unions", I said I support "union rights", which means the right to organize and strike and not be fired for trying to organize and strike.  I support neither unions nor employers outright per say, I support their right to negotiate with each other.

[CdnFox]

20 hours ago, herbie said:

Like an employers right to hire scabs benefits you HOW?

It forces the workers to keep their demands reasonable - which benefits me by not having our gov't or businesses pay 1diotically inflated wages and benefits that were extorted from the taxpayer by threat. 

Which is a good thing - both sides need options. Workers can strike, the people can hire temp replacements. That's not ideal for either side - which is balance.

[herbie]

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Do you think a worker who crosses the picket lines because they need to work should be harassed and targeted by other unionized workers

To answer you clearly and bluntly. YES. Knees broken and all. If you weren't raised to think crossing a picket line is about the most disgusting, immoral thing you can do then you weren't raised at all.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

To answer you clearly and bluntly. YES. Knees broken and all. If you weren't raised to think crossing a picket line is about the most disgusting, immoral thing you can do then you weren't raised at all.

My parents didn't really instill any pro or anti union sentiment in me growing up.  But if you weren't raised to think harassing and causing violence against co-workers in order to further your own contract negotiations is about the most disgusting, immoral thing you can do then you weren't raised at all.

People have freedom of association and are free to join or not join whatever union they wish and also are free go where they want, a mob shouldn't be allowed to harass them and physically block their path or otherwise act like a bunch of bullies.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

To answer you clearly and bluntly. YES. Knees broken and all. If you weren't raised to think crossing a picket line is about the most disgusting, immoral thing you can do then you weren't raised at all.

Then why shouldn't we be allowed to break the knees of someone who tries to form a union?

And to suggest crossing a picket line is immoral is !diotic.  Never mind "The most disgusting immoral thing" - clearly you've never heard of rape.

You sound like you're a bit of a leech on society.

[Nationalist]

Unions had a place years ago, but they've grown to a stifling level.

They are now expensive and bloated.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Unions had a place years ago, but they've grown to a stifling level.

They are now expensive and bloated.

Really what needs to happen is 'open houses' - where unions are super easy to put in place BUT - non manditory. If you agree to join the union and pay the dues that's your choice they can't make you or do anything against you.

That means that unions have to earn their place and do actual work for the workers to justify their costs.  ANd if they honk people off with stupid political stunts like supporting terrorists as we've seen from some of our unions then union members can walk.

This makes more sense than the current system

 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Really what needs to happen is 'open houses' - where unions are super easy to put in place BUT - non manditory. If you agree to join the union and pay the dues that's your choice they can't make you or do anything against you.

That means that unions have to earn their place and do actual work for the workers to justify their costs.  ANd if they honk people off with stupid political stunts like supporting terrorists as we've seen from some of our unions then union members can walk.

This makes more sense than the current system

 

Agreed. Simple and effective. 

[Army Guy]

14 hours ago, herbie said:

To answer you clearly and bluntly. YES. Knees broken and all. If you weren't raised to think crossing a picket line is about the most disgusting, immoral thing you can do then you weren't raised at all.

what are you 10, using violence against another man who is only trying to provide for his family, thats rich...i guess you must be OK with the police breaking up your party with tear gas, water cannons and batons...

[herbie]

The whining and snivelling of the "I get paid shit so why should you get more" comes to the forefront. \

Perverted interpretations of Protestant work ethic {I will better myself by working harder and demanding less) and deluded assumptions of the good old American Dream (that can be achieved by working for someone elses benefit) is at the root.

The simplistic think of the children response that one is so destitute they should have the freedumb to demean themselves by stealing another person's job. Pitiful. From the same gang that admonishes those who require social assistance while praising and admiring the billionaires who avoid paying taxes.

Best of all the continue parroting of the "wrong" that unions once had a place but are no longer needed, as if companies are now so benevolent they no longer profit from your labour. As a very union revival is happening under their noses thanks to outfits like Amazon, Starbucks, McDonalds and the recent labour actions of Auto and dock workers, writers, actors. If there's 'no need' then why did they strike?
I'm sure most of you think because they were told to after decades of media (that is in truth predominantly right wing) reporting that has brainwashed you to think of the leaders as Union Bosses, because that's what Bosses DO, order people around.

So go ahead all of you who think it's your right to shoot someone dead for stealing your TV set and condemn others who'd try to stop someone stealing their job.

 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

 

 

The simplistic think of the children response that one is so destitute they should have the freedumb to demean themselves by stealing another person's job. Pitiful. From the same gang that admonishes those who require social assistance while praising and admiring the billionaires who avoid paying taxes.

Best of all the continue parroting of the "wrong" that unions once had a place but are no longer needed, as if companies are now so benevolent they no longer profit from your labour. As a very union revival is happening under their noses thanks to outfits like Amazon, Starbucks, McDonalds and the recent labour actions of Auto and dock workers, writers, actors. If there's 'no need' then why did they strike?
I'm sure most of you think because they were told to after decades of media (that is in truth predominantly right wing) reporting that has brainwashed you to think of the leaders as Union Bosses, because that's what Bosses DO, order people around.

So go ahead all of you who think it's your right to shoot someone dead for stealing your TV set and condemn others who'd try to stop someone stealing their job.

 

I like to first point out that the job in question is not yours, you may fill it , but the job belongs to the company, or government in this case... you want to go on strike then you are putting your job security in jeopardy... The company can hire or fire within the labor laws which are designed to protect workers across the nation... Courts are there to provide and ensure workers are not mistreated...All Unions due today is take your money...and provide very little in return... 

So busting a mans knee caps becasue you decided to put your job in jeopardy is of your own making...he is not stealing anything from you as you don't own the job... the company does... Besides when the strike is over the company most of the time gives back the job to you , and lets the scab as you call them go....again where is anyone stealing from you...

In todays world we see government workers making very good money, i think the federal average was well over 100 K, tell me that they are being taken advantage of by their employers... I know working out of a federal owned building is torture, it is not the same as working from home...but if you don't like the job , open the classifieds and get a new one...one better suited for you talents, of getting everything you want .

The world does not owe you anything sparky, except to be treated fairly and with dignity. Want to set the rules then start your own business. Unions had a place in the world now they are just used to drain companies of profits...  

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

The whining and snivelling of the "I get paid shit so why should you get more" comes to the forefront. \

Nobody even mentioned that. 

So - are we at that part of the discussion where you just randomly make shit up and argue that instead because you realize you can't defend your own position?

[herbie]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

All Unions due today is take your money...and provide very little in return

So yo' mama told you. Or the Rand worker whining while enjoying all the benefits.

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody ever said that

"I get paid shit so why should you get more"

They don't have to say exactly that out loud do they? But they do begrudge what someone else makes whenever there is a strike for exactly that reason. Thinking if they beg and grovel enough The Boss will treat them better than the guy doing exactly the same job.

Sucking up is preferable to collective bargaining?

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, herbie said:

 

They don't have to say exactly that out loud do they?

yeah, they do.  Or else they didn't say it.  That's how saying things works.  You can't just make up what people say and then claim they said it whether they said it or not.

How on earth is that a 'complex' topic for you that requires explanation?   Your math teacher must have pulled their hair out when it came time to show you the complex stuff, like multiplication!

[herbie]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

yeah, they do.  Or else they didn't say it.  That's how saying things works.  You can't just make up what people say and then claim they said it whether they said it or not.

FFS look who's talking here. Can't argue to the subject so lets pick pick picky pick that thinking something is completely different than saying it out loud.
nit nit nit pick pick pick you said they thought and I said they said so I win the discussion on quantum physics... hooray for me...