The unfortunate thing is that this doesn’t set a new precedent. The BCMEA is taking the stance that it is because this government has already shown previously it will act on behalf of business over that of working people. The assumption is that it can wait it out and have the government do the dirty work in it’s favour, and it has good reason to think so. The results of the government backing business over people has been predictably not great for the longshoremen in Montreal.
But to be honest it was always pretty clear that things would come to this, every sign pointed to it. That’s why the unions need to take a page from the Ontario education worker strike last year. Back to work legislation is in effect the legal nullification of the union, in the sense of the power of collective action it represents, and should be treated as a threat to all unions and resisted by any means.
When capitalist billionaire companies are extorting millions of Canadian workers being affected by this strike, the government’s hands are tied – they have to do something. It works out for the capitalist billionaires in two ways: 1) They win the ‘negotiation’ and 2) They harm the government by making the government the bad guy.
The government could give the workers what they are asking for but the mediator-‘assisted’ contracts the union is voting down are evidence that they are not doing that. The government is working on behalf of business because they are ideologically and materially motivated to do so. You are giving them far too much benefit of the doubt, in my opinion.
They have to take the best interests of all Canadian citizens into account. Concessions from both sides need to be reached. That’s the job of Union negotiators.
I think keeping maintenance work within the scope of the union instead of the realm of outside contracting is a perfectly fair ask from the union. Particularly as automation is becoming more of an issue keeping control of that maintenance work will likely become a matter of life or death for the union workers’ employment. I’d go so far as to say trying to make maintenance the realm of outside contractors is a sneaky way to try and bust the union long term.
That aspect of the contract almost seems like nothing and yet that it is such a sticking point for both parties ought to be very telling.
I agree with you 100%. This needs to be hashed out without bringing in a party representing 40 million people. The problem in all of these types of negotiations recently is both parties don’t want to negotiate, because extorting the country and turning it all into an unnecessary political scandal has become the standard. I’m saddened by this crap.
The unfortunate thing is that this doesn’t set a new precedent. The BCMEA is taking the stance that it is because this government has already shown previously it will act on behalf of business over that of working people. The assumption is that it can wait it out and have the government do the dirty work in it’s favour, and it has good reason to think so. The results of the government backing business over people has been predictably not great for the longshoremen in Montreal.
But to be honest it was always pretty clear that things would come to this, every sign pointed to it. That’s why the unions need to take a page from the Ontario education worker strike last year. Back to work legislation is in effect the legal nullification of the union, in the sense of the power of collective action it represents, and should be treated as a threat to all unions and resisted by any means.
When capitalist billionaire companies are extorting millions of Canadian workers being affected by this strike, the government’s hands are tied – they have to do something. It works out for the capitalist billionaires in two ways: 1) They win the ‘negotiation’ and 2) They harm the government by making the government the bad guy.
The government could give the workers what they are asking for but the mediator-‘assisted’ contracts the union is voting down are evidence that they are not doing that. The government is working on behalf of business because they are ideologically and materially motivated to do so. You are giving them far too much benefit of the doubt, in my opinion.
They have to take the best interests of all Canadian citizens into account. Concessions from both sides need to be reached. That’s the job of Union negotiators.
I think keeping maintenance work within the scope of the union instead of the realm of outside contracting is a perfectly fair ask from the union. Particularly as automation is becoming more of an issue keeping control of that maintenance work will likely become a matter of life or death for the union workers’ employment. I’d go so far as to say trying to make maintenance the realm of outside contractors is a sneaky way to try and bust the union long term.
That aspect of the contract almost seems like nothing and yet that it is such a sticking point for both parties ought to be very telling.
You may have meant ‘request’ there, as ‘ask’ is only a verb in English (no matter how much used-car salesmen want us to think otherwise).
I agree with you 100%. This needs to be hashed out without bringing in a party representing 40 million people. The problem in all of these types of negotiations recently is both parties don’t want to negotiate, because extorting the country and turning it all into an unnecessary political scandal has become the standard. I’m saddened by this crap.