this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
72 points (97.4% liked)

Canada

7206 readers
473 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

I think it is certainly arguable, it's fairly standard political hyperbole. Singh must remember not three months ago Bill c_58 came into effect, banning scabs (replacement workers) from being brought in during a strike or lock out.

The claim "proven again and again he will always cave to corporate greed" is, frankly, demonstrably false.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Bans scabs.

Forces arbitration.

(Polinever is still a shit face baby nazi weasel)

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, they did, and it's arguable still. Given how many downstream jobs and the lives attached to them would be hurt by a sustained lock out of our dual member rail oligopoly I think binding arbitration is a preferrable option.

Binding arbitration is often opposed by both employers and employees, for different reasons. Amongst employers it's because Canadian arbitrators don't take ability to pay / fund into consideration when determining compensation and benefit changes, and so actually favor employees more.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If there's that much of an issue, then rail employers should actually acknowledge the power of the union, negotiate, and fucking deal. The state stepping in to kill collective action here, because it might affect people over there is done not to protect the people over there, but to ensure they don't get any ideas of their own.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I don't beleive that cynical take for a second. The federal government has an obligation to consider the nationwide impact of a work stoppage, especially in a natural oligopoly like rail that moves a billion dollars of goods accross the country every day. In the end the arbitration is likely to favor the workers as it has on average in Canada.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)