(no subject)
Vancouver posties walk out over 'hate mail'
I would be somewhat supportive of the postal workers, if it wasn't for the consequences in the opposite reaction. Giving workers of essential services the right to not perform their duties because of moral beliefs is not something I look forward. Here it's "hate mail", but elsewhere it's christian pharmacists that refuse to give out Plan B. I think we have to be careful not to enable opposite behaviours. If it is indeed hate mail, the people receiving it should file a complaint with the police. Postal workers are not being held responsible for the content of any materials they deliver. I think it's important that public servants (or near-public servants, in the case of Crown-owned Canada Post) do their duty and let elected politicians decide what that duty is. Of course, in no way I would claim for someone to not have the right to go on strike; that's obviously a (usually) short-term disruption that's not meant to discriminate according to any individual or group in the population.
Alternatively, this could be a political stunt that wouldn't become union practice, and I think political stunts work at a different level than private discrimination. But even then I think it's enabling for certain behaviour in the other direction.
Thoughts?
I would be somewhat supportive of the postal workers, if it wasn't for the consequences in the opposite reaction. Giving workers of essential services the right to not perform their duties because of moral beliefs is not something I look forward. Here it's "hate mail", but elsewhere it's christian pharmacists that refuse to give out Plan B. I think we have to be careful not to enable opposite behaviours. If it is indeed hate mail, the people receiving it should file a complaint with the police. Postal workers are not being held responsible for the content of any materials they deliver. I think it's important that public servants (or near-public servants, in the case of Crown-owned Canada Post) do their duty and let elected politicians decide what that duty is. Of course, in no way I would claim for someone to not have the right to go on strike; that's obviously a (usually) short-term disruption that's not meant to discriminate according to any individual or group in the population.
Alternatively, this could be a political stunt that wouldn't become union practice, and I think political stunts work at a different level than private discrimination. But even then I think it's enabling for certain behaviour in the other direction.
Thoughts?