CN strike and back to work legislation

Feb 24, 2007 22:20

I don't think any of you need a link to this. I've been thinknig about this for a whiel now. It doesn't sit right with me. On the one hand yuo have a group of worker who feel they are being underpaid for thier very important services who are legaly striking wichis one of the few actions an emploee can take to get action on his or her greivances, ( Read more... )

opinion, federal

Leave a comment

Comments 78

uncut_diamond February 25 2007, 03:35:22 UTC
My father's employer is constitutionally protected - the NL ferry service - so his union has appartently lost the right to strike in all but the rarest of cases. It's a pretty crappy deal and I can see the frustration that he faces - and the ferry service used to be part of CN, for what that's worth. I really feel for anyone who feels pushed far enough to take the risk that is striking - but you're right, you can see both sides of this one pretty easily. I just hope they get a fair deal out of this in the end.

Reply

_social_retard_ February 25 2007, 03:44:18 UTC
Workers that are unable to strike should have some kind of protection like havign thier wages legotiated by a nutral 3rd party or having them reasonably high to beginwith and then linked to inflation or I don't know what. Tell peopl they just can't striek is like telling people they don't have the right to complain about thier wages or something.

Reply

uncut_diamond February 25 2007, 04:01:32 UTC
It's all about the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Reply

_social_retard_ February 25 2007, 04:06:57 UTC
Yeah I don't know much about that. Suppose I should considering im part of a union.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

_social_retard_ February 25 2007, 03:59:54 UTC
Thats probably not a half bad idea but somehow I think people would still be complaining. They have managers filling in for the workers on strike and a lot of workers went back to work once they heard what a mess it was making for people so there was still soem service. Its just that people don't want reduced service, they want buisness as usal. Would the government have intervened if only half the workers walked off? I don't know, Im liable to say that this government would have. Here in Ottawa we recently had our pupblic transit renegotiate thier contract. There was talk of a strike but the union wanted to keep the public on thier side so they came up with some reative ways of sticking it to the man while still getting people to work on time. They showed up to work out of uniform and I know some of them were not charging fare to ride. Thats pretty nifty in my opinion but you can't allways do stuff like that and it's hard to say how much something like working in your casual clothes affect an employer. Personaly I think CN shuold ( ... )

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

_social_retard_ February 25 2007, 04:34:10 UTC
Well the gas prices went up because there was a major fire in the Impiral oil refinery in Ontario, they still arnt back up to full production. But your right this did have a major impact on Canadian industry, though i think they have gone back to work before anything with any lasting effect has happened. But thats the waya strike works. Workers leave, the employer's clients get pissed and put pressuer on the employer and the employer makes an offer to bring the workers back while negotiations continue. At least thats the way its supposed to work. This deal is only tenative by the way, it still has to be raified.

Reply


binro33 February 25 2007, 04:52:03 UTC
on the other hand you have half the country being held at ransome because they rely on CN for thier goods or services.

If they are that important, then they actually are being underpaid.

That being said, a neutral third party is an ideal solution to this problem.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

binro33 February 25 2007, 16:19:33 UTC
Good point.

Reply

_social_retard_ February 25 2007, 21:36:17 UTC
True, though it is the issue here. Pay and benifits. Often it is the big issue too because if you have an employeer with lots of different workplaces then all those workers can't decide on what they want to improve. One set of workers might feel thier workplace is unsafe, while another set want more breaks ect. Money is allways something everyone wants more of. *shrugs* anyways.

Reply


allhatnocattle February 25 2007, 08:13:13 UTC
Grow up. A standard of living is outlined in the charter. Freedom from racsim, sexism, all the isms and etc. Nothing about making 27bucks an hour. McDonald's burger flippers and paid well. Every province has minimal wage laws. Every province has safety minimums. That's what one should expect. Anything else is bonus.

Reply

bronnyelsp February 25 2007, 10:43:35 UTC
The minimum wage is not a living wage.

I am not familiar with this situation and don't want to argue about unions, but the above I know is true. You can't live a healthy life on the minimum wage.

Reply

allhatnocattle February 25 2007, 15:55:56 UTC
Nobody is guaranteed a healthy life or a living wage. Not by the charter. Not by God. Only through motivation and ambition does one better themselves. Perhaps the union is doing this collectively, but they hold the country ransom in the process. Ransom is a crime.

Reply

_social_retard_ February 25 2007, 22:28:03 UTC
No your right no one is garenteed a healthy living wage. You have to fight for it, like unions do.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up