Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Canadian Politics] Tommy used to work on the docks

245

Posts

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Overtime stayed at 44 hours too didnt it

    Companies and business always come out so far ahead

    Also they all just quietly kept the offsetting tax cuts the Liberals promised them.

    And they're getting even more tax breaks from the federal Liberals!

    It's like Christmas came early, three times, just for the rich people! Just like it does every year!

    ShadowenGnome-InterruptusThe Cow KingCaulk Bite 6
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    I've been with the same company for over 17 years. They start at 3 weeks of vacation, 8 sick days, 2 'personal days' (basically sick days but you don't need to provide even a hint of justification), 1 staff appreciation day, and a volunteer day. I'm up to 5 weeks of paid vacation by seniority, which is our cap (it used to go up to 6 weeks, but required something extreme like 30 years at the company to get it, the new system has a lower cap but is achieved more quickly, I think at the 15 year mark), but it stretches out to more like 7 including a week off for Christmas and spending 4 days on a week with a long weekend baked in.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
    Richy
  • HandkorHandkor Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    I just switched jobs, after 14 years I used to have 26 day vacation, 4 flex and 7 sick. Now I have unlimited sick, 20 vacation and they close shop for two weeks during the holidays.

    Handkor on
    Caulk Bite 6Richy
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    I love working in academia precisely because, aside from periods where I'm scheduled to teach a class, no one cares where I am. I can take sick days or personal days simply by not going in to campus without having to notify anyone.

    Of course, the corollary is that works needs to be done regardless of where I am, so my "office" is anywhere with internet access, including my dinner table at home and sometimes walks with the family.

    My best friend and I had babies at almost the same time. He had a clear parental leave with a set start date and end date, and during that time he was on complete vacation and did not even check his work email once. I had a fuzzy parental leave during which I kept on top of emails, worked from home a few hours almost every day, and had to go on campus to meet students or attend research project meetings multiple times. Actually, neither my department head nor I are completely sure whether I'm still on parental leave or not.

    sig.gif
    Caulk Bite 6shrykeTeriferinEtiowsa
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    If everyone is measuring vacation days, then let me chime in with: I get nothing. :)

    I give the vacation days, I don't get them. If I'm not actually in the office I have to make damn sure I am in constant contact with the my guys on the floor and my customers.

    And when I'm on an actual Vacation (I am bound by my marriage vows to attend the Winnipeg Folk Fest yearly) is it is much more like my family is on vacation and my job just gets harder. I've figured out an unreliable way how to print from my phone to my non-cloud printer in the office. When that inevitably fails I spend much time in the hotel business centre at night with my laptop and find a Staples in the morning to fax things over.

    Edit: Do not mistake me, I in no way support Ford taking away gains in minimum wage or gains in vacation days, etc.

    Steelhawk on
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    Apparently Ford is going full Glorious Leader.

    Ford fears disgruntled Tory MPPs might defect to Liberals, source says
    The Progressive Conservatives fear some disgruntled MPPs are set to cross the floor to join the Liberals, the Toronto Star has learned.

    That's a key reason why Premier Doug Ford is increasing the threshold for official party status in the legislature from eight MPPs to 12, a senior source says. A single defection would give the seven-member Liberal caucus official status.

    ...

    Ford's office closely monitors Tory members. Sources say they track who applauds in the legislature and watch for MPPs who do not quickly leap to their feet for ovations after the premier or ministers respond to opposition inquiries during question period.

    "They keep tabs on everything," said a fourth Tory, conceding that such micromanaging is both heavy-handed and ham-fisted because MPPs are getting fed up.

    Shadowen on
    shrykeEtiowsaCaulk Bite 6
  • Sir FabulousSir Fabulous Malevolent Squid God Registered User regular
    I for one say our Premiere is Dougle Plus Good.

    pickup-sig.php?name=Orthanc

    I won $200 playing mafia once.
    Check out the VODs here
    Jacoby
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    Is that a record for how fast their own party MPPs are getting fed up?

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    It's not that unexpected. They like Ford no more then the Republicans like Trump and Ford's base is way shakier and they know it.

    GaddezLoisLane
  • quovadis13quovadis13 Registered User regular
    I can only hope that when the PCs eventually get voted out they end up with like 10 seats and non-official status. Of course they will probably complain endlessly that they are being unfairly targeted then.

    Caulk Bite 6mysticjuicerDescendant X
  • The Cow KingThe Cow King Walls of Jakiro Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4919412
    Legislation ordering postal workers back to work was passed in the House of Commons during a special session that dragged on into the wee hours of Saturday morning.

    I mean its not a new thing but liberals disliking workings and the right to strike is well its to be expected of liberals really

    Speacial session to do it is extra assholish tho

    One of the things they share with the cons

    The Cow King on
    icGJy2C.png
    CanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4919412
    Legislation ordering postal workers back to work was passed in the House of Commons during a special session that dragged on into the wee hours of Saturday morning.

    I mean its not a new thing but liberals disliking workings and the right to strike is well its to be expected of liberals really

    Speacial session to do it is extra assholish tho

    One of the things they share with the cons

    It's the holiday season and there's only so long any government is going to allow an industry as important as the postal system to muck it up during that time. There's too much pressure to get shit back in working order for the economy. It's basically gonna be a matter of how long they let it go.

    shryke on
    mrondeauShadowenCaulk Bite 6Descendant XAridholEntriech
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4919412
    Legislation ordering postal workers back to work was passed in the House of Commons during a special session that dragged on into the wee hours of Saturday morning.

    I mean its not a new thing but liberals disliking workings and the right to strike is well its to be expected of liberals really

    Speacial session to do it is extra assholish tho

    One of the things they share with the cons
    No party, once in power, would have let a postal strike go on during the Christmas shipping season.

    shrykeGnome-InterruptusEtiowsaPsykomaShadowenCaulk Bite 6FencingsaxDescendant XAridhol
  • SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' Canuck Registered User regular
    Yeah, the problem is more that Canada Post management shouldn't have been allowed to drag things out as long as they did. According to workers, they basically refused to negotiate all year long, leaving things to the last minute when they knew the holiday season would put extra pressure on the union and government. That's a shitty move.

    Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
    mrondeaushrykeGnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6CanadianWolverineDescendant XTicaldfjam
  • The Cow KingThe Cow King Walls of Jakiro Registered User regular
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    icGJy2C.png
    shrykeGnome-InterruptusmonikerShadowenCaulk Bite 6CanadianWolverineFencingsaxLordSolarMachariusLoisLane
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    mrondeauGnome-InterruptusLordSolarMachariusDescendant X
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    The government did not fell for it. The union did. Past some point (i.e. now), the government was guaranteed to pass a special law.
    This was a given. The union ignored it, and lost.

    shrykeAridhol
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited November 24
    There's going to be some interesting constitutional legal questions over this legislation, in the wake of Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan. Bill C-89 once again prohibits the right to strike until a new collective agreement is in place, and the prohibition against striking was the key factor in both Saskatchewan, and the 2016 lower court ruling against previous back-to-work legislation (in that case, also in how the alternative bargaining resolution system was structured).

    It does seem slightly better crafted at avoiding recent pitfalls, though. Bill C-89 does not mention essential services anywhere, which is good, since Saskatchewan has a decent section by the Court on how ludicrous it is to argue that every public employee is considered an essential service by virtue of being in the public sector.

    The legislation also designates a mediator chosen via commonality of lists by both union and employer:
    Lists of candidates
    8 (1) The employer and the union may, within two days after the day on which this Act comes into force, each provide to the Minister a list of the names of up to three individuals that the employer or union, as the case may be, considers qualified to act as mediator-arbitrator.

    Appointment of mediator-arbitrator
    (2) If the two lists have only one name in common, the Minister must appoint that individual as the mediator-arbitrator, and if they have more than one name in common, he or she must appoint one of those individuals. However, if the Minister does not receive both lists within the period referred to in subsection (1), or if the lists that are received within that period have no names in common, he or she must appoint the mediator-arbitrator after seeking advice from the Chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
    This is important insofar as previously mentioned rulings highlighted the fact that back-to-work legislation or legislation curtailing the right to strike, but then unilaterally imposing a mediator without input from employees is considered negatively by the Court.

    Also, the mediator's priorities are mildly encouraging:
    Guiding principles
    (3) In rendering a decision or selecting a final offer under paragraph (1)‍(b), the mediator-arbitrator is to be guided by the need
    (a) to ensure that the health and safety of the employees is protected;
    (b) to ensure that the employees receive equal pay for work of equal value;
    (c) to ensure the fair treatment of temporary or part-time employees, and other employees in non-standard employment, as compared to full-time, permanent employees;
    (d) to ensure the financial sustainability of the employer;
    (e) to create a culture of collaborative labour-management relations; and
    (f) to have the employer provide high-quality service at a reasonable price to Canadians.
    I don't like (d), since it can be argued that by virtue of being a public employer, the "financial sustainability" of such an employer can be gamed by cutting or curtailing funding to that particular agency. (a)-(c) seem similar to some of the main union asks, though (considering a large push of this strike was due to health and safety issues of employees, as well as the increasing number of contract jobs).

    I think it can get through constitutional muster. It's all going to come down to whether the alternate mechanism for resolving the bargaining issues is a reasonable tradeoff for the inability to strike.

    Edit: Incidentally, the Senate seems more worried about the potential constitutional issues of this bill (particularly when it seems that the government's briefing on the matter stressed the broader economic implications of what a strike is going to do, which isn't worth a flying fuck when it comes to the constitutionality surrounding the right-to-strike). Though it might also be that they're pissed that they're being told they need to rush through debate rather than hold to the normal process.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
    hippofant
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Apparently Ford is going full Glorious Leader.

    Ford fears disgruntled Tory MPPs might defect to Liberals, source says
    The Progressive Conservatives fear some disgruntled MPPs are set to cross the floor to join the Liberals, the Toronto Star has learned.

    That's a key reason why Premier Doug Ford is increasing the threshold for official party status in the legislature from eight MPPs to 12, a senior source says. A single defection would give the seven-member Liberal caucus official status.

    ...

    Ford's office closely monitors Tory members. Sources say they track who applauds in the legislature and watch for MPPs who do not quickly leap to their feet for ovations after the premier or ministers respond to opposition inquiries during question period.

    "They keep tabs on everything," said a fourth Tory, conceding that such micromanaging is both heavy-handed and ham-fisted because MPPs are getting fed up.
    shryke wrote: »
    It's not that unexpected. They like Ford no more then the Republicans like Trump and Ford's base is way shakier and they know it.

    Hmmm. I was about to chime in and say, yeah, but why would they defect since they have no principles anyways.

    But then I thought, wait, maybe having no principles makes them more likely to defect.

    And now I'm stuck in a thoughthole.

    hippofant on
    Gnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6mysticjuicer
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Apparently Ford is going full Glorious Leader.

    Ford fears disgruntled Tory MPPs might defect to Liberals, source says
    The Progressive Conservatives fear some disgruntled MPPs are set to cross the floor to join the Liberals, the Toronto Star has learned.

    That's a key reason why Premier Doug Ford is increasing the threshold for official party status in the legislature from eight MPPs to 12, a senior source says. A single defection would give the seven-member Liberal caucus official status.

    ...

    Ford's office closely monitors Tory members. Sources say they track who applauds in the legislature and watch for MPPs who do not quickly leap to their feet for ovations after the premier or ministers respond to opposition inquiries during question period.

    "They keep tabs on everything," said a fourth Tory, conceding that such micromanaging is both heavy-handed and ham-fisted because MPPs are getting fed up.
    shryke wrote: »
    It's not that unexpected. They like Ford no more then the Republicans like Trump and Ford's base is way shakier and they know it.

    Hmmm. I was about to chime in and say, yeah, but why would they defect since they have no principles anyways.

    But then I thought, wait, maybe having no principles makes them more likely to defect.

    And now I'm stuck in a thoughthole.

    The thing about weathervanes is that sometimes the wind shifts.

    mysticjuicer
  • Caulk Bite 6Caulk Bite 6 One of the multitude of Dans infesting this place Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    Your sig was giving an oversized bandwidth exceeded image -mods
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    Personally, if I heard about any retailers by name putting pressure on the government to get the postal workers back to work because they aren't getting their packages, I would be inclined to not shop there.

    Besides, I know its a dick move as I work in a retail space, I know the current backlog is already going to not get cleared up til some time in January, forcing them back to work doesn't actually help Christmas shopping at all at this point, any of the Christmas orders worth a damn likely shipped and arrived in October already by other couriers than Canada Post.

    steam_sig.png
    Caulk Bite 6Gnome-InterruptusJohn C. TurbineThe Cow KingShadowen
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    mrondeau
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Personally, if I heard about any retailers by name putting pressure on the government to get the postal workers back to work because they aren't getting their packages, I would be inclined to not shop there.

    Besides, I know its a dick move as I work in a retail space, I know the current backlog is already going to not get cleared up til some time in January, forcing them back to work doesn't actually help Christmas shopping at all at this point, any of the Christmas orders worth a damn likely shipped and arrived in October already by other couriers than Canada Post.

    lolwhat?

    Black Friday sales are on right now. People are ordering shit all this weekend.

    mrondeauPsykoma
  • Caulk Bite 6Caulk Bite 6 One of the multitude of Dans infesting this place Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    Your sig was giving an oversized bandwidth exceeded image -mods
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    Caulk Bite 6mysticjuicerJohn C. TurbineThe Cow KingShadowenCanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    It doesn't matter how wrong any of us think it is. It's an entirely expected move and the union should have planned for it. Because it was easy to see coming.


    Khavall wrote: »
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    But it wasn't. That's the entire point. Their position was fragile and they should have known that.

    Like, your post here is pretty silly because you are assuming pointing out that the union misplayed it's hand here is the same as saying you think the government is right. They aren't. But whether they are right or not doesn't actually matter.

    It's like international relations. It doesn't matter if we are right and the US is being a dick about some trade issue in violation of WTO rules. Being right doesn't get you anything when they have the power to fuck you regardless.

    shryke on
    mrondeau
  • Caulk Bite 6Caulk Bite 6 One of the multitude of Dans infesting this place Registered User regular
    There is no other time of the year that anyone in power gives a shit, this entire year of stalling from Canada Post has proven that.

    Your sig was giving an oversized bandwidth exceeded image -mods
    GaddezGnome-InterruptusShadowenCanadianWolverineLoisLane
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Restaurants with All-Day Breakfast (tm) aren't doing it because of people who work nights!

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    There is no other time of the year that anyone in power gives a shit, this entire year of stalling from Canada Post has proven that.

    And yet here we are, with them about to get legislated back to work. Which was absolutely easily predictable.

    mrondeau
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    It doesn't matter how wrong any of us think it is. It's an entirely expected move and the union should have planned for it. Because it was easy to see coming.


    Khavall wrote: »
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    But it wasn't. That's the entire point. Their position was fragile and they should have known that.

    Like, your post here is pretty silly because you are assuming pointing out that the union misplayed it's hand here is the same as saying you think the government is right. They aren't. But whether they are right or not doesn't actually matter.

    It's like international relations. It doesn't matter if we are right and the US is being a dick about some trade issue in violation of WTO rules. Being right doesn't get you anything when they have the power to fuck you regardless.

    In that case, we might as well not have unions at all. If the options are a: only negotiate on the government's terms or b: fuck off, the government gets to do what it wants, then everything is broken well beyond what a union can fix.

    Unless there is some insane overriding craziness, any back-to-work bill should be challenged and stricken down immediately by the courts.

    And you don't start negotiating from the perspective of "Oh please great masters, if it's not too much trouble, could we please maybe if it doesn't inconvenience you negotiate with us?". You don't fold with a flush because your opponent has a gun.

    Caulk Bite 6Shadowen
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    It doesn't matter how wrong any of us think it is. It's an entirely expected move and the union should have planned for it. Because it was easy to see coming.


    Khavall wrote: »
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    But it wasn't. That's the entire point. Their position was fragile and they should have known that.

    Like, your post here is pretty silly because you are assuming pointing out that the union misplayed it's hand here is the same as saying you think the government is right. They aren't. But whether they are right or not doesn't actually matter.

    It's like international relations. It doesn't matter if we are right and the US is being a dick about some trade issue in violation of WTO rules. Being right doesn't get you anything when they have the power to fuck you regardless.

    In that case, we might as well not have unions at all. If the options are a: only negotiate on the government's terms or b: fuck off, the government gets to do what it wants, then everything is broken well beyond what a union can fix.

    Unless there is some insane overriding craziness, any back-to-work bill should be challenged and stricken down immediately by the courts.

    And you don't start negotiating from the perspective of "Oh please great masters, if it's not too much trouble, could we please maybe if it doesn't inconvenience you negotiate with us?". You don't fold with a flush because your opponent has a gun.

    You absolutely need to take reality into account.

    Sometimes you are the small dog and need to accept that.

    mrondeau
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    It doesn't matter how wrong any of us think it is. It's an entirely expected move and the union should have planned for it. Because it was easy to see coming.


    Khavall wrote: »
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    But it wasn't. That's the entire point. Their position was fragile and they should have known that.

    Like, your post here is pretty silly because you are assuming pointing out that the union misplayed it's hand here is the same as saying you think the government is right. They aren't. But whether they are right or not doesn't actually matter.

    It's like international relations. It doesn't matter if we are right and the US is being a dick about some trade issue in violation of WTO rules. Being right doesn't get you anything when they have the power to fuck you regardless.

    In that case, we might as well not have unions at all. If the options are a: only negotiate on the government's terms or b: fuck off, the government gets to do what it wants, then everything is broken well beyond what a union can fix.

    Unless there is some insane overriding craziness, any back-to-work bill should be challenged and stricken down immediately by the courts.

    And you don't start negotiating from the perspective of "Oh please great masters, if it's not too much trouble, could we please maybe if it doesn't inconvenience you negotiate with us?". You don't fold with a flush because your opponent has a gun.

    You absolutely need to take reality into account.

    Sometimes you are the small dog and need to accept that.

    If you can't use your power, then you don't actually have power. Might as well take your chances with court cases, where there has been historical precedent for stopping government overreach like this. Otherwise, again, there's no point to even having unions.

    Like, what's the benefit of just caving to the government? Hooray, now you have a shitty deal, the government knows that it can do whatever it wants, and everything is worse for everyone. At least this way there's a chance of changing something

    Shadowen
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    It doesn't matter how wrong any of us think it is. It's an entirely expected move and the union should have planned for it. Because it was easy to see coming.


    Khavall wrote: »
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    But it wasn't. That's the entire point. Their position was fragile and they should have known that.

    Like, your post here is pretty silly because you are assuming pointing out that the union misplayed it's hand here is the same as saying you think the government is right. They aren't. But whether they are right or not doesn't actually matter.

    It's like international relations. It doesn't matter if we are right and the US is being a dick about some trade issue in violation of WTO rules. Being right doesn't get you anything when they have the power to fuck you regardless.

    In that case, we might as well not have unions at all. If the options are a: only negotiate on the government's terms or b: fuck off, the government gets to do what it wants, then everything is broken well beyond what a union can fix.

    Unless there is some insane overriding craziness, any back-to-work bill should be challenged and stricken down immediately by the courts.

    And you don't start negotiating from the perspective of "Oh please great masters, if it's not too much trouble, could we please maybe if it doesn't inconvenience you negotiate with us?". You don't fold with a flush because your opponent has a gun.

    You absolutely need to take reality into account.

    Sometimes you are the small dog and need to accept that.

    If you can't use your power, then you don't actually have power. Might as well take your chances with court cases, where there has been historical precedent for stopping government overreach like this. Otherwise, again, there's no point to even having unions.

    Like, what's the benefit of just caving to the government? Hooray, now you have a shitty deal, the government knows that it can do whatever it wants, and everything is worse for everyone. At least this way there's a chance of changing something

    Who said anything about caving to the government? What the heck are you even talking about? You are ranting about "Oh well, might as well not have unions" when literally no one is suggesting that.

    The union is in a negotiation here and they need to have a better handle on what their leverage is going in it. They seem to have thought that they had the upper hand because of the christmas season and all the shipping going on but it's probably actually tilted against them because of that.

    mrondeauDescendant X
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    It doesn't matter how wrong any of us think it is. It's an entirely expected move and the union should have planned for it. Because it was easy to see coming.


    Khavall wrote: »
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    But it wasn't. That's the entire point. Their position was fragile and they should have known that.

    Like, your post here is pretty silly because you are assuming pointing out that the union misplayed it's hand here is the same as saying you think the government is right. They aren't. But whether they are right or not doesn't actually matter.

    It's like international relations. It doesn't matter if we are right and the US is being a dick about some trade issue in violation of WTO rules. Being right doesn't get you anything when they have the power to fuck you regardless.

    In that case, we might as well not have unions at all. If the options are a: only negotiate on the government's terms or b: fuck off, the government gets to do what it wants, then everything is broken well beyond what a union can fix.

    Unless there is some insane overriding craziness, any back-to-work bill should be challenged and stricken down immediately by the courts.

    And you don't start negotiating from the perspective of "Oh please great masters, if it's not too much trouble, could we please maybe if it doesn't inconvenience you negotiate with us?". You don't fold with a flush because your opponent has a gun.

    You absolutely need to take reality into account.

    Sometimes you are the small dog and need to accept that.

    If you can't use your power, then you don't actually have power. Might as well take your chances with court cases, where there has been historical precedent for stopping government overreach like this. Otherwise, again, there's no point to even having unions.

    Like, what's the benefit of just caving to the government? Hooray, now you have a shitty deal, the government knows that it can do whatever it wants, and everything is worse for everyone. At least this way there's a chance of changing something

    Who said anything about caving to the government? What the heck are you even talking about? You are ranting about "Oh well, might as well not have unions" when literally no one is suggesting that.

    The union is in a negotiation here and they need to have a better handle on what their leverage is going in it. They seem to have thought that they had the upper hand because of the christmas season and all the shipping going on but it's probably actually tilted against them because of that.

    Only if the union doesn't take it to court in which case this has the potential to blow up in the governments face.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Caulk Bite 6ShadowenLoisLane
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    It doesn't matter how wrong any of us think it is. It's an entirely expected move and the union should have planned for it. Because it was easy to see coming.


    Khavall wrote: »
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    But it wasn't. That's the entire point. Their position was fragile and they should have known that.

    Like, your post here is pretty silly because you are assuming pointing out that the union misplayed it's hand here is the same as saying you think the government is right. They aren't. But whether they are right or not doesn't actually matter.

    It's like international relations. It doesn't matter if we are right and the US is being a dick about some trade issue in violation of WTO rules. Being right doesn't get you anything when they have the power to fuck you regardless.

    In that case, we might as well not have unions at all. If the options are a: only negotiate on the government's terms or b: fuck off, the government gets to do what it wants, then everything is broken well beyond what a union can fix.

    Unless there is some insane overriding craziness, any back-to-work bill should be challenged and stricken down immediately by the courts.

    And you don't start negotiating from the perspective of "Oh please great masters, if it's not too much trouble, could we please maybe if it doesn't inconvenience you negotiate with us?". You don't fold with a flush because your opponent has a gun.

    You absolutely need to take reality into account.

    Sometimes you are the small dog and need to accept that.

    If you can't use your power, then you don't actually have power. Might as well take your chances with court cases, where there has been historical precedent for stopping government overreach like this. Otherwise, again, there's no point to even having unions.

    Like, what's the benefit of just caving to the government? Hooray, now you have a shitty deal, the government knows that it can do whatever it wants, and everything is worse for everyone. At least this way there's a chance of changing something

    Who said anything about caving to the government? What the heck are you even talking about? You are ranting about "Oh well, might as well not have unions" when literally no one is suggesting that.

    The union is in a negotiation here and they need to have a better handle on what their leverage is going in it. They seem to have thought that they had the upper hand because of the christmas season and all the shipping going on but it's probably actually tilted against them because of that.

    Only if the union doesn't take it to court in which case this has the potential to blow up in the governments face.

    How long will that take though? And what's the downside for the government?

    If you can force them back to work till the beginning of January the government (not management, but the government) wins cause that's all they care about.

    mrondeau
  • Caulk Bite 6Caulk Bite 6 One of the multitude of Dans infesting this place Registered User regular
    Well shit, might as well go hire the Pinkertons, they’re still around, and go have us a good old fashioned strike breaking while we’re arguing for anti union outcomes.

    Yee haw.

    Your sig was giving an oversized bandwidth exceeded image -mods
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    It doesn't matter how wrong any of us think it is. It's an entirely expected move and the union should have planned for it. Because it was easy to see coming.


    Khavall wrote: »
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    But it wasn't. That's the entire point. Their position was fragile and they should have known that.

    Like, your post here is pretty silly because you are assuming pointing out that the union misplayed it's hand here is the same as saying you think the government is right. They aren't. But whether they are right or not doesn't actually matter.

    It's like international relations. It doesn't matter if we are right and the US is being a dick about some trade issue in violation of WTO rules. Being right doesn't get you anything when they have the power to fuck you regardless.

    In that case, we might as well not have unions at all. If the options are a: only negotiate on the government's terms or b: fuck off, the government gets to do what it wants, then everything is broken well beyond what a union can fix.

    Unless there is some insane overriding craziness, any back-to-work bill should be challenged and stricken down immediately by the courts.

    And you don't start negotiating from the perspective of "Oh please great masters, if it's not too much trouble, could we please maybe if it doesn't inconvenience you negotiate with us?". You don't fold with a flush because your opponent has a gun.

    You absolutely need to take reality into account.

    Sometimes you are the small dog and need to accept that.

    If you can't use your power, then you don't actually have power. Might as well take your chances with court cases, where there has been historical precedent for stopping government overreach like this. Otherwise, again, there's no point to even having unions.

    Like, what's the benefit of just caving to the government? Hooray, now you have a shitty deal, the government knows that it can do whatever it wants, and everything is worse for everyone. At least this way there's a chance of changing something

    Who said anything about caving to the government? What the heck are you even talking about? You are ranting about "Oh well, might as well not have unions" when literally no one is suggesting that.

    The union is in a negotiation here and they need to have a better handle on what their leverage is going in it. They seem to have thought that they had the upper hand because of the christmas season and all the shipping going on but it's probably actually tilted against them because of that.

    What do you think unions or strikes do?

    The whole point of unions is recognizing that they are the smaller dog, and as individual workers, they don't have any power to actually negotiate. But as a group, they can collectively have power, because there's always the threat of collective action. The ultimate form of that collective action is a strike.

    The point of a strike is that the employer (government in this case) will be under pressure to get the workers back to work. If the government is going to do that by passing bills, then that's supper shitty, it looks super shitty, and it's probably unconstitutional.

    You're saying that the problem with what the union did is that it put too much pressure on the government to get the workers back to work, so of course the government was going to pass the bill instead of actually negotiating.

    But if the government is prepared to get the strikers back to work by just passing a bill, then there's nothing that can actually be gained from striking or negotiating at that point. If they strike when there's no pressure on the government to negotiate to get them back to work, then the strike isn't actually going to accomplish anything because nobody cares. If they strike when there is pressure on the government to negotiate, and the government will just pass a bill instead, then we're back here.

    So then what power does the union have? What's the point of the union after that? What's to stop the government from deciding that postal workers don't get any pay or benefits or breaks anymore? And how is the union supposed to negotiate with the government when the end-game is "The government passes a bill anyways, so let's 'take reality into account'"? How are they supposed to continue to negotiate without caving to the government when they know that if the government wants to, they'll just bulldoze the negotiations and order them back to work anyways?

    That's why I'm saying "might as well not have unions" and talking about "caving to the government". Because if there's nothing to stop the government from getting around the strike by passing bills, then there's nothing to stop the government from getting around disputes by passing bills. The biggest gun that a union has is the strike. If that gun can be taken away at a whim, then anything else is just theatre.

    So if the end-game of the escalation game is "fuck you", then why bother with the other steps? Why not just admit at that point that the union can't negotiate anymore?

    At least doing it this way makes the government show their hand and has the likelihood of winning in the courts. Deciding not to strike when it would actually do its job is just dying a slow death.

    GaddezForarThe Cow KingCaulk Bite 6ShadowenCanadianWolverineLoisLane
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    shryke wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    It doesn't matter how wrong any of us think it is. It's an entirely expected move and the union should have planned for it. Because it was easy to see coming.


    Khavall wrote: »
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    But it wasn't. That's the entire point. Their position was fragile and they should have known that.

    Like, your post here is pretty silly because you are assuming pointing out that the union misplayed it's hand here is the same as saying you think the government is right. They aren't. But whether they are right or not doesn't actually matter.

    It's like international relations. It doesn't matter if we are right and the US is being a dick about some trade issue in violation of WTO rules. Being right doesn't get you anything when they have the power to fuck you regardless.

    In that case, we might as well not have unions at all. If the options are a: only negotiate on the government's terms or b: fuck off, the government gets to do what it wants, then everything is broken well beyond what a union can fix.

    Unless there is some insane overriding craziness, any back-to-work bill should be challenged and stricken down immediately by the courts.

    And you don't start negotiating from the perspective of "Oh please great masters, if it's not too much trouble, could we please maybe if it doesn't inconvenience you negotiate with us?". You don't fold with a flush because your opponent has a gun.

    You absolutely need to take reality into account.

    Sometimes you are the small dog and need to accept that.

    If you can't use your power, then you don't actually have power. Might as well take your chances with court cases, where there has been historical precedent for stopping government overreach like this. Otherwise, again, there's no point to even having unions.

    Like, what's the benefit of just caving to the government? Hooray, now you have a shitty deal, the government knows that it can do whatever it wants, and everything is worse for everyone. At least this way there's a chance of changing something

    Who said anything about caving to the government? What the heck are you even talking about? You are ranting about "Oh well, might as well not have unions" when literally no one is suggesting that.

    The union is in a negotiation here and they need to have a better handle on what their leverage is going in it. They seem to have thought that they had the upper hand because of the christmas season and all the shipping going on but it's probably actually tilted against them because of that.

    Only if the union doesn't take it to court in which case this has the potential to blow up in the governments face.

    How long will that take though? And what's the downside for the government?

    If you can force them back to work till the beginning of January the government (not management, but the government) wins cause that's all they care about.

    Which is only an issue if they abide by the governments decision until the ruling is made.

    Which if you believe the legislation is illegal you don't have to actually do.

    Gaddez on
    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    yes thats the point the corporation completely undermined the workers power and got exactly what they want because of the holidays

    it was a calculated play the government fell for

    Agreed but I think the union also misplayed it's hand. They recently turned down an offer to basically put the whole thing on hold till after the holidays and then slap an abitration deadline on the whole thing. They should have come back with yes to the hold, no to the deadline imo. A strike is playing politics, especially when you are a crown corporation. Take the pressure off the government to cave in and force you back to work and take up the fight afterwards. I think they got over-confident and thought that fucking up the holiday season would force management to come to the table faster and didn't take into account how the federal government would react.

    Okay, except, Canada post already had literally since January to do anything. What, exactly, would stop them from just repeating that?

    None of that is relevant though. You wanna shut down the mail during the holiday season you are asking to get legislated back to work and then you get nothing. Will management keep stalling? Maybe. But then you are just back at square one. If the back-to-work bill passes, you are at square less-then-one.

    Way to go, making excuses for something that’s already been found to be unconstitutional once, I’m sure this will all work out fine.

    It doesn't matter how wrong any of us think it is. It's an entirely expected move and the union should have planned for it. Because it was easy to see coming.


    Khavall wrote: »
    "The workers negotiated too hard" is the same line of logic that leads to the bullshit "I used to be left-leaning until someone said a mean thing and now I think trans people deserve to die" arguments, which are never convincing to me.

    The union using its power at a time when it is strategically at its highest doesn't mean it's their fault if the government then decides to deal with it by being shitty and possibly illegal

    But it wasn't. That's the entire point. Their position was fragile and they should have known that.

    Like, your post here is pretty silly because you are assuming pointing out that the union misplayed it's hand here is the same as saying you think the government is right. They aren't. But whether they are right or not doesn't actually matter.

    It's like international relations. It doesn't matter if we are right and the US is being a dick about some trade issue in violation of WTO rules. Being right doesn't get you anything when they have the power to fuck you regardless.

    In that case, we might as well not have unions at all. If the options are a: only negotiate on the government's terms or b: fuck off, the government gets to do what it wants, then everything is broken well beyond what a union can fix.

    Unless there is some insane overriding craziness, any back-to-work bill should be challenged and stricken down immediately by the courts.

    And you don't start negotiating from the perspective of "Oh please great masters, if it's not too much trouble, could we please maybe if it doesn't inconvenience you negotiate with us?". You don't fold with a flush because your opponent has a gun.

    You absolutely need to take reality into account.

    Sometimes you are the small dog and need to accept that.

    If you can't use your power, then you don't actually have power. Might as well take your chances with court cases, where there has been historical precedent for stopping government overreach like this. Otherwise, again, there's no point to even having unions.

    Like, what's the benefit of just caving to the government? Hooray, now you have a shitty deal, the government knows that it can do whatever it wants, and everything is worse for everyone. At least this way there's a chance of changing something

    Who said anything about caving to the government? What the heck are you even talking about? You are ranting about "Oh well, might as well not have unions" when literally no one is suggesting that.

    The union is in a negotiation here and they need to have a better handle on what their leverage is going in it. They seem to have thought that they had the upper hand because of the christmas season and all the shipping going on but it's probably actually tilted against them because of that.

    What do you think unions or strikes do?

    The whole point of unions is recognizing that they are the smaller dog, and as individual workers, they don't have any power to actually negotiate. But as a group, they can collectively have power, because there's always the threat of collective action. The ultimate form of that collective action is a strike.

    Nope. You entirely missed the point. I didn't talk about "a worker", I talked about "the union". The workers collectively are in the weaker position here. Exactly because the government can legislate them back to work. This is an entirely expected outcome they should have planned for. It is leverage that management has on them.

    The point of a strike is that the employer (government in this case) will be under pressure to get the workers back to work. If the government is going to do that by passing bills, then that's supper shitty, it looks super shitty, and it's probably unconstitutional.

    You're saying that the problem with what the union did is that it put too much pressure on the government to get the workers back to work, so of course the government was going to pass the bill instead of actually negotiating.

    But if the government is prepared to get the strikers back to work by just passing a bill, then there's nothing that can actually be gained from striking or negotiating at that point. If they strike when there's no pressure on the government to negotiate to get them back to work, then the strike isn't actually going to accomplish anything because nobody cares. If they strike when there is pressure on the government to negotiate, and the government will just pass a bill instead, then we're back here.

    So then what power does the union have? What's the point of the union after that? What's to stop the government from deciding that postal workers don't get any pay or benefits or breaks anymore? And how is the union supposed to negotiate with the government when the end-game is "The government passes a bill anyways, so let's 'take reality into account'"? How are they supposed to continue to negotiate without caving to the government when they know that if the government wants to, they'll just bulldoze the negotiations and order them back to work anyways?

    That's why I'm saying "might as well not have unions" and talking about "caving to the government". Because if there's nothing to stop the government from getting around the strike by passing bills, then there's nothing to stop the government from getting around disputes by passing bills. The biggest gun that a union has is the strike. If that gun can be taken away at a whim, then anything else is just theatre.

    So if the end-game of the escalation game is "fuck you", then why bother with the other steps? Why not just admit at that point that the union can't negotiate anymore?

    At least doing it this way makes the government show their hand and has the likelihood of winning in the courts. Deciding not to strike when it would actually do its job is just dying a slow death.

    Except your argument is silly here because you seem incapable of accounting for nuance. There are tons of positions between "no strike at all" and "get legislated back to work". We were living in one of them for quite awhile. The whole point is that you have to acknowledge the reality that parliament is there and will legislate you back to work if they think the situation is getting bad enough. That you have to play within the bounds of what parliament will overlook. And there's plenty of room there. But it has limits. You don't have to like that those limits exist but they are there regardless.

    mrondeau
Sign In or Register to comment.