What's going on Canada?
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
π» Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
π£οΈ Politics
π Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
While not elaborating on the issue, the union said in a statement provided to CBC News that "unpaid work is over."
Good work.
I wonder how dumb the Liberals are feeling having rushed in so quickly to step on worker's rights to end a strike that wasn't going to last all that long anyways, haha. Letting the mask slip for nothing.
This should be an absolute humiliation for Hajdu and Carney, and I hope (but don't expect) their responses will reflect that.
Carney firing Hajdu with a reference to this would send the right message and win him major points wirh labour. But it's probably not gonna happen because he is either aligned with corporate interest (very likely), or has to play being aligned (very unlikey). I guess we'll see how future labour disputes go.
Putting the boot in is a reflex for them. They know no other way
The strike still might have lasted longer if the government hadn't gotten involved. The company probably got more interested in negotiating after government intervention was ineffective.
The company wouldn't have been relying on government intervention if the Liberals didn't have such a track record of working against labour rights. If you want fewer strikes and shorter strikes, the government needs to categorically take back to work legislation off the table.
Oh, for sure, the government could have gotten the same result by completely ruling out getting involved, and they would have been left looking a lot better; it's more likely they would have only said they wouldn't get involved yet, and then the company would have kept stalling.
I wasn't saying the government did the right thing, just that the union managed to make the most of the government doing the wrong thing.
why? it's clear AC was ignoring the union counting on the gov to whip their slaves... if the gov had stayed out, AC would have had to negotiate for real
I see no logical path were the strike would have lasted longer without the gov putting its boot in it.... if anything, it may have been prevented altogether
She says 'it was clear' the airline and the union 'needed another tool' to continue negotiations after the union went on strike.
Arbitration isn't a fucking "tool" that somehow magically facilitates negotiation; it's a weapon used to bypass the legal system and force parties to agree to a resolution. Take your fucking doublespeak and shove it. If parties can't reach a resolution within the legal framework, it's not the damned government's job to step in and force one- that totally negates the power labor has to refuse to work.
This Jobs Minister clearly cares more about perception and finding a resolution ASAP than she cares about labor and our rights as workers. Never forget who actively works against us as workers.
labor
-_-
Arbitration basically removes any incentive to (and actually punishes) good faith negotiation. At best, any wage increases are split down the middle, you can end up with half assed terms that don't benefit anyone, and at worst theres nothing (other than "norms") stopping the arbitrator from inserting clauses neither side asked for nor wanted.
And Air Canada has said as much. They had zero intentions of negotiating in good faith or reimbusing the people who lost their flights. They were blindsided and shit their pants when the union refused to back down to the Liberals, and look how fast they were suddenly able to negotiate once that happened. You can only use arbitration so many times before workers decide that they've had enough and refuse to play ball.
It's a miracle! It's amazing what can be done when an employer has to actually negotiate in good faith!
During the transition to full resumption of service, the airline expected that some flights would still be cancelled. Rousseau said the airline would offer options to customers in such a scenario, including a full refund, a credit for future travel and, if space allowed, rebooking on other airlines.
Don't they legally have to book customers on the next immediately available flight, even with other airlines, even if it costs more? Unless, of course, a customer takes a refund or other remedy... Which is exactly why he said this. They are still scum. But I'm happy the union got them to cave.
Yes, they do. They're touting those alternatives because if they offer you a refund or credit and you accept, they no longer have that legal obligation.
They do have to rebook, but if the alternate flights are all full, then they can't materialize another flight out of nothing. Which is why the refund or credit is another option.
then they get to pay for hotel and meals until a flight is available
I guess nobody wanted the thing where the union ignored Sec 107 to hit the courts and set a precedent.
I think that's basically what happened. The givernment has chosen to keep the ambuguity of the rule which allows them to use it in future disputes, and get less organized unions to stand down.