Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Shawnski · 09-13-2005, 08:18 PM

So they are bitching that they held an illegal strike? That seems to be the cause of the whole video that is sited on their website. I recall some of the stories from that day. Seems like the union was informed on the previous day about the illegality of the "strike" but waited until the morning to inform the workers. Even in the early morning video it clearly indicates the union was informed at "four o'clock yesterday afternoon" that the strike was illegal (even though the union implies is WAS legal) yet waited until the morning hours to tell the members. Posturing the next day doesn't make their position any better.

Good, bad or otherwise, if they follow the rules of labour negotiations within the province they might have a case and even gain public support for their cause. They would need to clarify some of their positions like the diaper wearing issue, as to whether the worker(s) in said cases were either abusing that privilege, or were experiencing a recurring medical condition that caused abnormal cases of bathroom trips. Should it be cases of the latter whereby the company had no way of addressing the situation legally without the option they chose, hmmm. That is a sticky wicket. I can't see too many cases whereby a "one-off" case where one had to run to the room would not be allowed. One would think that contract language/ company practice would be similar in the auto industry to that of their plight. (line/assembly work, clearly limited breaks, washroom language stipulated...)

And if memory serves, the company negotiated almost $10 million in federal assistance to try to save hundreds of jobs there. Considering everything that has happened since that one Mad Cow appeared, is this the best timing to go into a labour war dispute?

Definitely a strange case here. Glad I am not involved. And I don't eat chicken, just choke them.... (kidding Fotze... get your bloody head outta da gutta!!)

09-13-2005, 08:18 PM	#15
Shawnski CP's Resident DJ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: In the Gin Bin Exp:	So they are bitching that they held an illegal strike? That seems to be the cause of the whole video that is sited on their website. I recall some of the stories from that day. Seems like the union was informed on the previous day about the illegality of the "strike" but waited until the morning to inform the workers. Even in the early morning video it clearly indicates the union was informed at "four o'clock yesterday afternoon" that the strike was illegal (even though the union implies is WAS legal) yet waited until the morning hours to tell the members. Posturing the next day doesn't make their position any better. Good, bad or otherwise, if they follow the rules of labour negotiations within the province they might have a case and even gain public support for their cause. They would need to clarify some of their positions like the diaper wearing issue, as to whether the worker(s) in said cases were either abusing that privilege, or were experiencing a recurring medical condition that caused abnormal cases of bathroom trips. Should it be cases of the latter whereby the company had no way of addressing the situation legally without the option they chose, hmmm. That is a sticky wicket. I can't see too many cases whereby a "one-off" case where one had to run to the room would not be allowed. One would think that contract language/ company practice would be similar in the auto industry to that of their plight. (line/assembly work, clearly limited breaks, washroom language stipulated...) And if memory serves, the company negotiated almost $10 million in federal assistance to try to save hundreds of jobs there. Considering everything that has happened since that one Mad Cow appeared, is this the best timing to go into a labour war dispute? Definitely a strange case here. Glad I am not involved. And I don't eat chicken, just choke them.... (kidding Fotze... get your bloody head outta da gutta!!)