[Cappy]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When did the ALRB determine that remedial certification was an “egregious stick”?

Egregious was a poor word choice. Remedial certification in Alberta was not used much (once?) - I meant to say that it was used in the most egregious of circumstances i.e. rarely. It is still possible to use remdial certification in Alberta, but only where no other remedy is sufficient. I think that change covers the basis of having the ALRB jump to remedial certification too quickly. It should be used as a last resort.

How can a Union “bait” a company into doing something illegal? Jedi mind trick?

- im not talking about baiting - that was your word. I also didnt mention illegal efforts to get cards. again, you are taking my comments to the extreme.

I know a few occasions where union recruiters would meet up with workers at the bar and speak to everyone etc. In those circumstances, some people noted there was social pressure. I also know other people who got a card just to stop someone at work from hounding them.

You’re free to elaborate on the “tactics” that Unions use to “force” employees to sign and fill out a card

Again, no where did i say force.

As for the need for a vote, since you are clearly knowledgeable in labour relations matters you must be aware that the employees could freely apply for decertification if they really didn’t want a Union representing them so I’m not understanding how you consider it to be a hardship.

Weird tone, but ok. Decertification is certainly possible, but how often does it happen? A union can use its experience and backing to certify. That's great! nothing wrong with that. How does Joe Ironworker go about decertifying? does he know? does he hire a lawyer to do it? who is paying?

Im not arguing that decertification is something that a mjority of unionized workers want, but its not as easy for the average worker.

I get the sense that you don’t think an employer should be able to violate the law by interfering with their employees when they consider unionizing, but at the same time you’re not really offering any alternative remedies that would prevent employers from doing just that

In my overall opinion on this topic, i believe that unionization should always go to a secret ballot. It's a big decision for an employee to make, and they should make that choice on their own in private.

I think you’re contradicting yourself here. If the board only applied it rarely and when they felt that it was necessary what is leading you to expect that it would be abused?

I don't think i was. I noted that remedial certification could have been abused, but the ALRB rarely used it. I did not assert that i expected it to be abused at all.

hypothetical boogeyman scenarios to criticize laws meant to eliminate employer interference.

I get it, Iggy. This is a touchy subject for you and there are more than a few occasions in your page long rebuttal to show that you are all knowing on this front. That's fine. You took a small piece of my Pro-NDP post from a centrist and turned it into a defence of the two areas i flippantly said went too far.

Im sure this post won't end and i can expect another long post on this matter; but i'm done with this topic. I didnt bring it up outside of a flippant comment and my response was basically because I thought you were curious. I did not expect to get into a labour law debate in the middle of discussion about Danielle Smith disastrous first day.