[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cappy

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.

So what you’re saying is that all indications suggest that the legislation was working as intended and remedial certification was rarely used as remedy but that the law needed to be changed because the board was jumping to use it too quickly in the single case where it was awarded? Seems like a stretch but you’re entitled to your opinion.

I would suggest that the more likely scenario is that the previous legislation was effective at keeping employers from interfering in Union organizing campaigns so businesses lobbied the UCP to have it reworded to make it as difficult as possible for a remedial certification to be awarded so that employers could go back to more easily interfering in campaigns.

Adding the language that it can only be awarded when no other remedies are possible all but makes it impossible to be awarded a remedial certification because a company can easily argue for another remedy, like a vote, where they can better increase their chances to keep the Union out by continuing to intimidate their employees instead of awarding the certification and letting the employees decide whether or not they want to decertify, without intimidation from their employer.

- 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.

Yeah, no. I was actually quoting you directly:

Originally Posted by Cappy

The unfair practices = remedial certification was certainly rare (and determined by the ALRB as an egregious stick), but again there should still be a vote. Also, it really turned some certification drives into a question of baiting a company into doing/saying the wrong thing while threatening the push for remedial legislation.

Oh well.

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.

Let’s assume this actually happened, what would prevent those employees from applying for a decertification vote if the majority of them were coerced?

Again, no where did i say force.

Then if you feel signing a card doesn’t show the true intentions of the employee but they also aren’t being forced to sign care, I’m not sure what your concern is with allowing employees to apply for a decertification vote. Your entire position comes off as predicated on ensuring that employers be allowed to influence their employees because you don’t offer any solutions to address that issue and instead are arguing that it makes more sense to do away with the laws that actually help to avoid that.

Weird tone, but ok.

You’re pretty good, most people have a hard time determining tone through text.

Decertification is certainly possible, but how often does it happen?

Far more often than remedial certifications are awarded.

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?

Joe would contact the ALRB or visit their website to read the steps. Employees form independent associations all the time, if they can figure that out there’s no reason to believe employees couldn’t figure out how to decertify since the application processes are identical. Do they have to hire a lawyer? No, but if they need assistance I believe the UCP set up a program to help people get legal assistance in such cases, can’t remember all the details but worse case scenario they can also go to a number of anti-union organizations whom I’m not going to give any free advertising to by naming.

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

Again, it’s literally the same process as applying for certification of an independent association, which people are clearly able to do.

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.

They can still go to a vote, you’re just clearly more concerned with providing the employer the ability to interfere with their employees decision. You’re entitled to your opinion even if I think it’s out to lunch, to put it politely.

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.

You literally said it could have been abused, yet so far you refuse to give any real or even hypothetical scenario where or how it could. Unions can’t force employers to commit unfair labour practices, so how could it possibly be abused? Pretty straightforward.

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.

A person doesn’t have to be all knowing to pick apart the holes in your cookie cutter pro-business arguments. Having an anti worker government in power should be a touchy subject for any employee in this province. The previous legislation left the decision to unionize to employees but made it less likely for them to have to deal with interference from their employer, I don’t see an issue with that.

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.

Fortunately I don’t buy into the political “centrist”, “left” or “right” nonsense so how ever you choose to politically identify is of no concern to me, however your opposition to what I consider to be sensible legislation is IMO also nonsense.

I guess I’m just a “no nonsense” kind of person.

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.

That’s fine.