Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
That he is still the CUPE president despite those comments is all that needs to be stated about union politics.
|
If you say so
Quick question though, what is supporting your position that everyone should be painted with such a broad brush just because you say so?
See how quickly you contradicted yourself there and made your last point moot?
You’re insinuating that all Unions are bad because a Union is allowing this individual to make these types of remarks unchecked when their members are in fact actively holding him accountable.
Quote:
|
Shortened the quote for sake of not making the post longer. I basically just gave an example on why I deplore unions as they exist in Canada, specific to their animosity against scabs / picket line crossers, one incident involving assault. If you look at the details of the incident's it's far worse than the CBC article.
|
Are you sure you didn’t shorten the post because you didn’t have an answer to being called out on your lack of understanding of the law and how it is applied in situations like this and now you’re realizing that your beef is actually with our legal system, not Unions?
In any event I’ll take what you’re saying at face value. So just to make sure I have the facts straight here, your problem with Unions and the reason you deplore them as they exist in Canada today is because almost 15 years ago a couple of people did something they shouldn’t have done during a strike and were held accountable through a fair and open court process. Without having any data to suggest that those types of behaviours are the norm or tolerated by the overwhelming majority of Union members.
You also don’t like the fact that a Union President in Ontario made stupid comments and all his members did (that we’re aware of) to hold him accountable was file a human rights complaint(a very serious charge) against him which may actually result in his removal.
Quote:
This does not sound like someone who believes that assault. These also weren't just random union guys as you diminish down as small (3) number of individuals, they were the head of the union. Veinot and Patterson were found not guilty simply because they could not be directly linked to actively participating in the assault or harassment (he said she said situation).
https://www.sudbury.com/police/one-g...rs-case-232732
|
Again your misconceptions are on full display here. These were clearly rank and file members of the Union, otherwise they wouldn’t be on strike. Employees serve on every negotiating committee I’ve ever heard of and that doesn’t make them the “Head of the Union”.
Even the other individual who was Vice President prior to but not at the time of the incident(according to your article he was VP until 2009 and the incident didn’t occur until the following year) was an employee of Vale. I’m not familiar with all of the details regarding the USW’s charters and rules but I imagine a VP has little power to make decisions outside of voting on executive board decisions, in any event this guy clearly did not have the decision making power that you’re trying to insinuate he did.
You really seem to struggle with doing your research before throwing whatever crap you can at the wall in the hopes that something will stick.
Also, there are 2500 employees in that bargaining so if you really want to characterize my position that 3 rank and file members out of 2500 acting this way is not indicative of the Union pushing for or condoning this behaviour as trying to “diminish” their involvement because of your lack of understanding of Union hierarchy I’m more than happy to continue hearing your arguments.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6065891
Quote:
|
That you feel you need to feel to defend this incident to this extent just on the basis of unions needing to protect their own, again shows systemic problems with unions as they exist in Canada.
|
I’m sorry when did I defend what those individuals did to the guy who crossed the picket line? Quit making up bull####.
Explaining why the Union likely had to file the grievance isn’t saying that they need to protect their own, it’s explaining how the justice system works in this country as it’s pretty obvious you didn’t understand that and even after having it explained to you, still don’t.
Quote:
|
Anti-scab legislation eliminates part of the conflicts and is necessary for employment right, but does not resolve integrated issues.
|
The integrated issue that there are negative issues or poor decisions that can arise anytime human beings are part of anything? You haven’t provided any evidence that there are rampant problems in Unions today or that any transgressions that do occur are disproportionately greater than those that occur in business, politics or any other area. In fact you completely avoided responding to my comment that employers are also found guilty of bad behaviour, I’d be confident saying far more often than Unions are. So I’m not sure what metrics you’re using to justify what appears to be a strongly biased opinion.
As
educational of a discussion as this has been, based on your history of never having anything good to say about Unions or legislation that supports them which to this point has typically been opposed by conservative parties I can’t help but feel as though you don’t actually really care about the effects this legislation will have and only support it because the CPC did.
Which would be ironic given that historically your go to attack is to accuse people who disagree with you of being partisan. Not that I’m complaining, after all I do get a good chuckle out of it every time.
