Bill C-386: Make replacement workers illegal - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

HeartsOfFire · 10-20-2010, 11:06 AM

A Private Members Bill is scheduled to come up in Commons soon for its second reading. It was supposed to be done yesterday but has been deferred. Bill C-386, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill C-386

The purpose of this enactment is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. It extends the obligation to maintain essential services.

The enactment also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence.

I approve.

Short version: http://tinyurl.com/26qfkso

Long version: http://tinyurl.com/26wt5on

burn_this_city · 10-20-2010, 11:13 AM

Why do we need a law outlawing scabs?

VladtheImpaler · 10-20-2010, 11:15 AM

I would only support this law if there was a companion bill making it legal for employers to hire goons to bust up strikes...

mykalberta · 10-20-2010, 11:18 AM

Jim Prentice, vote against - thanks.

Resolute 14 · 10-20-2010, 11:19 AM

Look at the Telus strike a few years ago - that was all about union greed. This bill would hold management hostage to unreasonable unions.

Which NDPer introduced this bill, anyway?

Edit: close. It was tabled by a seditionist.

burn_this_city · 10-20-2010, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Locked out? maybe.

Strike? F em, let management replace strikers if they choose.

Look at the Telus strike a few years ago - that was all about union greed. This bill would hold management hostage to unreasonable unions.

Exactly my thoughts. Unions already hold unreasonable power over some businesses, we don't need to give them any additional protection.

MarchHare · 10-20-2010, 11:24 AM

I've yet to see a compelling argument explaining why unions are relevant or necessary for most jobs in modern Western economies.

Coal miners in China? Yeah, those guys desperately need a strong union. But what do white collar telecom workers in Canada need a union for other than demanding unreasonable higher salaries than market forces would dictate?

HeartsOfFire · 10-20-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Look at the Telus strike a few years ago - that was all about union greed. This bill would hold management hostage to unreasonable unions.

Which NDPer introduced this bill, anyway?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Twain

'Tis better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

The Telus LOCKOUT was about keeping Telus jobs in Canada, and had nothing to do with wages. A battle their union ultimately lost.

And the bill was introduced by Monsieur LaFramboise of the Bloc Quebecois, Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel riding

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Coal miners in China? Yeah, those guys desperately need a strong union. But what do white collar telecom workers in Canada need a union for other than demanding unreasonable higher salaries than market forces would dictate?

Keeping their jobs, instead of losing them to India or god knows where else.

burn_this_city · 10-20-2010, 11:26 AM

Oh shocked BQ private members bill. The politicians in Quebec are fools, without the transfer payments their little socialist utopia would be looking a lot like France right now.

cKy · 10-20-2010, 11:26 AM

When do we find out if this got approved?

mykalberta · 10-20-2010, 11:26 AM

Bloc, why am i not surprised. Hopefully enough Libs abstain from the vote.

MarchHare · 10-20-2010, 11:26 AM

Quote:

The Telus LOCKOUT was about keeping Telus jobs in Canada, and had nothing to do with wages

"Lockout" LOL.

If it was a lockout, why were the unionized staff able to cross the picketlines and continue working? IIRC, didn't Firefly do just that?

bizaro86 · 10-20-2010, 11:29 AM

Can I assume this won't pass? It would be terrible for our international competitiveness. Also unions haven't exactly shown a willingness to engage in reasonable dialogue, and that willingness tends to decrease as they gain more and more power. Example: France, circa today.

MarchHare · 10-20-2010, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Can I assume this won't pass? It would be terrible for our international competitiveness. Also unions haven't exactly shown a willingness to engage in reasonable dialogue, and that willingness tends to decrease as they gain more and more power. Example: France, circa today.

No need to worry; it won't pass. Not enough CPC and Liberal MPs will support it.

HeartsOfFire · 10-20-2010, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

"Lockout" LOL.

If it was a lockout, why were the unionized staff able to cross the picketlines and continue working? IIRC, didn't Firefly do just that?

Why indeed? Why were some allowed, and others not?

Not everyone was allowed to continue working.

Answer: Because it was a lockout.

Pinner · 10-20-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I've yet to see a compelling argument explaining why unions are relevant or necessary for most jobs in modern Western economies.

Really, sure some unions are out of control and far too powerful, but other workers should have a union to organize them and fight for simple things like minimum wage, and the right to refuse unsafe work.

Long haul truckers are horribly abused by employers in North America, it's shocking. And farm workers as well and I'm sure many others.

HeartsOfFire · 10-20-2010, 11:47 AM

I love what's going on in France right now.

FlameOn · 10-20-2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I've yet to see a compelling argument explaining why unions are relevant or necessary for most jobs in modern Western economies.

Coal miners in China? Yeah, those guys desperately need a strong union. But what do white collar telecom workers in Canada need a union for other than demanding unreasonable higher salaries than market forces would dictate?

Unions have outlived their usefulness in most western countries and in some cases are causing much more harm then good. Examples, teamsters and UAW are running companies into the ground with some of their inflexible policies. Before the recession, the American big 3 (GM, Chyrsler and Ford) had labour costs upwards of 30% higher than Toyota in plants within continental US. A lot of the time the unionized worker will take home even less than the un-unionized worker in the same job. Take for example Air Canada and Westjet, I have friends that work in both places, pay may be higher in Air Canada but after union dues and shares that WestJet gives its about the same between the two companies. Which one of these companies is still making a profit?

Labour laws exist to protect against unfair termination and what not nowadays in Canada. So why do unions exist now other than to protect the lazy and themselves?

Ducay · 10-20-2010, 11:56 AM

Why even make a thread about this? This bill would never see the pen of the GG in a million years.

Yes, let us give unions unlimited powers. More power to outdated useless business practices.

Nothing beats the scab-bus scene in Billy Elliot. SCAB SCAB SCAB SCAB!

Redliner · 10-20-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I love what's going on in France right now.

Having lived in France during the strikes of 1996 and witnessed the complete chaos that resulted, (not getting any mail for 4 weeks, not being able to fly home for Christmas because of airports being blockaded, having my water cut off in mid-shower because of rotating service denials) this is the most asinine thing I have heard in a long time. It is beyond me how any "civilized" western nations allow this crap to go on.