You're kidding, right? The very fact that the union honchos agreed to go back to work could be enough to convince some hard-liner that this is the right course of action.
Apparently in my earlier post I should have quoted Rathji, as my post was intended to be opinion, not fact, just like his was. Now, I happen to believe that it is opinion supported by past precendence and the current circumstances, but it is opinion nonetheless.
Kavy, being anti-union is just as valid a position as being pro-union. Governments and employers get accused of all sorts of shady and downright illegal activities in any strike, but the workers are not all clean and pure at heart as you'd like to believe. Given the timing, it's not unreasonable to believe this act is strike related. Perhaps my use of "no doubt" without the qualifying statement of "in my mind" was in error, but I don't believe it renders my opinion as "######ed".
No doubt <current event that we know nearly nothing about yet> is caused by <that thing I hate>.
Last edited by NuclearPizzaMan; 05-01-2013 at 12:07 PM.
Reason: grammar!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NuclearPizzaMan For This Useful Post:
You're kidding, right? The very fact that the union honchos agreed to go back to work could be enough to convince some hard-liner that this is the right course of action.
Apparently in my earlier post I should have quoted Rathji, as my post was intended to be opinion, not fact, just like his was. Now, I happen to believe that it is opinion supported by past precendence and the current circumstances, but it is opinion nonetheless.
Kavy, being anti-union is just as valid a position as being pro-union. Governments and employers get accused of all sorts of shady and downright illegal activities in any strike, but the workers are not all clean and pure at heart as you'd like to believe. Given the timing, it's not unreasonable to believe this act is strike related. Perhaps my use of "no doubt" without the qualifying statement of "in my mind" was in error, but I don't believe it renders my opinion as "######ed".
Why would I be kidding? I think the consensus is that the Union won a pretty much total victory in the negotiated settlement of the strike, and managed to embarrass the government to boot. They more or less got exactly what they were calling for and it does seem a little weird to jump to the conclusion that it's strike-related. Even if you are anti-union, that conclusion doesn't seem very logical.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
Why would I be kidding? I think the consensus is that the Union won a pretty much total victory in the negotiated settlement of the strike, and managed to embarrass the government to boot. They more or less got exactly what they were calling for and it does seem a little weird to jump to the conclusion that it's strike-related. Even if you are anti-union, that conclusion doesn't seem very logical.
Unless there is more here than I've read, I'm not sure how this was a "total victory" for the union.
The two suspended workers are still suspended, the union is out $350k in fines and the government is going after them for $6 million, and all AUPE got was another investigation into the safety of the Edmonton remand centre. It will be interesting to see how AUPE behaves if the next report ends up reading exactly like the last.
You're kidding, right? The very fact that the union honchos agreed to go back to work could be enough to convince some hard-liner that this is the right course of action.
Apparently in my earlier post I should have quoted Rathji, as my post was intended to be opinion, not fact, just like his was. Now, I happen to believe that it is opinion supported by past precendence and the current circumstances, but it is opinion nonetheless.
Kavy, being anti-union is just as valid a position as being pro-union. Governments and employers get accused of all sorts of shady and downright illegal activities in any strike, but the workers are not all clean and pure at heart as you'd like to believe. Given the timing, it's not unreasonable to believe this act is strike related. Perhaps my use of "no doubt" without the qualifying statement of "in my mind" was in error, but I don't believe it renders my opinion as "######ed".
I agree - your use of "no doubt" is what caught me in thinking you were stating matter of fact, which is what led to my response. It was a mistake to use those words.
I stated in my post, speculation in this thread was expected and fine, and so I took no issue with you relating it to the strike at all. I agree, it could very well be related.
I never stated I was pro-union and so I would have no issue with anti-union positions. In fact, I have been forced to belong to unions in the past and hated paying every hard earned cent they forced me to pay into them, however, I understand there place in society.
Nothing of what I said was about your stance on unions; it was purely about your assumption that "No doubt" this was union activity, and then you managed in one single swoop to turn the love everyone has for first responders into hate for unions.
The word ######ed was a bit harsh, I apologize for that, you are correct; I should have not said that. Bringing up first responders in a way to attack another group stuck a cord in me.
I agree - your use of "no doubt" is what caught me in thinking you were stating matter of fact, which is what led to my response. It was a mistake to use those words.
I stated in my post, speculation in this thread was expected and fine, and so I took no issue with you relating it to the strike at all. I agree, it could very well be related.
I never stated I was pro-union and so I would have no issue with anti-union positions. In fact, I have been forced to belong to unions in the past and hated paying every hard earned cent they forced me to pay into them, however, I understand there place in society.
Nothing of what I said was about your stance on unions; it was purely about your assumption that "No doubt" this was union activity, and then you managed in one single swoop to turn the love everyone has for first responders into hate for unions.
The word ######ed was a bit harsh, I apologize for that, you are correct; I should have not said that. Bringing up first responders in a way to attack another group stuck a cord in me.
Apology accepted, and with full acceptance that my own comments were somewhat out of line as well. Like yourself, I am currently forced to pay union dues against my will, and see very little value in return. I'm in the public sector, and public sector strikes make my blood boil, which colors my perception.
I think we agree that the main thing is that no one was injured. Apologies for my own rhetoric.
The Following User Says Thank You to Voodooman For This Useful Post:
