PSAC Strike Actions and Some Reactions- Merged Thread

[Jarnhamar]

The minute someone uses the words Hitler or Nazi's in a debate on the internet the argument should immediately be over.

I could give a fat rats-ass about about 2.5% wage increases - we are at war right now (unless you missed it) and we can't afford to be dilly-dallying around the entrances to our bases and training areas.

Fucking right.

 

[Infanteer]

The problem, in my opinion, is that unions have grown out of control.

Tell me about it.  I had to wade through alot of Health Employee Union dinks every morning to get my little cousin to her cancer therapy.

Decades ago, before the governments had strict employment condition laws, union served an important function; they prevented employers from abusing employees. Now however they are a tool used by often already over compensated workers to hold their employers hostage.

I think you're right.  Sure, Unions were handy for securing a minumum wage and preventing industry from overworking their workers in the "Night Watchman" state, but now the government is much more proactive and ensures this itself.  What do the unions do now?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Just as a point of interest, you are right about obstructing traffic, say they were to sit down on the road, then they would be committing a crime.  That is why they simply cross the road over and over and ov.....
Semitics yes but the law....

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Infanteer,
Heartfelt to your cousin.
You said you had to "wade" through them, so was this just an inconvience for you, say something along the lines of  not knowing when your next pay was?

QUOTE
What do the unions do now?

Actually, the previous Govt. of Ontario did things to some of our management that wouldn't fly in the private sector, so do not say the Govt. looks after things legally these days.
As it was the only reason I still have a job is because of my union LOCAL, as the Govt. of the day decided that irregardless of senoirity or work peformance if you worked in that building you were gone.
It would be like the military deciding that they didn't want the WO rank anymore, so if your a WO , your gone, out of a job, close to retirement,thats too bad, you have the wrong rank, bye,bye,.
Untill a few years ago I thought just like you, not anymore.

 

[Bartok5]

Oh and when did we declare war and with who?

Well, "marshall", you've quite evidently missed the societal boat for the past 2 years.   The Canadian Liberal government formally declared WAR on Al Quaida (sometimes spelled Al Queda) in October 2001 shortly following the 9/11 Attack.   Which is precisely what led myself and 850 of my closest uniformed friends to embark on 6 months of very deliberate, government-sanctioned combat operations against those very specific Afghan-based terrorist scum-bags.   The AQ were an officially "declared enemy" of Canada, and our Rules of Engagement quite amply reflected that fact.   Questions?

When you have a clue, please come back and talk to us.   Until then, just go away and stop wasting our collective time and bandwidth....

 

[Acorn]

Actually, the previous Govt. of Ontario did things to some of our management that wouldn't fly in the private sector, so do not say the Govt. looks after things legally these days.
As it was the only reason I still have a job is because of my union LOCAL, as the Govt. of the day decided that irregardless of senoirity or work peformance if you worked in that building you were gone.
It would be like the military deciding that they didn't want the WO rank anymore, so if your a WO , your gone, out of a job, close to retirement,thats too bad, you have the wrong rank, bye,bye,.
Untill a few years ago I thought just like you, not anymore.

While I agree that unions still have a function, and that the gov't is not necessarily the best of employers, your analogy, frankly, sucks. I also have my doubts as to whether work location was the real issue.

What is a strike supposed to accomplish? Traditionally it was supposed to cause inconvenience or profit loss to the employer - by striking the employees leveraged the employer.

What PSAC seems to be missing is a few brain cells - they are not inconveniencing the employer - they are inconveniencing other employees who do not have the right to job action. In fact, they are more likely playing into the employer's hand - by striking the TB doesn't have to pay them. Can anyone say a sudden increase in that budget surplus the Libs are bragging about?

Soldiers are NOT scabs, and should NOT be delayed in the conduct of their duties.

Acorn

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

QUOTE,
I also have my doubts as to whether work location was the real issue

Let me put your doubts to rest, we lived it for 7 years, wondering when our last shift would be, all because of where we worked.
[go back to my rank anology]

 

[rw4th]

I'm not saying unions should be abolished; they DO still have a function. They are just completely out of control. Striking employees committing crimes should be arrested and not tolerated.

 

[marshall sl]

In regards to the declaration of war against Al Quaida I did not know that had formally happened.thank you for correcting me.

I apologize for using the term Nazi.

How ever   The flippant remark about using soldiers against citizens of this country is still inappropriate.Deploying any riot control pers. is an extreme use of force and should only be deployed when lives are in danger or if there is destruction of property.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote
Striking employees committing crimes should be arrested and not tolerated.

..and on this I agree 100 %.....strikes should not be about evening scores, etc.

 

[Acorn]

QUOTE,
I also have my doubts as to whether work location was the real issue

Let me put your doubts to rest, we lived it for 7 years, wondering when our last shift would be, all because of where we worked.
[go back to my rank anology]

So you would lose your job simply because they were closing the building in which you worked? The fact that your union won your case may be indicative of the truth of that, though I would have to be way more cynical than I already am in order to believe that it was the sole reason.

In any case, your rank analogy does not work in the same context.

Acorn

 

[childs56]

During the last strike a couple years ago I was entering a Navy base on the west coast driving a MLVW with a 105mm Howitzer in tow. needless to say they stoped me and asked for my ID I politely refused and explained to them that as I was towing a Artillery piece and did not feel comfortable being parked outside the gate with it and to please let me by. They replied no  I then asked nicely once again and reinforced the fact that I did have a weapon system and therefore they could not refuse me transit, they still refused I then politly put the truck in gear, locked the door and started to inch forward. They were yelling to stop and standing in front of me the MP finally stepped in front of me and ordered stop, to which I did, he came up and told me to stay were I was till I was let through, I explained the same thing to him and the need for opsec in the fact that if the protesters decided to get nasty that they would then have a howitzer in which to destroy, I said your choice and you can take the truck over, needless to say he told them to let me thrue. The next day it was with an LSVW command post, they demanded to see into the back of the vehicle which at the time had the new radios in it and the BFCS, I replied that if they had the security clearance to look at the equipment i would gladly let them look. Needless to say same thing, MP came over I told him once again and, he let me thrue. I said i was going to be back a few more times that day and didnt appreciate being stopped when carrying sesitive equipment. And next time I wasnt going to stop. needless to say I had no further problems that day going in or out of the base. I dont agree with civies stopping or interfering with any military training or movement. If they want to protest go to Ottawa or  their federal rep bldgs. As far as I see it any military personalle or vehicle is a securtiy matter, as protesters get aggresive, they take their anger out on the ones in uniform. to me this is an immeidete concern and all military pers and equipment should be allowed thrue unimpeded.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Acorn,
We are hijacking the thread here, but I must reply. If you go back to my other post I put the LOCAL in big letters, the union basicly lost our jobs but our local managed to work out side deals as the ministry was so short staffed at the time.
And as for almost  losing my job because of the building I worked in well, Sunshine, thats my real name and what I do for a living, it wouldn't be hard for someone to check out if I was full of kife or not.
...and lastly why doesn't my analogy work?...and just because won't cut it.

 

[Acorn]

OK, I misunderstood. If I now have it right your union failed to fight for you, and your local managed to turn it around. Good on them, that's what they are supposed to do.

My doubts come from the concept that a building is the centre of the issue, though I won't claim to be 100% correct.


As for the analogy, I don't think that closing a building and firing it's staff equates to eliminating an entire rank of the CF. If you think it does you should probably provide better support.

Acorn

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The analogy I was trying to make was the fairness of what was attempted.  I could have used anyone with red hair, anyone with glasses, etc. The point was regardless of whether you were a great CO with 20 years in or a useless piece of driftwood,as long as you worked in that building you were gone while 1 km away at the local detention centre[same ministry, same union] you kept yours.

 

[Infanteer]

I understand what you are saying Bruce; termination should be based upon merit (keep your best workers) rather then geography (get rid of group A).

 

[Danjanou]

I understand what you are saying Bruce; termination should be based upon merit (keep your best workers) rather then geography (get rid of group A).

And that infanteer remains the problem with most unions especially public service ones. People are more often let go on basis of straight geography as the case here, or strict seniority, rather than merit. In fact merit often has little bearing. The union brass often really don't care if you can do their jobs or not, although they often make public lip service to this, as long as you pay your dues to keep their war chests full.

It's been my experience (15 years in a unionized public service environment and no I'm not PSAC) that the most strident and vocal supports of y union are the least competent dead weights we have â Å“workingâ ? for us.

Bruce you're fortunate to have a good local.

Damn it I said I was staying out of this one too.

 

[patt]

ive herd talk about another strike MAYBE, because the union wants more than what they 'accpeted'

 

[Acorn]

From what I've seen of most unions seniority is usually the only consideration for retention. The emplyer may have wanted to sack everyone in a given location, but most unions would stand up and insist that the job losses be based on seniority and distributed over a wider area.

In any case, back to the topic - my understanding is that the union is encouraging the membership to reject the offer. They may be on the line over Christmas.

Acorn

 

[bossi]

Good grief - I was busy today, and missed perhaps the best part of this little shindig ...

Okay - first of all, there is no such thing in Canada as "martial law".
Thus, the civilian police are responsible for civil disturbances
(and the Army only becomes involved when the provinces requisition assistance, as per NDA).

So, the concept of using Canadian troops to quash/quell picketers is ... far-fetched
(i.e. it would mean the civilian police were unable to handle the situation).

However, what really ticks me off are the examples of soldiers in uniform being asked for their ID.
No.  No way.  Absolutely not.
Who has the legal authority to ask to see your ID?
Police officers, maybe.  Picketing workers?  No.  No way.  Absolutely not.
I liked the answer about asking to see the picketers ID, but ... that's probably only going to made a bad situation turn worse ...
This one has got me so annoyed, I'm actually going to get official legal advice on this and post it here.

Having said all of the above ... PSAC is now striking "smarter".
When workers are on the picket lines, they're not being paid (by their employer).
So, some strikes are a farce - "management" simply lets the workers stay out on strike until they've saved enough money in salaries to offset the wage demands - in effect, the strikers pay for their own pay increases.  A variation on this theme is when workers "work to rule".  Management will then sometimes "lock out" the workers in order to achieve this phenomenon (hmmm ... can you say "NHL" ... ?)  Of course, it's a slightly different situation when it's a public service strike - sooner or later management (i.e. the elected government) has to answer to the "shareholders" (the electorate), whereas in business the bottom line is ... profit (i.e. whether or not the company can afford the strike, with both labour and management attempting to alienate the other from the "customers" in order to break the strike).
But, enough of my amateurish labour relations analysis.

Here's the latest news report (from the Sun):

Union back, but in limbo
By CP, Sat, October 16, 2004

NINETY THOUSAND federal public servants who went on strike this week are back on the job, but without a contract. The Public Service Alliance of Canada rejected the latest offer from the Treasury Board yesterday, placing nearly 90,000 workers into contractual limbo until close to the Christmas holidays.

PSAC president Nycole Turmel saTurmoil union could not accept benefit rollbacks the government had demanded from grain inspectors, fishery workers and others.

Treasury Board delivered its final offer yesterday morning, hoping to end a strike that started early Tuesday.

RISKY TACTIC

Turmel acTurmoildged the union is risking backing its members into a corner by calling a vote just before the holidays, but said there was little other option.

"It's always a worry," she said about the strategy of asking workers to vote on an offer the union has already rejected.

"But (the workers) have a right to vote," said Turmel. "Turmoileally important for us. I believe and I trust our members to do their best."

While it spends the next six weeks preparing for the vote, the union has suspended all strike action.

PSAC strategists will determine next week whether civil servants should launch a work to rule campaign.

If public servants reject the offer, they could be walking picket lines again just as winter approaches. But Turmel saTurmoil union could also ask Treasury Board to return to the bargaining table.