Thursday, March 01, 2007

Liberals Scab

Liberals are not the party of workers in Canada.

When in power provincially Liberals oppose a living wage.

Now the Federal Liberals under Dion have flip flopped on anti-scab legislation Bill C-257.

A private members bill from the BQ supported by the NDP and until today, supported by the Liberals.

And like the flip flop on the Anti-Terrorism Act, Mr. Dion does it again. But will he whip the vote? Probably not. Without the Liberals support the bill will die on third reading. When they were the government the Liberal majority voted against previous private member anti-scab bills.

My what a friend business has in Mr. Dion. I guess two controversial votes in a week would be a bit much for Mr. Dion's fragile leadership. The infighting in caucus would be even more virulent than it was over the Anti-Terrorism Act. After all the Liberals are the party of Bay Street as much as the Conservatives are.

By flip flopping on this bill, which has been placed before parliament five times now, the Liberals prove they are not just pro-business but pro-scab. Which means anti-union. I hope they don't plan on trying to solicit funds from their old friends in the General Workers Union in Toronto.

Progressives? In name only.

Green? Sure thats the colour of money.

Friends of Buzz Hargrove? Only during elections.

Labour has a political party and it is the NDP. All others are pretenders and fair weather friends.







Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,


Anonymous said...

Do you actually believe that anti-scab laws protect workers? They do the exact opposite - they hurt workers who want to support their families because strike wages are apropriately low. Second, they damage business interests by making it difficult, and in many cases impossible to continue operating while there is a strike in progress. Now, when that company decides to close-up shop because they can't do business and may not be able to give into the demands of the incredibly greedy unions(who rape the pockets of their workers and sell them out at the drop of a hat), you'll be calling on that same government to pay your bills and feed your family. Also, this legislation would hurt consumers, who would be forced to pay for the incredible costs of pandering to unions.

Unions are the reason that the auto market in Canada is faltering. They are the reason that Quebec's economy is stagnant, and that many national and international corporations refuse to do business there. Unions have single-handedly gutted huge canadian corporations, such as Bell Canada. Unions are also the reason that government workers get massively overpaid to do something that anyone else would get paid fairly on.

And yet, when you have a problem as a solitary individual, the Union leaves workers out in the dark.

You have only to look inward at your own province - the single most successful economy in the country - singularly due to prudent governing and debt repayment. Interestingly enough, the most anti-union province in the nation.
Then again, it's no wonder Albertan's hate unions - they're hard workers. They must realize that unions punish hard workers and protect the lazy.

These unions are operating under false pretences - with the advent of stringent labour laws there is no longer any need for unions. well, except for the likes of buzz hargrove to line their pockets of course.

Mike said...

"They do the exact opposite - they hurt workers who want to support their families because strike wages are apropriately low. Second, they damage business interests by making it difficult, and in many cases impossible to continue operating while there is a strike in progress."

Which generates the incentive on BOTH sides to find a deal. As soon as one side or the other no longer has to worry about this (by, say, hiring scabs) then this incentive is gone.

"Unions are the reason that the auto market in Canada is faltering. "

No, better cars from Japan and Korea are. Don't mistake the "auto sector" for the Big 3 - the Toyota plant in Woodstock is doing quite well and though it is not unionized, it pays the same wages and benefits as the unionized shops.

The rest of your comment is merely boilerplate anti-union tripe. Have you been in a union? There are good ones and bad ones and if the bosses treated their workers right, there would be none. But the bosses can do no wrong in your eyes eh?

Mark said...

(a) When's the last time that federally regulated industries used scab workers in a labour dispute?

(b) Federally regulated industries are generally things that we normal people need in cases of emergency, etc. Unionized employees of airlines, telcos, etc, do not have a god-given right to hold the country hostage. Anti-scab legislation in areas that don't directly affect the population so drastically is fine, but unwarranted in these situations.

(c) Buzz is not affected by this. Automakers aren't federally regulated.

eugene plawiuk said...

Jordan you are correct that the suckcess of Alberta is partially based on anti-union laws and a despicable attitude towards exploiting working people. Which is why in Alberta we have long drawn out strikes as currently happening at the Palace Casino. No rights to first contracts, no right to automatic union recognition. I have blogged on this before.

As for your canard that working people don't want unions you are wrong, it is working people who created unions to bargain under capitalism. Unions were not needed prior to the advent of capitalism because workers had guilds and farmers had coops.

Under capitalism the myth is you as an individual are worth something, you are not, you are a wage slave, your skills are not what is required to run the machine just your time. As such you bargain your time. So go to EXY employer and tell them you want $22 an hour and wait to see what they say. Still waiting..waiting..yep they hired someone for $6.

That ain't negotiating, the only strength we have as workers is collective strength against the collective strength of capital.

since when is flying or rail essential. If it was then the state would order CN or Air Canada to bargain with its workers. Bosses in these industries wait for the state to beat up on workers when they go on strike as we saw with CN.

You must be reading that tripe from Greg Weston of the Sun. Probably opposed the unionization of Quebecor his bosses as well.

Gee when workers want more they are called greedy holding the country hostage etc. When bosses give themselves billion dollar salaries they are cheered. Of course workers are taxpayers, bosses avoid taxes.

If federal anti-scab legislation passed it would then be used to pass like legislation in the provinces that was the real fear, everything else is fear mongering.

I noticed OC and Mark did not cheer the Liberals on this so I take it they are Cons.

Trevor said...

A) Not the most recent, but I'll use the TELUS lockout of 2005. The company used scabs to undermine the unions position on contracting out. In addition to prolonging the lockout to over 120 days, the company now sends work - and customers personal information - offshore to the Philippines. The Philippines have been given a privacy legislation grade of F by a recent review in a study done by the US government.

There was also the Ekati strike in 2006 where the employer used scabs to yet again undermine the union.

B) C-257 does not interfere with the ability of unionized employers to provide essential services. Please read the debate held in front of the HUMA committee to read TELUS' main union, the TWU, shoot down the fear mongering over essential services.
The union provided evidence both within the Canadian Labour Code, and it's pre-lockout letter of agreement with TELUS, to show how unions provide workers to cover essential services during company initiated lockouts or strikes.

As an aside, it was TELUS, not the union workers, who refused to take the TWU's offer to provide emergency workers to set up phone lines for cleanup at the Lake Wabamun oil spill.

C) Buzz is affected because federal legislation lends legitimacy to advocates for provincial anti-scab laws in provinces like Ontario. If it gets shot down federally, it has less chance provincially. Federal anti-union legislation is bad for all unions.

I hope that clears up any confusion.