and of course we all know that Buffett holds WMT shares, so with two great investors holding shares, it makes you feel good. Dividends help to keep you in money.
Funny you say that because it is at the expense of society. The original intent was to encourage trade unionism not for any "balance" between the two camps. It goes without saying that the more workers make, the more disposable income there is to spend so that new businesses can grow. Most new job creation comes from new start ups and most start ups come from well paid workers leaving their places of employment to strike it out on their own. Limiting wages may very well be good for a business, but it is piss poor for the economy as a whole.
Paul, I can' find too much on the Wal-Mart connection but here is how it did play out:
One Wal-Mart store in Saskatchewan was unionized based on card check and Wal-Mart made a big deal of it. The new government heard the cries of Wal-Mart and changed legislation making card check illegal, retroactively, so the store was decertified. Much talk was made of the card check and how Wal-Mart wanted "balance" in the legislation and they wanted the right to convince workers not to unionize, all in the name of free speech. They got their way.
Public employees in particular are subject to pressures that private employees may not be subject to. All employees, public or private, have the right to go elsewhere. Private employees have the right to form unions and strike. If it is a right that is tied in with freedom of association, it logically must apply to all.
Public employees actually have laws that limit their right to strike which alone puts them on a different plain. Public employees are often subject to dismissal for political reasons and replaced with someone more in tune with the current elected government. It is interesting that the ILO, the International Labour Organization, a branch of the United Nations, has several international agreements signed by both the United States and Canada that prohibit taking away the right to strike of public employees, yet it goes on. In many countries, public servants are replaced like underwear when a new government comes into power, so if we are to set examples, we need to watch what we do. We have to be very careful about setting laws in place that limit individual and collective rights that includes unions.
Can't really say, as I think the law should allow exceptions where
public safety is concerned, similar to how the law allows for exceptions
when regulations imposed would cause undue hardship on another group.
For example, here in the U.S. many labor laws only apply to employers
of a certain size: COBRA, FMLA, WARN, ADA, etc. Are employee rights
being violated because of these exceptions?
That said, I understand and agree with an objection if the employer
gets to arbitrarily define who and what is essential. There should be
some clear-cut limits and guidelines. As you said, let the SCC decide.
Does the public not being put at risk due to a strike in the past guarantee
the same in the future? No. Point was, the SFL's explanation on why it can't
happen is literally a joke.
If you agree that stripping these workers of their right to strike does weaken their position at the bargaining table, than you have to admit that it is therefore unconstitutional in Canada since it does not protect collective bargaining.
Public sector bargaining in Canada has always had a component in it that allowed for essential services to continue. The positions are negotiated and that has never been a problem. What happens here now is that the employer gets to designate who is essential and can include everyone if it suits the employer. In Saskatchewan, for example, liquor is sold through government stores. Calling these workers essential goes against all common sense, yet the government has chosen to call some or all of them essential and strip away their right to strike.
Yes, I would agree that the public has never been put at danger due to a strike, but yes they have been inconvenienced as one would expect.
Link to WMT to follow.
Re: Bill 5, I think it’s reasonable to prohibit strikes by essential personnel
if it would put the public at risk. I believe your original question was,
doesn’t that infringe on worker’s rights to collectively bargain?
I’d say no, not if it’s law, but it certainly weakens their position at the
table. (Thanks for the info, especially the SFL link. I actually laughed at
“Unions have never put the public at risk during a strike because union
members are the public too.” I’m relieved drunk drivers don’t put the public
at risk because they’re the public, too.)
BTW, what does Wal-Mart have to do with this, and vice versa?