Hey everyone. I got some time to do the latest update to the board software, but it meant that all the old modifications and styles wouldn't work anymore. So, here you have the newest iteration of LabourTalk. Please let me know by Private Message if you run into any issues with the new styling. Some new features on the board are:

  • Latest HTML5 Responsive Styling - You can now see a new, more modern styling on the board. Along with this, you can resize the browser to see the board change with it. The board is now functional on all sizes of screens, including your cell phone, table and desktop/laptop.
  • Post Sharing - Although you could previously, the new layout means the sharing icons are more visible on the lower right hand corner of each post. Click your favourite social media outlet to share the desired post with them.
  • Multiple Themes - Previously there was only one theme in an attempt to lower the workload when modifications were put in place. Fortunately, the new modification system is much simpler to implement and we now have multiple colour options for you to enjoy. You can change these from your User Control Panel under the Board Settings heading.
  • Announcements - Announcements can now be posted here (where you're seeing this one) and, in most cases, can be dismissed. To dismiss them, please click the "X" in the top right corner of this box.
  • Collapsing Categories - Categories, such as News & Announcements or Welcome (below), can be collapsed to clear up some of the clutter. This state should be maintained as long as you're logged in.

We hope you like the changes!

Fines: Yes - Nycole Turmel, National President of PSAC

Discussion about the issue of Unions fining their members.
User avatar
NC
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 3:43 pm
Location: Vancouver

Fines: Yes - Nycole Turmel, National President of PSAC

Postby NC » Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:05 pm

Nycole Turmel says "Yes, They protect collective bargaining"
The Canadian HR Reporter
Nycole Turmel - Guest Commentary

There has been some to-do lately about the issue of fines imposed by unions against members who have crossed their own picket lines to work during a strike. This article is intended to set the record straight.

The constitution of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) provides that any member who is in a legal strike position and who engages in "strikebreaking” by performing struck work, shall have a fine imposed against him in an amount that is exactly equal to the amount of pay earned by that employee through his strikebreaking.

What is the purpose of these fines?

...
If you want to read the whole piece you can go here.



green1
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Calgary Alberta
Contact:

Postby green1 » Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:13 pm

wow... so many false assumptions... they start with the lie that the employer holds all the power, as if unions are helpless... secondly they assume that the union has actually bothered with a strike vote... they talk about going against the "majority" but when the majority cross, it's the STRIKERS who are the going against the majority. they talk about how preventing people from crossing a picket line would speed up the negotiating process, but they don't mention that preventing people from striking would have exactly the same effect. neither one is a good solution, they are both extremes. but for some reason, only preventing a strike is considered extreme, preventing people from working is considered okay???

it's too bad that the blatant union propaganda is so well entrenched, the unions have far too much power through the laws in this country, and even more through the assumptions that people make, the assumption that unions always work in the employees best interest, and that the company is always against the employees... the labour rules provide all sorts of remedies for people who are hurt by the company, but not a single way for employees to take on their union.



rallyman1122
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:35 pm

Postby rallyman1122 » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:28 am

Let's talk about some of the statements in this article

1) People who perform such work tilt the scales of labour relations unfairly in the employers favour because it allows the employer to continue its operations

The basic theory for labour negotiations is one of give and take. When one side feels that there is no room left to give, strikes occur.

From dictionary.com; to conclude a bargain or reach an agreement.

When does a union have the right to completely shut a company down? The basic premise behind striking is the withdrawal of services by the union members. No union right to shut a company down, just as no company has the right to deny its employees the right to organize.

2) The federal government has thus far refused to enact amendments to the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of strikebreakers (sometimes euphemistically referred to as “replacement workers”), although the last Parliament came very close and it’s the law in a number of Canadian jurisdictions. Banning this practice offers immense benefits of collective bargaining and economies. It helps in achieving faster resolutions of labour disputes and in reducing the number of strikes and lockouts that actually take place.

Sure it reduces the number of strikes that take place. Such a law would tilt the balance of labour relations too far in the unions favour and hold companies’ hostage to threats of strikes and labour unrest.

3) “The scab sells his birthright, his country, his wife, his children and his fellow men for an unfulfilled promise from his employer.” London wrote those words more than 100 years ago. While much has changed in the world, some things will never change.

Thing's have changed over the last 100 years. Labour relations between employees and employers being one of them. The labour scene of 100 years ago was one of violence and greed. Companies exploited workers and used violence as a tool to keep workers who chose to strike in line.

Look at the labour world today. Now it is the unions who use intimidation and threats of violence to make their members toe the line. In the PSAC strike and the TELUS strike, threats of fines, the use of "flying squads", and pickets at workers homes are a deeply disturbing trend that shows growing desperation of the unions.

3) Strikebreakers consciously go to work despite the fact the strike was called after a majority of their co-workers had voted to strike. That makes them an irresponsible minority.

Regarding the TELUS strike. The argument is simply false. There was no valid strike vote. There was no attempt by the TWU to discuss the issues with the membership before simply withdrawing services.

4) Strikebreakers, on the other hand, seem to care only about maintaining their own income flow during a strike, while letting others bear the burdens and make the sacrifices.

Another myth. Too often those who cross a picket line are the very same individuals who have been marginalized by the power base of the union. Many in the latest TELUS strike attempted to voice their opinions to union officials but were ignored at best and belittled at worst. Expecting those the union has ignored, to support that same union during a labour dispute is simply unrealistic.

5) Without legislation that bans the use of scab labour, what is a union to do if it cannot persuade people to act responsibly?

How about treating it's members with respect? How about listening to those that hold the minority position, trying to be inclusive. How about understanding the financial reality that some people live under that simply does not allow the loss of any income? Yes a strike hurts those that do not cross; it also hurts those that do. Money does not rule the world, but statements from unions too often equate those that cross with greed.

6) Some people will claim one has the right to cross picket lines. While they will be correct that strikebreaking is still legal in most Canadian jurisdictions, one really has to ask: just what sort of “right” are we talking about here, anyway? It is the right to conduct oneself as a freeloader upon the sacrifice and contribution of others, at the direct expense of others, by making strikes and lockouts more prolonged and volatile or dangerous. That sort of behaviour is destructive, it is wrong and it should never be upheld as a valid right.

The right to cross a picket line is upheld in the Canadian Labour Code. To read this statement, we are asked to put a moral standard that many do not support over the law as define by our government. Again this author trots out the union standard of those that cross must be doing it for greed. To often money is a factor, there is no doubt about that. However many who cross a picket line hold views contrary to those of the union and simply refuse to support the strike action. The Labour Code that is applied federally allows for a union member to cross a picket line. Why show the moral views of a particular group supersede the law?

7) It should never be upheld as a valid right. The best solution is the enactment of legislation that prohibits the use of strikebreakers. Governments must show leadership on this issue.

Governments have shown leadership on this issue by refusing to pass such legislation a number of times. To say the best solution is to take away the right of workers to make choice, smacks of an attitude that was displayed for a number of decades in communist countries.


This article is artfully constructed to present the argument of imposing fines as a moral right without considering the moral right of those that cross picket lines to adequate representation by the very unions that the members are forced to fund. Why should those he is forced to support financially penalize a member, who pays his union dues?



User avatar
NC
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 3:43 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby NC » Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:49 am

Want to hear a funny?

I have read a letter from Nycole Turmel, that she wrote to the National Board of Directors of PSAC that says, among other things:

The PSAC has a legal opinion that clearly and without ambiguity concludes that we have no legal ability to enforce the collection of fines, and would lose any legal action at more senior levels of the justice system.

In other words, PSAC knows they will lose if an employee ever gets to stand in front of a judge.

That said, one must ask, why sue them all then? Perhaps to intimidate the others, to frighten and drive their members into submission? I recall the TWU had similar plans...



rallyman1122
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:35 pm

Postby rallyman1122 » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:57 pm

Not sure where the TWU is in the process of fines and not really caring. If they come after me, so be it, see you in court.

Try to collect fines in Alberta courts for crossing a picket line, please try!!

I will be there with the lawyer and and a load of evidence to show the incompetence of the TWU and Local 213.



User avatar
NC
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 3:43 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby NC » Mon May 01, 2006 9:34 am

Rally, did you ever get one of the "Letters" from the TWU? Of "invitations" to a tribunal?



rallyman1122
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:35 pm

Postby rallyman1122 » Mon May 01, 2006 9:15 pm

I was sent what I assume was a list of the charges and an invitation to sit down for a friendly chat(ha!).

A registered letter notice came to the house, I simply ignored it. The funny thing is that when it came time to vote, we had moved and I called Lane St. to update my address. I asked about the letter and was told that unless I had been specifically advised, I was still a memeber in good standing.

Today, I received the lattest notice of a union meeting and elections to replace exec. who had moved into other positions.

What a joke that is. Local 213 is simply a waste of time. There are a few good people in the local, people who give a damn about others. Mostly though, it's all about how much power they can get, and how to manipulate others to get what they want.




Return to “Fines - Including PSAC & Telus”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest