178 replies to this topic

[TimG]

Not if it means the government interfering with a contract signed by two voluntary entities.

The government is not interfering in the contracts or the negotiations. All the government is doing is saying the parties have no right to harm innocent third parties because they cannot agree.

Its the governments job to UPHOLD such agreements, not invalidate them. Like I said... we already have a mechanism that allows companies in this position to restructure their debts and obligations.

And that will be where CP goes if it cant convince the union to agree. Bond holders don't need a right to strike to protect their interests. Why do unions?

Edited by TimG, 23 May 2012 - 03:15 PM.

[dre]

The government is not interfering in the contracts or the negotiations. All the government is doing is saying the parties have no right to harm innocent third parties because they cannot agree.

And that will be where CP goes if it cant convince the union to agree. Bond holders don't need a right to strike to protect their interests. Why do unions?

The government is not interfering in the contracts or the negotiations. All the government is doing is saying the parties have no right to harm innocent third parties because they cannot agree.

That depends on any written contracts between these "innocent third parties" and those companies. In the absense of that no person can force another into servitute.

And that will be where CP goes if it cant convince the union to agree.

Ok.

Bond holders don't need a right to strike to protect their interests. Why do unions?

[CPCFTW]

How is anyone forced into servitude? If you can't strike, and you can't agree to the terms of your employment, you can quit and find a new employer.

[Topaz]

CP knows that this government will order the workers back to work if an agreement can't be reached, so CP don't have to put a really effort in the talks but on the other side, if a strike does come down then the economy of the country comes to a stand still and probably for that very reason CP could never be sold to a private company. Of course, the seating government, could get involved because of the effect on the economy, which puts a mark against the workers.

[Topaz]

And yet you have no problem doing the same to MPs, no matter how long they've served, no matter what was agreed to.

It's very hard to feel sorry for the MP's, well SOME MP's. They gave themselves a raise in wages and in pensions and we don't get a say and its our money! How many people can get a pension at 55? I just think government should treat the hands that feed them like they treat themselves. If workers have their pensions reduced or taken away, then its the tax payer down the road that will be supporting them on social programs. As long as BOTH sides are bargaining in good faith, then let them comes to terms on their own, without the government jumping in even before the strike starts.

[dre]

How is anyone forced into servitude? If you can't strike, and you can't agree to the terms of your employment, you can quit and find a new employer.

I prefer a balance of power between labor and employers. All the union bashers should brush up on the history of labor rights in this country... Labor had to fight tooth and nail for almost everything they have ever gotten, and we arent just talking about wages, but basic safety standards as well.

Collective bargaining is a fundamental human right in any society where the free association of individuals is allowed, and in countries where there was no labor movement workers live in total squallor and endure unsafe conditions.

Edited by dre, 23 May 2012 - 09:08 PM.

[dre]

And yet you have no problem doing the same to MPs, no matter how long they've served, no matter what was agreed to.

Stop trotting out this terrible analogy. Politicians can simply give themselves higher wages and benefits. Nobody has to "agree" to anything. The people that pay their salaries are not even consulted.

To compare this with the collective bargaining process in the private sector is ridiculous. Unions cant increase their wages and benefits with the stroke of a pen like politicians can.

[Smallc]

Stop trotting out this terrible analogy. Politicians can simply give themselves higher wages and benefits. Nobody has to "agree" to anything. The people that pay their salaries are not even consulted.

Oh really? Last I checked, we were consulted about every 4 years...even more than that, lately.

To compare this with the collective bargaining process in the private sector is ridiculous. Unions cant increase their wages and benefits with the stroke of a pen like politicians can.

Neither can politicians. Enough of them have to agree for anything to go forward. The analogy is apt.

There is no reason that this particular group of politicians should suddenly have the rules changed midstream. The same goes for people who were promised defined benefit pensions.

[Smallc]

.

Edited by Smallc, 23 May 2012 - 10:14 PM.

[dre]

Oh really? Last I checked, we were consulted about every 4 years...even more than that, lately.



Neither can politicians. Enough of them have to agree for anything to go forward. The analogy is apt.

There is no reason that this particular group of politicians should suddenly have the rules changed midstream. The same goes for people who were promised defined benefit pensions.

We were not consulted about politicians wages and benefits that I can remember.

There is no reason that this particular group of politicians should suddenly have the rules changed midstream. The same goes for people who were promised defined benefit pensions.

Like I said... theres a huge different between perks that policitians give themselves, and those fought for during the collective bargaining process. One group can arbitrarily raise their own wages without even a 5 minute conversation with their employers, the other has to put their jobs on the line.

[Smallc]

We were not consulted about politicians wages and benefits that I can remember.

That's not how representative democracy works, and you know it.

Like I said... theres a huge different between perks that policitians give themselves, and those fought for during the collective bargaining process. One group can arbitrarily raise their own wages without even a 5 minute conversation with their employers, the other has to put their jobs on the line.

Put their jobs on the line? A politician will lose their job far before most union workers at a non bankrupt company.

[dre]

Oh yes, and I love the way people keep changing my name to smallC, especially when you consider that I just, in a thread, TODAY, talked bout how the government (this government) was wrong on two different counts in 2008 - 2009. Keep it up though. This place is becoming a....not nice place.

I honestly did not mean to do that.

[Smallc]

I retract it then. It isn't the first time I've seen it done in the last little while though (not by you).

You're usually one of the smarter posters on here, so I was surprised.

[dre]

That's not how representative democracy works, and you know it.



Put their jobs on the line? A politician will lose their job far before most union workers at a non bankrupt company.

That's not how representative democracy works, and you know it.

But no party compaigned on reducing politicians wages or benefits... how on earth can you say I was consulted? Tell me how I could have voted to cap or reduce politicians wages and benefits?

Put their jobs on the line? A politician will lose their job far before most union workers at a non bankrupt company.

Maybe but I said that in the context of wages and benefits. Politicans can simply make theirs larger... A Union has bargain. Its an apples and oranges comparison.

[Smallc]

But no party compaigned on reducing politicians wages or benefits... how on earth can you say I was consulted? Tell me how I could have voted to cap or reduce politicians wages and benefits?

No one is really complaining about them loud enough for a party to do that (good thing too, IMO)

Maybe but I said that in the context of wages and benefits. Politicans can simply make theirs larger... A Union has bargain. Its an apples and oranges comparison.

Well, like I said, the politicians do have to decide collectively, and they have to do it in a way that won't outrage their employer...so it is somewhat similar.