Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

from...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ke2_051015.html

The RCMP said late Saturday that dangerous driving charges had been laid against Garnet Altwasser, 65 – who has been both president and CEO at Lakeside Packers in Brooks – and Patrick Gummeson, 52, the manager of farm operations at the plant.

 

Three cars collided Friday on a road near the entrance to Lakeside Packer in Brooks, Alta. 

An RCMP news release said two other people face the same charge over the Friday night collision that injured Doug O'Halloran, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers' Local 401.

Did the Labour Leader lose his head and try to indimidate Tyson? Or did Tyson try to kill the Union Leader? There is no question that this altercation isn't pure coincidence...unless you like betting on long shots....
Pickets allege union leader was run off the road

Many pickets outside the slaughterhouse on Saturday alleged that plant managers boxed in O'Halloran's car while he was travelling nearby and deliberately forced him off the road. Some of them called on police to lay charges of attempted murder.

But there were conflicting accounts of the crash. The RCMP confirmed that three vehicles were involved in an accident on a highway where speeds can reach up to 110 km/h.

RCMP Cpl. Wayne Oakes said an RCMP collision analyst had been called in from Lethbridge.

Oakes wouldn't say whether the crash was connected with the strike,

interesting, this one...is it just a case of 'road rage', or an attempt at international assassination to settle a labour dispute?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Union leaders can be such idiots. They somehow convince the workers that they owe their living to the union. I agree that a union is useful to a large industrial site so the company may talk to the workers in one voice, but when the union stops bargaining in good faith, they've outlived themselves.

Ultimately the company signs the cheques for the workers, not the union. I say get rid of these idiots and let the supply and demand rules dictate the wages and benefits. Let the good workers excel and the deadwood float away.

And if the company bosses aren't playing fair, I hope they go under. Maybe the next owners will be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Union leaders can be such idiots.
Are you one ??? You sound like you could be....
They somehow convince the workers that they owe their living to the union. I agree that a union is useful to a large industrial site so the company may talk to the workers in one voice, but when the union stops bargaining in good faith, they've outlived themselves.
The union isn't there as a mouthpiece for the company .... The union exists to protect the workers from abuse individually or as a group. The union stands up for the rights of the workers. Without the union, do you suspect that the company is going to bargain in good faith.... or offer benefits.... I hardly think so...
Ultimately the company signs the cheques for the workers, not the union. I say get rid of these idiots and let the supply and demand rules dictate the wages and benefits. Let the good workers excel and the deadwood float away.
And if they can get Mexicans in to work for peanuts, even better.... eh ???
Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked out of the 424 IBEW for years. Contruction unions are almost the worst there is when it comes to militant crap. I got tired of the union heads sitting at the front of a gym and goading the troops how to vote on contracts.

Unions are great for supplying a labor force and for mandating safety and wage protocols, but when they get unrealistic, they're done being useful.

They protect useless unproductive twits while holding back the cream of the crop at the same time.

I worked out at Gregg River Resources near Hinton for 6 years as a pit electrician in the mine there under the Operating Engineers. The union and company got along good and we never went out. That worked. Unfortunately, not all unions know their place in the scheme of things.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for slave wages or Mexican labor. Bad company owners that don't pay enough wages will have trouble keeping staff. That should be allowed to just work itself out. A union is just a make work project to keep a few select leaders well paid on the backs of other workers, imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions are great for supplying a labor force and for mandating safety and wage protocols, but when they get unrealistic, they're done being useful.

And if the unions go away, will the employers adhere to the safety and wage protocols mandated by the unions ???

They protect useless unproductive twits while holding back the cream of the crop at the same time.

They have a job to do. In a non-union shop, perhaps the cream will rise, but most of the rest will be trodden upon...

Unfortunately, not all unions know their place in the scheme of things.

There's good and bad in everything.... However, we need the balance... There are cases where unions overstep their bounds... I remember, 15 years ago, Bob White telling me about the wonderful contract he got for the Ford workers... and feeling like I wanted to punch him because I thought he way overstepped what he should be asking for... and that he could actually be costing jobs by overstepping his bounds...

However, we need unions because we know that corp Canada will walk over anyone who isn't either extremely valuable to them, or doesn't have anyone to protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation reminds me of what is most despicable about union/company confrontations.

Unions should have the right to strike should they not agree with the employment offer of a company. They should not have the right to resort to violence, either by blocking a company from employing replacement workers or vandalizing company property. Yet this is common behaviour of many unions. Unions should not have the right to block free access of anyone or any goods to the company. Their only right is to withhold their employment services.

Moreover unions should not have the right to compel workers to join the union. Joining the union should be voluntary on the part of the employee.

Companies have the right to employ replacement workers, but they do not have the right to employ goons to intimidate strikers.

Violence should NEVER be part of this negotiation process, unfortunately it usually is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions do not have the right to "resort to violence." Nobody does. They should have the right to prevent "scabs" from replacing them or what is the point of a right to strike.

The need for strikes should have passed long ago in a civi;ized society. It persists only because of the backward thinking of the capitalist structure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unions do not have the right to "resort to violence." Nobody does. They should have the right to prevent "scabs" from replacing them or what is the point of a right to strike.

The need for strikes should have passed long ago in a civi;ized society. It persists only because of the backward thinking of the capitalist structure.

No a union should not have the right to prevent "scabs" from replacing them. The point of a strike is to withhold employment services, in the same way a consumer would boycott a merchant by refusing to shop at an establishment. In a similar anaolgy do you think that if a consumer has a dispute with a merchant that they have the right to prevent all other consumers from shopping at that merchant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unions do not have the right to "resort to violence." Nobody does. They should have the right to prevent "scabs" from replacing them or what is the point of a right to strike.

The need for strikes should have passed long ago in a civi;ized society. It persists only because of the backward thinking of the capitalist structure.

No a union should not have the right to prevent "scabs" from replacing them. The point of a strike is to withhold employment services, in the same way a consumer would boycott a merchant by refusing to shop at an establishment. In a similar anaolgy do you think that if a consumer has a dispute with a merchant that they have the right to prevent all other consumers from shopping at that merchant?

If you don't prevent "scabs" from replacing labour, then labour doesn't have a very good bargaining position does it.

As for your analogy, the relationship between a vender and his client is very different from an employer-employee relationship.

A better analogy might be that if you have a dispute with your marital partner, do you think you should have the right to prevent a replacement from going into your bedroom ????

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't prevent "scabs" from replacing labour, then labour doesn't have a very good bargaining position does it. 

As for your analogy, the relationship between a vender and his client is very different from an employer-employee relationship. 

A better analogy might be that if you have a dispute with your marital partner, do you think you should have the right to prevent a replacement from going into your bedroom ????

If labour unions don't have very good bargaining power without being able to prevent replacement workers, it would demonstrate that the labour that they supply has very little additional value beyond what the employer can get in the marketplace. If the labour a union supplies is a commodity, why should they be able to hold an employer hostage by preventing other willing workers to do what the union workers refuse to do?

In your analogy, there is mutual reciprocation of obligations (i.e. despite the dispute, both partners have agreed not to bring an outside party as a replacement). To transfer that analogy to company-union relations, if you prevented a company from hiring replacement workers, you should also prevent striking workers from working elsewhere to supplement their income during a strike. As you may be aware, it is very common that during prolonged disputes, strikers will take up other jobs until the strike is over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, that neo-con free market stuff makes lots of sense... but thank god we don't follow it precisely.

north america is rich because of unionization. it is becoming poor without it. if you look at statistics showing average family income this value increases dramatically as north america enters a period of heavy unionization 50 years ago. as it crumbles then we see this value dropping like a rock and so too the economy as lack of spending follows.

all powerful economies demand that the people in that economy have money to spend! what the hell is so difficult to understand about this?

capitalist systems only concentrate money. free market systems are great for generating capital and business and terrible at supporting the very concepts that make them a success. you can't sell stuff to people who have no money!

competition only drives prices down. in every instance competition by its very nature drives prices down! its not good for business! it is good for the consumer... but only provided that you have consumers with money! yes, its a delicate balance.

but socialist democracies _are_ the most successful countries in the world! socialist constructs include democracy, socialized infrastructure, socialized education of workers and a wealthy consumer base. on top of this cake a well regulated free market economy uses peoples own desire to succeed to produce capital and industry. something that they could not do without infrastructure and educated workers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Society is structured around the balance of power. Unions are part of that balance. For some people they offer the benefits of increased earnings through collective barganing.

What I am advocating, is that the power of unions should not be based upon depriving other of rights or by violence or threats of violence. Every individual should have the right to choose if he wants to be represnted by the union or he wants to represents himself in negotiations with employers. Every employer should have the right to employ who they wish, just as every employee has the right to choose their employer.

There was a time when employers would use violience and threats of violence, and blacklists against unions. While that may still exist in isolated incidents, that era is largely gone. However the use of union violence and other intimidation tactics still persist today.

I agree that unions are in a downward spiral. IMV this is as a result of a pendulum swing in attitudes on unions, and the pendulum has further yet to swing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...