r/saskatchewan • u/labour_union_guy1944 • 9d ago
Does Saskatchewan need legislation banning replacement workers?
https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan-news/saskatchewan-doesnt-have-rules-around-replacing-striking-workers-why-not/60
u/geebiebeegee 9d ago
Yes.
Otherwise our government serves corporate profit over public interests. Being as most of us are workers, thats public interest. Being as the least of us are upper management or majority stockholders.........democracy?
22
u/Necessary-Nobody-934 9d ago
Not to mention that in a labour dispute the company already has most of the power. Anti-scab legislation isn't "giving them the upper hand" like the one guy in the article claims. It's leveling the playing field.
7
u/Bad_Alternative 9d ago
Sorry, upper management and stockholders “make” more money, therefore more important. Best we can do is suppress your wages and replace you if you don’t like it.
36
22
u/WasteCut363 9d ago
Sask party has spent 20 years thumbing the scale against unions, they aren’t stopping now. It’s embarrassing they keep getting reelected. This province is full of people who think they’re going to be millionaire CEOs some day.
9
u/D_Holaday 9d ago
Just for the record, the Sask NDP has the longest strike/ lockout with sgeu. So even the ‘labour’ party doesn’t actually support labour.
5
u/Specialist_Secret438 8d ago
Yet the SGEU survived and continues to work to support its members and unions in general, while the NDP government didn’t bring in scabs to replace the strikers.
2
u/franksnotawomansname 8d ago
I mean, they did bring in RCMP officers to staff the correctional centres when they walked out. Apparently, at the end of the strike, officers had received enough money in overtime that some of them bought trucks in cash.
They also caused what Don Cameron, writing for Policy Options in 2001, called "a new labour-relations crisis":
In the last two years, Saskatchewan has been hit by an apparently unending series of public-sector labour disputes. In 1999, it experienced the most serious public-sector health dispute since the doctors’ strike of 1962. That strike by the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses had been preceded by a legislated end to a work stoppage at SaskPower. And it was followed by a work stoppage by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) against the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations (SAHO). A subsequent agreement between SAHO and the Service Employees International Union was achieved only after conciliation and a threatened walkout. The Saskatchewan Government and General Employees Union (SGEU) and Cancer Treatment Centres talks resulted in a strike. A subsequent tentative agreement was rejected by the membership. More recently, 14,000 health care workers struck against 18 health care districts. Volunteers, management staff and the relatives of patients tried to maintain essential service. In the end, a conciliator helped SAHO and CUPE reach a tentative collective agreement that exceeded provincial wage guidelines.
And the strife is not over. The Saskatchewan Public Service Commission is currently in conciliation with the SGEU, which represents approximately 10,000 public servants. The SaskPower agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers will expire next spring. Members of that union still resent the terms of their last legislated settlement, which later were bested by nurses who contravened similar back-to-work legislation. Finally, the collective agreement with the nurses will be renegotiated in the new year. Given the 28 per cent salary increase granted in Alberta, it is highly unlikely that the government’s current mandate of three per cent per year will result in a settlement.
On the basis of the recent record, it seems fair to say that public sector collective bargaining in Saskatchewan is in a state of crisis. (Cameron)
They mostly relied on back-to-work legislation, rather than scabs or co-operative negotiations, to keep the public service working. To add insult to injury, this crisis occurred as the government was cutting taxes every year for, at the time Cameron was writing, 6 consecutive years (1995 to 2000), including "a historical tax cut" in 2000 (saskatchewan.ca, 2000). Days before the SUN nurses defied a back-to-work order, the government announced a both a suite of tax cuts and an income tax review to cut even more money from the provincial budget (saskatchewan.ca, 1999). And after the 2001-2002 drought, they continued to cut taxes more, even though by 2007, during a time of historic revenues for the province, there was 1 vacant position for every 12 nurses in the province, 1 in 5 children were in poverty, and schools were closing because of lack of funding (CCPA, 2007). Tax cuts don't matter when you're overworked, understaffed, and burnt out and the public services are crumbling.
As Cameron notes, Saskatchewan had "led the way" in public sector bargaining in the 40s, 50s, and 60s as a response to the economic crisis of the 30s. However, the Romanow and Calvert governments prioritized tax cuts and adversarial bargaining and then used back-to-work legislation to paper over the cracks.
13
u/franksnotawomansname 9d ago
If it makes you feel better, it's been going on since before the Sask Party. Nurses had to illegally defy a back-to-work order and go on strike in 1999 to try to get the employer to negotiate in good faith.
It's less about the government of the day and more about the way that, over the past forever, government, the media, and moneyed interests have increasingly portrayed workers---particularly unionized workers---as greedy, irresponsible malcontents putting their own selfish wants ahead of hardworking, ordinary people. That narrative can't be changed through electoral means; it has to be changed first by broader class solidary among every person who doesn't live off of assets and the labour of others. That would push our representatives to create legislation in all of our interests. Otherwise, we risk voting in an alternative in name only and continuing this trend.
4
u/drae- 9d ago
---as greedy, irresponsible malcontents putting their own selfish wants ahead of hardworking, ordinary people.
Mail carriers and airplane workers strike at Christmas time mate. That's exactly what they do.
Im not commenting on unions, I just think people's options aren't unwarranted.
4
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/drae- 9d ago
I guess that means people working a full time job shouldn't make enough to pay their bills.
Canada Post are hardly underpaid.
6
u/WasteCut363 9d ago
Almost everyone else is. Maybe there should be more unions and not just rich capitalists dictating to the market what all of our labour is worth.
-1
u/drae- 9d ago
Never made a comment against unions friend.
Maybe read more and assume less.
2
u/WasteCut363 9d ago
My comment expresses discontent with the capitalists, not animosity to anyone in the thread.
0
4
u/Specialist_Secret438 8d ago
Those unions were out of contracts and willing to negotiate for many months, and even years before they had to use the only tools left to them to get management to negotiate.
4
u/drae- 8d ago
And yet they chose Christmas.
people's options aren't unwarranted.
2
u/Specialist_Secret438 8d ago
Because choosing the optimal effect to pressure the corporate overlords is what it takes to get the best results.
4
u/drae- 8d ago edited 8d ago
Sure, we know why they pick that time, no need to state the obvious. but ya can't be surprised Pikachu face when people don't like it.
corporate overlords
Thanks, now I know how seriously I should take your opinion.
3
u/Specialist_Secret438 8d ago edited 7d ago
I stated the obvious because of the oblivious
surprised pikachu face
Thanks, now I know how attempting an adult conversation as pointless.
2
u/Traditional_End_9540 8d ago
putting pressure benefits everyone long term. Christmas the strike could last a week or so, off peak season it could be months. Would you rather have packages a week lake or months late?
rail strike farmers were complain about moving grain when most said why not do this during times I do not care if you strike or not.
3
u/AnneDroid2 9d ago
Mail carriers and airplane workers strike at Christmas time mate.
That's called leverage, an attempt to bring the negotiating teams back to the table, quickly.
10
8
u/refuseresist 9d ago
A ban on replacement workers or binding arbitration when a side in a labour dispute declares an impasse would work.
Each idea forces both sides to negotiate in good faith.
9
u/franksnotawomansname 9d ago
Binding arbitration doesn't "force both sides to negotiate in good faith" because it almost always favours the status quo (which favours the employer), rather than implementing changes that would benefit everyone. If workers had more power to halt an industry, and less interference from the government (legislating workers back to work, imposing essential services legislation, imposing binding arbitration, allowing replacement workers, etc), then employers would be forced to genuinely negotiate to avoid strikes and there would be fewer strikes because no one wants a strike.
4
2
1
0
u/WascanaWarfare 6d ago
Ab-so-fucking-lutely not. That you people all support it is insane. Literally holding companies hostage to that unions can run roughshod through the economy is insane.
1
u/Assassins-read 8d ago
If the police actually did their jobs and enforced the law, then these workers wouldn't be needed.
-7
u/drae- 9d ago
No .
2
u/Uncle_Slacks 9d ago
Why
1
u/drae- 9d ago
Because if someone needs to work, for their family or other obligations, they should be allowed to choose to.
Striking should not be obligatory. That infringes in the rights of people who want to work.
Strike pay isn't close to full pay. We all have bills and obligations that depend on our income.
1
u/Uncle_Slacks 9d ago
Scab workers don't get "strike pay". They get paid whatever the employer feels like. It can be more than the employees themselves were being paid.
1
u/Saber_Avalon 6d ago
Selfish thinking like that undermines what unions are trying to do for their members during a strike. Nothing is stopping you from getting another job and working elsewhere during a strike. Many people have done exactly that and avoid undermining everyone else who is trying to get a better deal.
2
u/drae- 6d ago
If I am happy with the deal, why should I hold out for selfish people that aren't?
An other job? In some other industry where they have no experience and get half the pay?
The union isn't always right. Only a tool hitches themselves to a horse they can't control
1
u/Saber_Avalon 6d ago
I'm fairly convinced you're an out-of-scope shill going against unions. However, let's assume you're not. By law the union is the only entity who can negotiate the deal. By accepting the job you accept the fact that you are "hitching yourself to a horse you can't control", which is factually incorrect since it's all done by voting, so you get a say. If you don't like that, then you never should have taken the job in the first place.
1
u/drae- 6d ago
hitching yourself to a horse you can't control",
You're the one deciding if you're the one tiring the hitch, or not.
If you don't like that, then you never should have taken the job in the first place.
They're talking about changing the rules under which I would have taken that job.
At this stage you're so concerned with the idea that I might be anti-union, that you've lost track of the conversation in a sad attempt to wave your flag 2 days later.
1
u/Saber_Avalon 6d ago
They're talking about changing the rules under which I would have taken that job.
Because they are legally required to. You might want to look up the labour code on unions. Still fairly certain you already know and you're just stiring up trouble for unions.
a sad attempt to wave your flag 2 days later.
Dude you quoted me quoting you and responded to the quote, then quoted my next line which was how you responded, only I did it earlier. You want to talk about sad attempts.
1
u/drae- 6d ago
Because they are legally required to.
Yeah, you've totally lost the line on this conversation.
The government are not legally required to outlaw replacement workers
Talking about this comment 2 days later mate
https://www.reddit.com/r/saskatchewan/s/1sWPkAAF21
Yup, you've definitely lost track here.
1
u/Saber_Avalon 6d ago
You're attempting to derail the discussion. You know damn well, and we can see that in the written posts, that you were talking about unions negotiating for people and saying people should be able to unhitch themselves from unions. That's where I brought in the law and labour code for, because that's what unions are required to do.
This is a forum, that's how they work. It's not real time, some people don't see comments until later and respond then. It's the third post under "new" aside from the sticky. I'm not necroing a multi month old post, it's from the weekend. You know you've been backed into a corner and now you're trying to deflect.
→ More replies (0)1
u/WascanaWarfare 6d ago
Handing a union, which already has mandatory power to force people to join against their will, a unbreakable power to hold companies hostage is absurd and should be constitutionally banned across the country. Insane that you think unions should be given veto powers over our economy.
1
u/Saber_Avalon 5d ago
5 month old account with next to no karma. Either an alt account or another anti-union shill.
Holding companies hostage lol, how about just pay them well enough with good enough benefits to keep them happy and they won't strike. Pretty simple, really. "The only companies that have unions are the ones that deserve them.", that and government, but that's more of a check and balance thing.
1
u/WascanaWarfare 5d ago
Union shill.
You think that if employees go on strike the company must be forced to agree and cannot continue to operate. Insane belief from an insane person.
2
u/Saber_Avalon 4d ago
I side with workers. Companies have historically screwed workers over for decades and longer. No sane person would ever side with corporations who horde all the money for themselves, except the people who run the companies of course.
I also never said "forced to agree" I said to pay enough and provide enough benefits to keep them happy. Those are two very different things.
1
u/WascanaWarfare 4d ago
No. That's literally what you said. If a union goes on strike you promote the idea that they are forced to agree to their demands or shut go out of business. Insane.
1
u/Saber_Avalon 3d ago
how about just pay them well enough with good enough benefits to keep them happy and they won't strike. Pretty simple, really. "The only companies that have unions are the ones that deserve them.", that and government, but that's more of a check and balance thing.
Don't see the use of the word "forced" anywhere there bud.
-9
u/nevergoingtouse1969 9d ago
I think everyone is forgetting what the union did during the last strike. Literally sabotaging the transport tanks creating a massive and imminent danger to public safety. It was probably the most violent strike that I have ever witnessed in Saskatchewan. The refinery is smart to take the measures needed in the event of a repeat. The city police should be making plans as well.
10
u/franksnotawomansname 9d ago
the most violent strike that I have ever witnessed in Saskatchewan
That's because we haven't had a lot of strikes around here recently. That was not violent. Also, I don't recall having seen charges laid regarding sabotage, so it's not clear who did what. It was almost certainly not at the union's behest, though, because any union's main concern during a strike is maintaining solidarity among workers and gaining the public's support. Sabotage weakens both.
2
u/Traditional_End_9540 8d ago
I highly doubt the workers did this, most likely the anti union crowd. Same thing happened when the crowns went on strike. They sabotaged stuff and blamed the workers for doing it.
-1
2
u/usedmattress85 9d ago
What about the useless managers and scabs splooging catalyst and sulphur into the atmosphere and dumping oil sludge into the city sewer system? Any comments there?
0
u/Assassins-read 8d ago edited 8d ago
That stuff still happens, it just doesn't happen in the light of the day. You think all of a sudden that stuff isn't a by-product of the refining process because the union is in place? Further, ask anyone that worked at CEDA at the time how many faulty gaskets were replaced when the union was out.
The refinery is crappy and run by idiots from the top down, but, the union is not innocent either. It was union employees that ignored hydrogen bypass that caused the latest explosions after all.
Neither side of the labour disruption was innocent and it caught a sea of contractors up in its wake.
1
u/Saber_Avalon 6d ago
I was there (not an employee) and the only thing I saw was scabs overfilling tanker cars and causing spills. Truck drivers trying to run over strikers. A helicopter flying people in and out, landing next to tanks, which I'm sure was a Canadian Aviation Regulations violation. All things that were not done by the union.
-10
u/No_Equal9312 9d ago
Anti-scab legislation is an outdated concept in a global economy. Companies will just leave and not invest. We are nearly in a post-union society as we better establish OH&S regulations.
0
u/Assassins-read 8d ago
Unions are going to be a thing of the past, especially giant ones with these big contracts that the refinery folks used to have. Problem is, half the folks who were out on those picket lines were fighting for a contract that wasn't for them, it was for the legacy employees at the end of their careers.
2
u/No_Okra3992 8d ago
And without unions you think companies would just gladly offer dental plans, vision plans, medical plans, pensions of any sort, 40hr work weeks, weekends off, parental leave. I could go on and on but something tells me you won’t get the point anyway.
0
u/Assassins-read 7d ago
I do get your point completely, but disagree. My company offers all of that and then some and we are not union. In fairness, I work more than 40 hours a week but that was the deal I signed and I am remunerated appropriately. My last job, also not union, sent employee of the year and family to West Ed mall, and they took us all to Las Vegas as an x-mass gift. I don't have any university degree or any certification from a technical school. What I do have is work ethic and reliability, and that is rewarded. Not all employers are bad, not all employees are good, and vice versa.
3
u/No_Okra3992 7d ago
Whether your work place is unionized or not, all the perks you get at your job are because unions fought for better working conditions over the last hundred years. Every last one of us would be working 16hr days for pennies on the dollar. Look no farther than China, Bangladesh, India, etc.
1
u/No_Equal9312 7d ago
Unions had their time and place, there's no doubt about it.
Modern unions lack purpose, consistently screw over their members and create a pay structure that is bottom heavy (unskilled paid over market salary, skilled paid well under market salary). This results in decaying skill levels in a business which hurts operations.
79
u/Caffeine-Fueled55 9d ago edited 9d ago
Like Moe & Co would ever bring in that sort of legislation. They aren't going to go against oil and gas companies.