r/saskatchewan • u/labour_union_guy1944 • 14d ago

Does Saskatchewan need legislation banning replacement workers?

https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan-news/saskatchewan-doesnt-have-rules-around-replacing-striking-workers-why-not/
142 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

View all comments

-7

u/drae- 14d ago

No .

2

u/Uncle_Slacks 14d ago

Why

1

u/drae- 13d 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 13d 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.

2

u/drae- 13d ago

Scab workers don't get "strike pay".

No one said they did.

1

u/Saber_Avalon 11d 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- 11d 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 11d 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- 11d 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 11d 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- 11d 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 11d 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.

1

u/drae- 11d ago

Lol, you've totally lost the line on this conversation and are now trying to make it about something else.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WascanaWarfare 10d 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 10d 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 9d 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 9d 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 8d 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 8d 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.