canadian employment law – analogy

April 5th, 2006

It is time for new labour legislation in this province. At present, it is too one-sided. Individual rights are being totally ignored.

We have far too many strikes in Saskatchewan, which could have been prevented if we had some politicians with a little backbone. It appears they are only interested in the public at election time for votes.

Controversial issues are not touched or discussed.

Unionized employees of the Sobey’s grocery store on south Albert Street have been on strike for six months. It is a great store with honest, hard-working and self-reliant workers.

[…]

If joining a union is so good for its members, then way should they be forced to join? It should be voluntary, as in other organizations.

If a union member is not satisfied with the salary or working conditions, then he or she should look elsewhere for a job that fulfills all expectations and demands.

Compulsory unionism is called “the new slavery” because once a union has been voted into a workplace, there is no going back, especially for workers who didn’t want to join in the first place. Freedom of association is lost in the labour movement and in its place is coercion of its members. Coercion is contrary to all principles of freedom.

The Leader Post

[…]

You get the picture.

And in case you think I use that article because I couldn’t easily find harsh words about the UK government:

From time to time I, like many of us, muse on what is wrong with the people who run our country. Are they stupid? Are they naïve? Or are they actually downright wicked?

[…]

Consider, for example, the likely outcome of possibly the nastiest Bill to go before Parliament since the Six Acts of 1819, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. The Commons has given a second reading to this Bill, which would increase the already great ability of ministers to bypass Parliament in enacting, repealing or amending (according to Clause 2 of the Bill) “any legislation”. The Bill would especially be used, if enacted, to import EU law into our own without any parliamentary scrutiny, but could be used for even worse things besides.

[…]

Frankly, these plans are so absolutist that one could make a strong case that the Queen should abdicate rather than give her assent to either of them.

To obviate that horror she, Parliament and the British public must demand a straight answer to a straight and vital question: what is so wrong with our democracy that Labour wishes so ruthlessly to end it?

There have been quite a few views aired like this in the Telegraph recently, by ‘Establishment’ figures, it makes wonder whether there was a time when the nobs could simply ‘arrange an accident’ for ‘here today gone tomorrow’ political figures.

The notion that queen should abdicate rather than assent to the legislation talked about is interesting – is it a veiled call for her loyal subjects to oppose the proposed laws? Like I say interesting, and on a day when the Guardian publishes a piece explicitely citing Marx!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.