Originally Posted by
SarahS83
The Canada Posts incident set a very dangerous precedent. Workers were not going on strike at that point and yet CP locked the workers out. They showed up everyday and were locked out. Lisa Raitt then stated the workers could not hold the country hostage (again they were locked out by CP NOT on strike) and mandated them back to work.
This meant they now had nothing to bargain with as the law was in place they could not strike and CP could impose whatever new rules they wanted. CP refuse to negotiate fairly stating they are losing money, all the while posting a profit and stating that the "strike" cost them millions. So which is it? They have no money or they make millions a week?
This is still in arbitration btw nearly 2 years after the contract expired. The most recent arbitrator having been fired due to being friends with Lisa Raitt on facebook (hmmm I wonder which side they would fall on)
So a government run company (CP) want to force their workers into an unfair contract, the workers resist and the government run company locks out the workers, then getting the government to force them back to work and appointing a government arbitrator to decide on the contract. Taking away any right of the employee. Seem fair?
Sorry for thread hi jacking, it's the damn government get my blood boiling lol