Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts

April 28, 2008

National Day of Mourning

April 28 is the National Day of Mourning, a day set aside by the Canadian Labour Congress to recognize workers injured, disabled, or killed on the job, and to bring awareness to the issue of occupational health and safety. This year marks the 24th annual observance of the National Day of Mourning. It was made official by the Workers Mourning Day Act in 1990.
In 2002 more than 900 people died in Canada as a result of work-related accidents or illnesses. This means that, on average, close to four workers are killed every working day. Close to 360,000 others were injured seriously enough to prevent them from reporting to work for at least one day. It is estimated that over one million work-related injuries and illnesses are reported each year in Canada.

In 2002 workers in all age groups under 50 years were equally likely to be injured while on the job. For the same year, the number of time-loss work-related injuries for men was also more than twice that for women.

Work-related accidents are very expensive. The total of compensation paid to work accident victims or their families and of other economic costs of work-related injuries each year are estimated at more than $12 billion. These figures do not take into account the pain and suffering of the victims and their families, which are incalculable.
More at the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference website. Also, here's a link to CLC President Ken Georgetti's Day of Mourning statement.

Edit: It's been pointed out to me that the Workers Mourning Day Act was moved by NDP MP Rod Murphy (Churchill). And since I'm so darn partisan, I figured I might as well tip the ol' hat.

Edit: Fixed formatting.

April 18, 2008

A Rocky Path

Mandryk's column today dumps a number of Sask Party skeletons from their closets. Or more appropriately, from the "Hidden Agenda" vault they left when vacating their offices:
After all, if labour money can buy off the NDP, why wouldn't we assume that the Saskatchewan Party's $668,016 in corporate donations has influenced its policies? Wouldn't we also assume that the tens of thousands of dollars the Saskatchewan Party has received over the years from implement manufacturers (who demanded changes to the union certification laws) or from former media baron Conrad Black (who loved to crush unions) is the driving force behind Bills 5 and 6?
(Leader-Post - April 18, 2008)
Good questions, Murray. Thanks for pointing this out. And thanks for going further and speculating about oil royalty rates and Big Mouth Billy Bass. Your dig at the CFIB falls a little flat, though, because while the budget doesn't really address property taxes, Wall's one-eighty on municipal funding could be tied to this very issue. His change of mind was so abrupt that it even took Hutch, the Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs, by surprise. The CFIB, meanwhile, are too busy swooning not over the budget, but over the Premier they have in their pocket.

But for me, the best part about this column wasn't the blunt message to Tim McMillan that he should just shut the hell up and return to his job of warming the backbench, or Mandryk noting that the Sask Party took in two-and-a-half times the NDP's union donations from their corporate pals, or even the not-so-subtle reminder that the Kathy Youngs (and the Tom Lukiwskis) of the world don't change their stripes. Instead, it was the following:
Here's a simple solution to the Saskatchewan Party government's concerns over the undue influence union donations are having on the NDP: ban donations from all unions and corporations.
Indeed, some forward-thinking New Democrats raised this very issue at convention. It was voted down, of course, because people get stuck in their ways, and worried about cash flows, and can't see the big picture. But some of us -- Mandryk included, apparently -- want to see a democracy run by the people -- not by businesses, and not by organizations. The shift will be another rocky path, but with enough people on side it won't be too hard to clear the stones.

Edit: Fixed typos.

Regina Labour Forum

I've just been told that there will be a labour forum in Regina in discuss the impact and sweeping powers of Bills 5 and 6.

The forum is scheduled for April 21 at 7:30 p.m. at the Ramada Hotel (the corner of Broad and Victoria). No word yet on which Sask Party officials will ditch this time, but Premier Wall is kindly not even responding to his invitation, so that's a good start.

Tell your friends. Tell the people at your constituency associations. Tell your federal NDP candidates. Tell the Liberals and the Greens -- they don't have any love for the Conservatives either. The more people that show up, the stronger our voice becomes.

April 17, 2008

Reaching Out to Labour

However, Wall told reporters Friday that a Sask. Party government would "reach out" to labour. "We want them to join in the Enterprise Saskatchewan model," Wall said.
(Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Oct. 27, 2007)
In yet another example of how the Sask Party is reaching out to labour, officials listed only as "two high-ranking government bureaucrats" have pulled out of a public labour forum. Of course, they've done this on the day the forum is to take place, and after confirming their attendance.

This is no different from the antics of the Sask Party during the election, when candidates ducked public debates in Regina and Moose Jaw. So although it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that the Sask Party is still pulling this bullshit, it's very disappointing that ducking public forums, public debates, and stakeholder consultations is how little Bradly Wall intends to honour his committment to "reach out".

The labour forum is still going to take place, even without government representation. Anyone interested in labour issues or how Bills 5 and 6 will affect the current labour climate should definitely be in attendance. The stronger labour's presence is, the less government can continue its tactic of avoidance and indifference.

January 22, 2008

Bill 5: Essential Services Legislation

Larry Hubich points to a good article in Planet S magazine where he and Rosalee Longmoore talk about Bill 5 and its sweeping powers over unions.

COPE397 also sounds the alarm on their site, with links to the complete text of both Bill 5 (Essential Services) and Bill 6 (Amendment to the Trade Union Act), and a preliminary analysis of both Bills by the SFL.

(h/t Orgie, Larry)

December 7, 2007

Essential Services

I've said it before, but it's a point I think bears repeating: the Sask Party is an unholy alliance of hard-line Conservatives with a bunch of blue Liberals. Wall is trying very hard to keep the soft and chewy Liberal face on his party for the public's benefit, but after being sidelined for 16 years, the hard, crunchy Conservatives are spoiling for a fight; they want action, dammit, and they want it now.

So, to keep his party from breaking apart before reaching the ultimate goal of kicking the NDP out of power, Wall has had to make some assurances to his hard-line supporters: we'll privatize industry, we'll cut social services, we'll bust those unions. Just give us your vote and relax. And knowing they couldn't win government on that platform, they've had to tuck those hard, crunchy parts away, fooling the public into thinking the Sask Party was soft and chewy all the way through.

Unfortunately, some of those nuts he's hidden are starting to show through.

In a media scrum earlier this week, Rob Norris politely give the answer "I'll have to get back to you on that" to the question, "What groups have you consulted with over this proposed essential services legislation?" Of course we found out later that the answer was none, because, as Norris again so nicely explained, the legislation has been in the works for over a year -- without any kind of stakeholder

I'm sure SUN is going to be pretty happy about this.

So how about another round of applause for Rob Norris, who's too stupid to brief himself on his portfolio and too stupid not to release more of the Sask Party's hidden agenda to the media.

There's a long list of people talking about Wall's and McMorris's backpedaling on this issue, in addition to articles in the Leader-Post, CBC, and the Canadian Press -- hell, even Mandryk chimed in with something negative -- so I don't think I can break any new ground. But communication is clearly lacking in the Sask Party caucus right now -- partly because of inexperience, partly because of incompetence, and partly because there are simply too many secrets they need to keep.

November 29, 2007

Labour is on the Agenda

Session starts again on Dec. 10, and Wall has already said Labour is on the agenda. His need to get this out of the way so soon means something is in the works. So much for Larry Hubich's request for compromise:

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour president Larry Hubich said he'll be looking to the government to consult broadly before any changes are made, adding the labour movement is prepared to be respectful and "engage in compromises."

"If that's the approach that the new government wants to take then I think they'll see a favourable response from the labour movement," Hubich said, who has written the premier to request a meeting between labour leaders and cabinet.

"If they're not interested in that approach, then they shouldn't be surprised at the kind of response that might ensue."
(Leader-Post, Nov. 23)

No Larry, they're clearly not interested in that approach. Barely a month after the election and they're already going into session? Who could they have possibly consulted?

What's more concerning than their clear agenda to change the labour laws is the hidden agenda Rob Norris lets out of the bag:

When asked about the planned changes to labour legislation, Norris said there is a need to "rebalance relationships."

But the minister said he couldn't detail which relationships or the changes that need to occur until he was more fully briefed about his new portfolio.
(Leader-Post, Nov. 23)

Rob is clear that there's a need to rebalance the relationship between labour and management, but he apparently doesn't know where or what that imbalance is. If he's saying this just to toe the party line on labour, then he's an idiot. If he shed some more light on the Sask Party's hidden agenda, which is more likely, then he's an idiot and a liar.