180

Strike 'Ends Unpaid Work' As Union Reaches Deal With Air Canada (therover.ca)

submitted 4 days ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

By resisting the back-to-work order, each union member faced fines of up to $1,000 a day. Since a tentative deal has been reached, this could tilt the scales towards unions who disregard federal use of Section 107.

Yesterday, Mark Hancock, CUPE’s national president, stood in front of dozens of reporters outside Toronto-Pearson airport, undeterred.

“If it means folks like me going to jail, so be it. If it means our union being fined, then so be it,” he said. Hancock insisted he does not believe the government’s order will survive a court challenge, which could take up to 10 years to go through the legal system — and now that a tentative deal has been made it is unclear whether charges will be pursued.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 35 points 4 days ago

By resisting the back-to-work order, each union member faced fines of up to $1,000 a day.

That is insanely fucked up. Like how the hell is something like this even on the books? Don't answer that.

[-] chocrates@piefed.world 11 points 4 days ago

Essential workers probably. Not saying it's good or just but the public has an interest in having things like Drs and nurses around.

Just a guess and this is a US perspective so I'd be curious the real answer

[-] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You are correct, full strikes by essential workers are considered illegal. Back in 2005, the teachers union in BC got in trouble for a similar situation where they continued a strike after being ordered back to work and were considered on an "illegal" strike because they are essential workers.

The union was fined $500,000 and told not to pay strike pay. However, after the strike (which ended favourably for the teachers), the union took the gov all the way up to the supreme court and they won, so I doubt that any fines placed in this case would hold up.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

"Essential workers" is apparently a euphemism for "slaves."

[-] CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 days ago

It can make sense for people like doctors, whose absence would lead to huge, immediate deaths .

But the government seems to mean "mildly inconvenience" when they say essential.

In my opinion, if the government deems a group essential, they workers should immediately get a huge bonus, at the cost of the company, to equally apply pressure, something like everything the striking members are asking for (unless it's patently absurd)

[-] mad_lentil@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

Yeah, if you're considered too essential to strike, then your employer should be bending over backwards to ensure you're not even considering it.

Otherwise the label "essential" becomes a weapon to use against you if all it means is the government can side with your employer to force you back to work—if I'm an employer, why would I even bother negotiating in good faith if I had that in my back pocket?

It almost worked, too, if not for some serious guts on the part of the workers and their union.