4 ms·

I'm not sure how you got to where you are right now. I would read the actual decision of the labor board: http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf http

by refurb 4y ago

I'm not sure how you got to where you are right now. I would read the actual decision of the labor board: http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_08829.pdf The board is saying "employees should stop their illegal strike, employees should stop any action encouraging others to strike illegally, the union should post this decision, and if employees and "Once filed, the Directives will be enforceable as an Order of the Court. Violation of a court order can result in civil or criminal penalties including contempt of court." So yes, this decision is legally binding as a court order and if the employees decide to ignore a court order (just as if an employer did the same), the court has the ability to institute civil and criminal penalties. I mean, it's no different than if you and I write up a contract to buy a car. If I decide to break the contract, you take me to court and I ignore the court when they say "give the money back", yeah, I could go to jail or face fines, etc. None of this should be a surprise. If unions (and their members) want to be able to legally enforce contracts against their employer, well, those same contracts are legally enforceable against them, up to, and including, civil and criminal penalties.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> employees should stop their illegal strike, employees should stop any action encouraging others to strike illegally ...which seems reasonable, except I don't agree there's such a thing as an illegal strike. In a free country, any worker is entitled to withdraw their labour. They may face the consequence that their employer withdraws compensation. If they're in a strong union, and the union has endorsed withdrawal of labour, then they have some protection from the employer withdrawing compensation. > I mean, it's no different than if you and I write up a contract to buy a car. That's a bit like saying that because my union signed a contract to buy a car, then I'm personally bound by the terms of the contract. It ain't so. You're confusing the unions collective-bargaining agreement with the employer, with the employee's employment contract. In most free countries, you cannot be ordered by a court to return to work if you withdraw your labour. The worker has not contracted that he will work overtime against his will, simply because that's in the union's agreement with the employer. I'm not familiar with the terms of the employment contracts, but that doesn't seem to be what this pivots on.
- refurb 4y ago
  except I don't agree there's such a thing as an illegal strike. You may not believe in an illegal strike, but the courts do.
aesh2Xa1 4y ago
Thanks, I already read it. You do believe that the failure to show up for work should beget jail time. Your response reads as confusion about my characterization in the first sentence, and then it spends four paragraphs in complete agreement with it. I don’t believe we’re stating different things, although we differ on the belief that the employee action should result in jail time. Further, I think that the threat of jail time for such action, promulgated by your employer and backed by a court, is absolutely newsworthy.
- refurb 4y ago
  You do believe that the failure to show up for work should beget jail time. I believe the courts have the right to jail people held in contempt. You don't?
  - aesh2Xa1 4y ago
    You’re still trying to force a generalization. If you don’t want to agree with your own statement, change your mind. You do believe that a government can jail a worker for refusing to work. We’re stuck on this point because you’re afraid to state it as such. There’s nothing else you can offer this conversation.

by refurb 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago

> employees should stop their illegal strike, employees should stop any action encouraging others to strike illegally ...which seems reasonable, except I don't agree there's such a thing as an illegal strike. In a free country, any worker is entitled to withdraw their labour. They may face the consequence that their employer withdraws compensation. If they're in a strong union, and the union has endorsed withdrawal of labour, then they have some protection from the employer withdrawing compensation. > I mean, it's no different than if you and I write up a contract to buy a car. That's a bit like saying that because my union signed a contract to buy a car, then I'm personally bound by the terms of the contract. It ain't so. You're confusing the unions collective-bargaining agreement with the employer, with the employee's employment contract. In most free countries, you cannot be ordered by a court to return to work if you withdraw your labour. The worker has not contracted that he will work overtime against his will, simply because that's in the union's agreement with the employer. I'm not familiar with the terms of the employment contracts, but that doesn't seem to be what this pivots on.

refurb 4y ago
except I don't agree there's such a thing as an illegal strike. You may not believe in an illegal strike, but the courts do.

aesh2Xa1 4y ago

Thanks, I already read it. You do believe that the failure to show up for work should beget jail time. Your response reads as confusion about my characterization in the first sentence, and then it spends four paragraphs in complete agreement with it. I don’t believe we’re stating different things, although we differ on the belief that the employee action should result in jail time. Further, I think that the threat of jail time for such action, promulgated by your employer and backed by a court, is absolutely newsworthy.

refurb 4y ago
You do believe that the failure to show up for work should beget jail time. I believe the courts have the right to jail people held in contempt. You don't?
- aesh2Xa1 4y ago
  You’re still trying to force a generalization. If you don’t want to agree with your own statement, change your mind. You do believe that a government can jail a worker for refusing to work. We’re stuck on this point because you’re afraid to state it as such. There’s nothing else you can offer this conversation.