Well, boys ‘n’ girls, Pierre Poilievre like a good Harpercon puppet is planning to punish the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) union for endorsing PQ and QS candidates in the Quebec election, by implementing a so-called “Right to work” law right here in Harperland. PSAC simply endorsed candidates of parties who were less hostile to the working class and unions than Johnny Charest’s Liberals and Franky Legault’s CAQ. Jesus, just because some of us may support sovereigntist parties, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re separatists. Some of us Progressives just don’t allow that kind of thing to dictate how we vote. If there is a referendum, we know we are certainly free to vote “No”, no matter who we voted for. We can’t help that the center-left and left parties also happen to be sovereigntist and the only parties who are federalist, or at the very least, not separatist are right of center and stand for neo-liberal values and policies. I know that the likes of Poilievre don’t like anything or anyone progressive, but I did notice a progressive blog which condemned the union for endorsing sovereigntist candidates because they refused to support parties who are hostile to Labour just because they’re federalist. As for Poilievre and his boss, Stevie Spiteful, well, this is just another step in punishing dissent.
Let’s hear what ol’ Pierre has to say, shall we?
“I accept the results of the election,” said Poilievre. “But I can’t accept a union representing public servants working for the government of Canada which forcefully takes money out of the pockets of Canada’s public servants to support parties that want to break up the country. How can it be in the interests of public servants to support the breakup of Canada?”
Poirier said he suspects Poilievre’s plan has more to do with the RCMP’s grounding of a plane that PSAC recently hired to carry a banner that said “StephenHarperNousDéteste.ca” (Stephen Harper Hates Us) as part of its campaign to protest the Conservatives’ cuts to the public service.
Poilievre’s proposal could be the most radical policy change embarked on by the Conservative government and is reminiscent of right to work legislation that has been introduced in some U.S. states that many argue has killed the labour movement in the south.
“You can call it that,” said Poilievre. “I consider it enhancement of workers’ rights and freedoms.”
Enhancing workers’ rights and freedoms? I wonder how workers in a so-called “right to work” state are feeling about all those ‘workers rights and freedoms’? It certainly has not proven to create jobs or bring back manufacturing jobs .
Rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service industries “dependent on consumer spending in the local economy” the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer and Allegretto could find no evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.
“It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody including non-union workers,” says Lafer.
- Right-to-work laws have no impact in boosting economic growth: research shows that there is no relationship between right-to-work laws and state unemployment rates, state per capita income, or state job growth.
- Right-to-work laws have no significant impact on a racting employers to a particular state; surveys of employers show that “right to work” is a minor or non-existent factor in location decisions, and that higher-wage, hi-tech firms in particular generally prefer free-bargaining states.
- Right-to-work laws lower wages—for both union and nonunion workers alike—by an average of $1,500 per year, after accounting for the cost of living in each state.
- Right-to-work laws also decrease the likelihood that employees get either health insurance or pensions through their jobs—again, for both union and nonunion workers.
- By cutt ing wages, right-to-work laws threaten to undermine job growth by reducing the discretionary income people have to spend in the local retail, real estate, construction, and service industries. Every $1 million in wage cuts translates into an additional six jobs lost in the economy. With 85 percent of Michigan’s economy concentrated in health care, retail, education, and other non-manufacturing industries, widespread wage and benefit cuts could translate into significant negative spillover effects for the state’s economy.