Share |

Meta

Archived posts

small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg (image) [small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]

Pierre Poilievre Wants To Implement Work To Rule To Punish PSAC For For Dissent–UPDATE

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?”

And those public servants along with everyone else who works for a living; unionized and non-unionized alike, are paying your exorbitant salary and benefits, you ass!  All of us will have to pretty well work until we die now so you and your colleagues can retire after only a few terms in the lap of luxury.
Secondly, the country can’t be broken up if most vote “No” in a potential referendum.  It’s called democracy, you ass! If most vote “yes” in any potential referendum, tell your Alberta separatist boss to look in the mirror.
As for Poilievre, he claims he’s getting complaints from public service workers who don’t want to pay union dues because they endorse parties they don’t agree with like sovereigntist parties and causes they don’t believe in like the student protests.  He, of course, doesn’t identify anyone, but I won’t discount that this isn’t true neither. MOre often than not, I have seen unionized workers vote against their own interests because their union didn’t support the same causes or whatever.   Some may well embrace such a right to work laws. I say to them, be careful what you wish for.
Oh, it gets funnier.
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.
So, you’ll break the back of unions just because they point out the truth? I mean, no party has been as hostile to the working class as the Harpercons have.
More:

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.

More here .

  • 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.
Those who may embrace “right to work” laws:  is that  what you really want?  Your union dues are for the most part for having someone to collectively bargain on your behalf.  And yes, there is a choice. If you really don’t like your union because of what they endorse or the causes they support, then might I suggest that you quit your jobs? I hear there are good non-unionized jobs at Timmy Horton’s these days.
Poilievre and his boss Stevie Spiteful really don’t give a rat’s ass about you or any other member of the working class, despite the fact that most of us are paying their hefty salary, plush benefits and gold plated pensions.  In fact,  this “right to work” bull shit falls right into their modus operandi.
Oh and to those federalists, progressives and righties alike, Thomas Mulcair plans to resurrect the Quebec NDP party which could fill a vaccuum in la belle province — a federalist option for those who are progressive minded.  A party that unions like PSAC would be likely to endorse. But I’m sure that the Harpercons and their ilk would still implement laws and do all to break their backs just the same simply for endorsing a party that better represents their interests.
Oh, and Ottawa Citizen writer?  Just because Poilievre can’t pass a private members’ bill, doesn’t mean this won’t see the light of day.  Remember there are plenty of other Harpercons who would be too happy to jump at the opportunity to sponsor such a bill.
UPDATE: Dr. Dawg has set us all straight again.   I apparently made the same mistake many have.  “Endorse” was not the correct term, but rather a report card of sorts ranking which parties  are the most friendly to the workers, unions and public services.   Go read his post for the details.

3 comments to Pierre Poilievre Wants To Implement Work To Rule To Punish PSAC For For Dissent–UPDATE

  • Beijing York

    The Harper thugs’ stance on unions is seething with hatred: “forcefully takes money out of the pockets of Canada’s public servants”.

    ck Reply:

    Even worse, BY. How many of those very same unionized workers feel the same way as the Harpercons? This is mean to say, but those particular workers slamming their own unions and voting in right winged governments should perhaps spend time working at a non-unionized McJob.

    Beijing York Reply:

    I agree, ck. It’s vile.