twopi comments on NDP tables bill to repeal section 107 of labour code

NDP tables bill to repeal section 107 of labour code (rabble.ca)

submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The full text of section 107 says that the federal minister responsible for labour may “do such things as to the Minister seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes or differences and to those ends the Minister may refer any question to the Board or direct the Board to do such things as the Minister deems necessary.”

Since June 2024, section 107 has been invoked eight times to interfere with bargaining or end strikes, including those by postal workers, flight attendants and railway workers.

“When big corporations complain, the government caves,” Gazan said while tabling the bill on Monday. “This is a direct violation of workers’ rights, the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining. These rights were won through generations of struggle and sacrifice, yet government after government violates the rights of workers whenever it is politically convenient.”

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

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Just your first paragraph shows why you cannot think. You made assertions without evidence nor data, nor causal reasoning.

You cannot have wasted disposal income if you do not have income.

Again, money is a relative resource not an absolute resource.

Even showing that waste of disposable income as a percentage of one's income going up does not refute my point.

You have to show that wasted disposable income by the bottom is growng as a percentage of the economy, not their own income.

If wasteful spending is the same percentage of GDP but income of the bottom goes down, they cannot save. There, right there, is the answer to your first paragraph.

What about the generation that got hooked on cigarettes (lower now than before), drugs (counter culture) and travelled domestically and internationally?

You haven't shown wasted spending was less as a percentage for Baby boomers. You have not provided that data, you are still anecdotal.

You also did not show union dues rise as a percentage of GDP or wages over the years.

If you want these laws repealed, then you have to provide an alternative means of wealth/incom equality.

You also have to show that wasted income of the bottom deciles increases as a percentage of GDP. Again statistics, not anecdotes.

I am not blindly defending unions, you on the other hand are blindly defending reducing in my wages directly, by not tacking inequality, and indirectly, by discouraging union density.

If you want to feel superior and yell at clouds you can do that, it is a tale as old as time.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] nutpantz@feddit.online 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago

First: The presentation of data and framework and the changing of one's options are two different events that are not causally linked.

Now to rebut:

I do not pretend to defend all union action. I only protect them insofar as that union action redistributes money, a relative resource.

You have not shown unions improve the economy by lowering interest or inflation.

Only BoC can change interest rates, and corporation changes the price of goods. So by your own definition, if improving the economy can only improved by lowering interest rates or inflation, unions cannot do it.

However, increased labour costs can be eating by corporations profit margin (if available) instead of passed to the consumer.

Unions increase affordability, a word you have not stated once in your reply. Unions increase labour costs, but they increase purchasing power faster than increasing costs, as such affordability (relative resource) increases.

You have not shown inequality is the cause of low wages.

It is by definition. Inequality is the distribution of income between owners and workers. When a sale occurs, part of the value goes to owners, part to labour; the larger the owner’s share, the lower the relative wage. Money being a relative resource, high inequality and low wages are simply two sides of the same coin.