tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879888271139368021.post1453474564060022090..comments2023-10-16T08:06:02.455-06:00Comments on Larry Hubich's Blog: When all else fails: LIELarry Hubichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17140136865665292501noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879888271139368021.post-67101903484413148932008-04-03T21:48:00.000-06:002008-04-03T21:48:00.000-06:00HankR,Below is a more detailed explanation of the ...HankR,<BR/><BR/>Below is a more detailed explanation of the inaccuracies contained in the e-mail letter from LeClerc.<BR/><BR/>From the 2nd paragraph:<BR/><BR/>1. Every other province and jurisdiction does NOT have essential services legislation. That is a false statement.<BR/><BR/>2. The Sask. Party's legislation is not “the best practices that exist in the rest of Canada”. Even their own documents admit that the proposed Sask. Legislation is broadest and most sweeping of any other similar legislation in Canada.<BR/><BR/>3. The snow plow example has been completely and totally discredited. SGEU members (who are snow plow operators) have always come off of a strike to clear highways when a blizzard hits during a strike – and they did so in the 2006 strike.<BR/><BR/>4. We (Saskatchewan) are NOT the “only province in Canada that does not have this legislation”. And we are NOT the “only province that puts union/employee/company/crown corporation bargaining ahead of the required mandatory safety”. These two statements are false.<BR/><BR/>From the 3rd paragraph:<BR/><BR/>1. He suggests that the government proposes to replace a “Open vote” system with a secret ballot. There is no “Open Vote” system for certification or decertification in Saskatchewan. There is a “card majority” system. There is also a “secret ballot” system in place for many matters under the Saskatchewan Trade Union Act.<BR/><BR/>2. Saskatchewan does not allow “Open Vote” – there is no such system – the statement is false.<BR/><BR/>3. The legislation will not require a 45% vote for certification as he suggests. The legislation will require a 50% plus 1 vote for certification. The current legislation requires demonstrated support of 50% plus 1 for certification.<BR/><BR/>4. He suggests that the current legislation provides for 20% for certification – that is false. There is no such provision in the Saskatchewan Trade Union Act, never has been, and there is absolutely no reference to a 20% number. The statement is false.<BR/><BR/>5. In Canada there are 11 jurisdictions for certifying unions. 10 provinces and the Canada Labour Code (Federal). 6 of them provide for certification on the basis of a “card majority” including Sask. The other 5 require a mandatory vote on every application for certification.<BR/><BR/>6. Under the current law, in order for a union to be certified in the Province of Saskatchewan the union must demonstrate support of “at least 50% plus 1”. To suggest anything else is a false.<BR/><BR/>The letter is loaded inaccuracies, false statements, and outright lies.Larry Hubichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17140136865665292501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879888271139368021.post-30056371268720096592008-04-03T09:05:00.000-06:002008-04-03T09:05:00.000-06:00HankR,Thank you for participating in this blog.My ...HankR,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for participating in this blog.<BR/><BR/>My apologies for not being more specific and comprehensive in my previous reply. I will endeavour to get a more detailed reply to your question posted as soon as possible.<BR/><BR/>I have a very full day ahead of me, and as a result it may not be until later this evening - or early tomorrow morning.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again.Larry Hubichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17140136865665292501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879888271139368021.post-83995787294103890402008-04-03T08:48:00.000-06:002008-04-03T08:48:00.000-06:00Larry,Please elaborate. What do the bills say diff...Larry,<BR/><BR/>Please elaborate. What do the bills say differently than what this Sask Party MLA claims? <BR/><BR/>Are the percentages off? Are the bills going to do other things than are claimed?<BR/><BR/>I see two different things; facts and opinions. Are the facts misleading? <BR/><BR/>We need your guidance.HankRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07768551673804743638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879888271139368021.post-36362956137173562352008-04-02T10:27:00.000-06:002008-04-02T10:27:00.000-06:00It's loaded with lies. The second and third paragr...It's loaded with lies. <BR/><BR/>The second and third paragraphs are completely and totally inaccurate.<BR/><BR/>Read it, read the legislation, and read what exists in other jurisdictions.<BR/><BR/>What is being described in this letter is simply Not True!Larry Hubichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17140136865665292501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879888271139368021.post-45321518574822446372008-04-02T10:16:00.000-06:002008-04-02T10:16:00.000-06:00Can you point out the lie(s), Larry?Can you point out the lie(s), Larry?HankRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07768551673804743638noreply@blogger.com