Mr. Hubich, why do you keep calling Bill 5 and Bill 6 'anti-democratic'? The bills provide for, inter alia, democratic ballots for both certification and decertification of unions, protect the right of free speech for all people in the employment relationship, and impose the requirement that disputes between employees and employers be resolved in a timely fashion.Bill 5 and Bill 6 will make Saskatchewan's labour laws some of the most friendly towards workers on earth, and will align the Trade Union Act with the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Mr. Hubich was outed by John Gormley this morning as giving instructions for the SGEU NOT to appear on his program. There's an old addage that may have affected his political allies, the NDP, for refusing to appear on the same show. "Never pick a fight with a person that buys his ink by the barrel" I wish Mr. Hubich well with this move.
Mr. Fraud,I keep calling Bills 5 and 6 anti-democratic because they are anti-democratic. Both violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Saskatchewan's current card majority system of union certification is more democratic than the mandatory vote system being proposed by Bill 6.And for the record - I didn't give "instructions" to anybody relative to Gormley.
Is there an SFL boycott of John Gormley Live, by yourself, or any person or persons associated with the SFL?If not, when will you be appearing on his program to discuss Bills 5 and 6? Ignoring the question will suggest there is a boycott in place...
And for the record, you believe those bills violate the Charter. You won't know unless and until you ultimately subject them to the highest court in the land(at which time I believe you will see that they aren't violations of said Charter)Happy Easter!
Dear Mr. Michael Couros (a.k.a. Mike the Greek),A few months ago I told you that I would not be responding any longer to your postings on this blog. This is because of your juvenile behaviour and your inability to participate in this blog through the use of reasoned and respectful comments.Once again, you are making unfounded and false allegations and asserting that a lack of response on my part will constitute confirmation of your comments.My professional relationship with RAWLCO radio is of no concern to you. But, in order to alleviate your burning curiousity and to provide you with some information that may prevent you from putting your foot even further into your mouth, you might find it helpful to know that I have a face to face meeting with the President of RAWLCO Radio, Ms. Pam Leyland scheduled for next week in Regina. We will be discussing a number of matters.I will not be responding to you further.
Mr. Hubich, how exactly do the free speech provisions of the proposed TUA amendments violate the right to free speech in Charter?I'd suggest that the Charter provides for the right to associate, or not to associate with a union. So yes, I agree with you -- the TUA amendments still are anti-worker because they still force individuals to associate with unions irrespective of their own personal views.
To: Mike the Greek and any other “trolls” that fit the bill...Your anti – union crusade on Larry’s blog is becoming not only repetitive but laughable. Most avid forum users would refer to most of your posts as “trolling” or “flaming”.I think everyone gets that you hate unions and I’m pretty sure we don’t need to hear it confirmed time and time again. If you have some constructive debate to contribute I’m sure it will be welcomed, but “trolling” for confrontation and attention will only lessen your credibility as an intelligent contributor to your “cause”.As for Bills 5 and 6 and democracy, I would love to see these bills put to public vote.
Dear Mr. Hubich, I was merely repeating what I understood this morning on Mr. Gormley's show. The SGEU, according to Mr. Gormley would not appear on his show because of the SFL boycott. You can listen to the remark online at Newstalk650 to determine if I have fabricated the remark in any way. For the record, I wasn't interested in any relationship you have with Rawlco Radio. I was inquiring specifically about one of their programs. As a citizen and taxpayer and as an individual that will be affected by Bills 5 and 6 and your union's reaction to such, not to mention that you run a public blog that allows comments, I'm very interested in what you have to say. And since you do run a public blog, and are of a certain ideology, you can expect people to disagree publicly. That's what people do in the blogosphere. Unfortunately, it seems as though your skin is exceptionally thin and thus cannot handle my opposing viewpoints. My suggestion would be to a) disallow comments on this blog or b) begin using Haloscan where you can block IP's from people that offend you. However, both methods are somewhat seen as cowardly in the blogosphere. In other words, the rule of the Internet is if you're going to post it, you better be prepared to defend it. While you may believe my comments have been juvenile, but then again, I think you have been exceptionally arrogant and bullying in some of your positions. So I guess we're off each others Christmas Card list. But as long as you publicly blog, I am going to question you and so will many others that disagree with you. Happy EasterMichael Couros
Robert Pitzel, Actually I would ike to see these bills put to a public vote as well...At least we agree on that...And I don't hate unions. I just think that union executives have become more about serving the union executives than serving the union members. They, in essence, have become the very people they claim they are against. Fascinating, really...BTW, I have no cause... Larry's blog is a hobby of mine.
Mr. Fraud,You need to read a few Supreme Court of Canada decisions regarding the Freedom of Association and Freedom of Expression provisions and the Right to Free Collective Bargaining to get a flavour of why the Sask. Party's Bills 5 and 6 violate the Charter.I refer you to these:1. HEU B.C. v. British Columbia - 20072. RWDSU v. Pepsi Cola - 20023. Dunmore v. Ontario Attorney General - 2001There is also a recent case from the Quebec Courts that is particularly relevant and significant, but I don't have the citation handy at the moment. I could get if for you if you wish.
Post a Comment