CanWest reports that David Emerson is trying to justify the "special tax" against lumber producers who haven't yet been brow-beaten into accepting the Cons' capitulation with the argument that the agreement is like a "labour contract".
Naturally, that comparison from Emerson only gives rise to more questions about the Cons' handling of the deal. For example, why did the Cons choose to imitate most extreme possible caricature of a corrupt and ineffective union in reaching the agreement? Since when does a union get to establish private and arbitrary standards for support rather than conducting fair and confidential voting processes? And more importantly, where can the producers go to challenge the Cons' clear failure to meet any duty of fair representation?
No comments:
Post a Comment