(T)his is placing federal public service unions in an impossible position. Unions are to be made equally responsible with employers in achieving pay equity at the bargaining table. But, as we all know, the two parties are not on a level playing field. One party can, if arduous conditions are met, go out on strike--assuming that pay equity is a strikeable issue among the membership. The other can bring far more pressure to bear, up to and including back-to-work legislation. Yet, if an individual decides to bring a successful complaint of her own outside the collective bargaining process--a complaint that unions are to be prevented from backing--the union could be held jointly liable.Read it all if you haven't already.
To add insult to injury, Treasury Board chief Victor Toews is weeping crocodile tears at the moment about the costs and delays inherent in the current process. Those costs and delays, of course, have arisen precisely because Treasury Board, under both Conservative and Liberal administrations, has traditionally fought pay equity complaints every step of the way, spending millions of the taxpayers' money to do so.
All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Inequity for all
Earlier this week, I discussed how the Con/Lib attack on pay equity will affect non-unionized employees. Today, Dr. Dawg completes the picture by explaining how unions and their represented employees will be affected:
Labels:
bloggers,
budget,
ineffective opposition,
pay equity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment