• StrangeQuark@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Apart of a large union and would love to see solidarity between our groups.

    Lisa Raitt did the same to us some years back and hamstrung our efforts

  • Kichae@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Sounds like some corporate offices and some parliamemt buildings need to be burnt down

  • enkers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “Any federally regulated company, it’s a win for them at this point,” Boucher told Reuters in his first interview since the Thursday lockout. “This is disastrous for labour, for workers.”

    That title is a bit of a misrepresentation of the union leader’s position. It should have read:

    Canadian rail decision is a win for companies; disastrous for labour, and for workers, union leader says.

    • folkrav@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      To be fair, when I hear a union rep saying “this outcome was good for the employer”, I kind of assume it is consequently bad for the workers. I don’t really believe win/win situations really happen in labour agreement negos lol

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yeah, I agree, but you still have to be able to read between the lines to grock what it’s saying. They left out the more important explicit part.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        You’re nitpicking. It’s not a direct quote anyways; it’s already paraphrased. They had no issue editorializing “them” to “companies”, so adding an implied “and” wouldn’t be any worse than that.

          • enkers@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Maybe I misunderstood your previous comment, because I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say here.

            Are you saying my version of the title would have been fine without the “and” I added? I’m struggling to understand what you’re taking issue with.