Yes, they did, and it’s arguable still. Given how many downstream jobs and the lives attached to them would be hurt by a sustained lock out of our dual member rail oligopoly I think binding arbitration is a preferrable option.
Binding arbitration is often opposed by both employers and employees, for different reasons. Amongst employers it’s because Canadian arbitrators don’t take ability to pay / fund into consideration when determining compensation and benefit changes, and so actually favor employees more.
If there’s that much of an issue, then rail employers should actually acknowledge the power of the union, negotiate, and fucking deal. The state stepping in to kill collective action here, because it might affect people over there is done not to protect the people over there, but to ensure they don’t get any ideas of their own.
Yes, they did, and it’s arguable still. Given how many downstream jobs and the lives attached to them would be hurt by a sustained lock out of our dual member rail oligopoly I think binding arbitration is a preferrable option.
Binding arbitration is often opposed by both employers and employees, for different reasons. Amongst employers it’s because Canadian arbitrators don’t take ability to pay / fund into consideration when determining compensation and benefit changes, and so actually favor employees more.
If there’s that much of an issue, then rail employers should actually acknowledge the power of the union, negotiate, and fucking deal. The state stepping in to kill collective action here, because it might affect people over there is done not to protect the people over there, but to ensure they don’t get any ideas of their own.