Big win for the Unions, and for our collective rights to organise here.

    • BarqsHasBite
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      That’s not the reasoning the judge used, so not the reasoning behind the ruling.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Correct, not the reasoning the judge used. The reasoning behind not allowing employers to break strikes with agency workers. (Outside of the fact they didn’t consult the unions when deciding before)

        • BarqsHasBite
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not the reason for anything that was done. The Union can want it to be a reason, the can want to make that argument, but currently it’s not a factor for anything that was decided.

          And you have things mixed up. The reason why they can’t use agency workers is because unions weren’t consulted before a new law was passed that allowed agency workers.

          The previous law (which is not even being discussed, because we are discussing reasons for overturning the new law) that forbid using agency workers was based iirc on something about not undermining unions.

          What the Union leader said has absolutely zero bearing on anything that was actually done.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Its another reason one would support the action of removing / opposing the law. Another reason (and the more legally important one as I accounted for before) would be the fact that the unions would not be consulted.

            • BarqsHasBite
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You are confusing reasons ideas in general and reasons relevant to this decision.

              A general idea that’s out there in the world is not the reasoning behind this legal case.

              There can be ideas A, B, C, and D out there in the world. If the judge says “I’m making this ruling because of D”, then D is the reason for that ruling and decision. A, B, and C are not reasons for that decision. They remain ideas, concepts, whatever. They are not reasons.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                A reason to support something can also be a reason it is passed. The main reason this happened was what the judge said. Another reason this happened is because people believe there are inherent issues with hiring agency workers to break strikes. All ideas in general have an effect on legislation.

                You are being hyper-literal.

                • BarqsHasBite
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 year ago

                  Not part of the judges reasoning means it was not a reason. This is how the law works. This isn’t hyper literal, this is basic logic.

                  Legislation is not the same as judicial rulings. Judicial rulings need to be based on specific reasons. If they were not used, they are not reasons behind that ruling.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    Yeah, but the judicial ruling did something. Its one of the reasons why you would want them to do that. Some people have that viewpoint towards the law, therefore it is a reason to repeal it. Like I’ve said three times now, the other reason is the more legally important one.

                    This is not basic logic, you are being hyper-literal.