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

  • 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.

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

                Wants are not reasons behind the decision. You can have wants A through Z. It is decided because of Z, then Z is the reason. A through Y are not the reason behind the decision.

                This is basic logic.

                I’ll leave you to your feelings.

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

                  Y is a reason to make that decision. One is more applicable legally. They are both reasons behind the decision.

                  I’ll leave you to your feelings.

                  • @kenbw2
                    link
                    English
                    21 year ago

                    I think this is easily solved. I think both of you are right/wrong in your logic.

                    Judge A has an undisclosed reason X for a decision

                    Union Head B presents reason Y for a decision

                    X could equal Y. But we have no evidence either way. So X and Y could be entirely different or they could be the same