Air Canada flight attendants said on Sunday they will remain on strike and challenge a return-to-work order they called unconstitutional, defying a government decision to force them back to their duties by 2 p.m. ET (1800 GMT).
Air Canada had said it planned to resume flights on Sunday evening, a day after the Canadian government issued a directive to end a cabin crew strike that caused the suspension of around 700 daily flights, stranding more than 100,000 passengers.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees said in a statement that members would remain on strike and invited Air Canada back to the table to “negotiate a fair deal.”
American-owned Financial Post actually did some useful reporting around this issue. I guess whatever judge decided to quash the strike within hours is a former legal counsel of the Air Canada Corporation; i.e., there is very high apparent conflict of interest in that process and decision. Another bad look for the Carney government.
To be a little bit fair, the judge apparently last worked for Air Canada in 2004, and who really cares that much about a company they worked for 20 years ago?
who really cares that much about a company they worked for 20 years ago?
How much stock in the company did they aquire during those years working there?
You might not (think you’d) be biased towards a company you worked for 20 years about. And the type of compensation you received (i.e., salary only, stock options, bonuses/gifts) might affect that.
However, being former employees (although technically this person was probably contracted) is often included in conflict of interest definitions and for good reason.
Your argument is a very non-corrupt way of looking at things. I’d support it if illegal lobbying and corruption weren’t rampant in politics.
By the way, the House of Lords in the UK is in the process of striking down laws that they need to report their financial interests.
There’s a reason why politicians’ and high-ranking public servants’ financial ties should be tracked, because they increasingly decide our current ‘democracy’ more so than votes, and without some transparency we’re @#$%ed.
Why worry about the Rogers/Bell/Telus/etc exec from 20 yrs ago working at the CRTC? It was 20 years ago, how could it ever affect his decisions today?
You might not, but it’s still a major conflict of interest.
Why even allow for the appearance of bias? Are we in a d drought of judges? Was there NO other judge with a lack of any attachments to Air Canada?
It strains credulity to breaking point, and as a member of the public, this is where our judgement is relevant. Ie: is our system working for us, or are some shitty people gaming things. I know where I land on this one; the lingering smell of influence and corruption hangs like a bygone fart near an overstuffed leather chair.
Just a hunch, but maybe most judges qualified to rule on an aviation case have at some point worked with some major carriers?
Okay, but being unbiased abd free of potential conflicts of interest are, to me, mitigating factors.
I don’t subscribe to justice via my hunches, and do not want my country to either.
Edit: is it your assertion that any other judge we’ve appointed, having been properly briefed with respect to the relevant facts in both parties, would be unqualified? If so, should your ire not be better directed at the glaring inefficiencies in our purportedly completely ineffective justice system?
No it’s not my assertion. I’m just offering an another way of looking at it. It’s still possibly a pure conflict of interest. I guess with limited information you never know
That’s CRTC logic!
Um, ok.
I do, she should recluse herself.
I don’t understand why the government can’t force the airline to give more money, even if it’s temporary.
Why is it that when push comes to shove, they target workers and not capitalists.
Last I checked air Canada was making good money
The government can easily pass a law ending the unpaid work.
That would dramatically change things.
Lol that ain’t happening.
If laws were enacted to protect the workers that means all the unions would go away and the dues and fees money would go back into the workers pocket. This would even help all of the non-union workers, and there are many more of those. Voters of the world, unite!
Strong disagree, unions are beneficial even in places with strong worker protections. How else do those workers make sure those strong protections remain in place?
By passing laws. I’m not against unions but they only protect their members (mostly). Other workers need protecting as well, not just the ones who can afford to pay for it. Passing laws to protect workers protects everyone. Because those laws have not been passed it makes me think that the status quo is more beneficial for the big time moneymakers and power brokers, not the citizenry. When I speak of unions I mean the big business ones of today not and idea of collective brotherhood that will change the world.
One does not prevent the other, in fact unions lobbying for worker protection laws is the best way for workers to get access to lawmakers
Some unions have become too big and are corrupt. Unions are big business after all. Some unions do their best to help their workers. I want laws to provide for everyone though, especially the non-union workers. Information and an unbalance that finally tips the scales will get the voters to act eventually (or if the compost totally hits the cuisinart then…revolution). Lobbying seems corrupt and tends to serve only the squeaky wheels (or lucrative deals), but then again so does taking protection money from a working stiff.
Air Canada must really be hurting for money. In June this year, they only had $500 million available for a stock buyback.
The government has had to bail out Air Canada several times so far, they don’t want to do it again and they have friends who get more money the less air canada pays.
The government would also get more money, through taxes on both corporate and individual earners, if they mandated the company to pay fair wages.
The only one that gets more money from ordering the strikers back to work is whoever gets to pocket the corpo bribe.
Yes, the ones in government and their friends.
Because of the word capitalism. Workers are not respected because we are nothing to them.
Corporations have a legal duty to maximize profits for shareholders in capitalism. This is why money is more important than people.
Maybe one day we will wake up and become our own masters.
Until then we suffer as workers and will have fewer and fewer rights as the Empire crumbles.
Why is it that when push comes to shove, they target workers and not capitalists.
You know why. The Liberals are capitalists.
I stand with these workers. Fuck the shitlibs.
All the best to those workers. This is flagrant overreach by the government.
Fuck yes!
