picard102
Senior Member
When was the last time that happend?
|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
lenaitch
Senior Member
I doubt there is any overall data on this but, just going on memory and those negotiations that get media attention, I get the sense that non-ratification of a tentative agreement is fairly rare. Off the top of my head I can't remember a recent one.
What would be the benefit to the bargaining committee/executive? If they were that out of touch with their membership, they likely wouldn't be in place for long.
evandyk
Senior Member
It happened with the TTC I think in 2018. And Metro/Unifor last year. So it's rare, but definitely something that is always a possibility.
Jonny5
Senior Member
There's been a lot recently.
Unionized workers rejecting more deals as fight for wage gains presses on
Union workers are feeling increasingly emboldened to reject tentative agreements as they fight to join the ranks of those benefiting from the recent wave of wage gains, experts say.
www.cp24.com
Even just yesterday
Interesting both those articles note the ejection margins are often very narrow.
Northern Light
Superstar
Not a federal issue per se, but certainly one that effects people across Canada is how to address the issue of people with severe addictions that represent a danger to themselves and others, refuse treatment.
The BC government out with an announcement today that involuntary treatment is very much back on the table, effective immediately.
For background here, BC has been steadily moving in this direction, under the current NDP government as public calls to 'do something' about the number of people wandering the streets, some violent, in a state of severe intoxication.
BC is about to head into a provincial election, so the gov't is getting this policy announcement in before they are precluded from doing so in a week's time.
This on the heels of BC's main opposition, the Conservative Party saying it would pursue involuntary treatment as well.
I think this is relevant, here, because we're seeing this shift in views across much of the country. Under NDP rule in BC, and under Conservative rule in Alberta and Ontario (we're not at this inflection point yet in Ontario, but the move to close a sizable number of safe injection sites, and open more treatment beds suggests similar policy moves in progress).
From the above:
The BC government out with an announcement today that involuntary treatment is very much back on the table, effective immediately.
For background here, BC has been steadily moving in this direction, under the current NDP government as public calls to 'do something' about the number of people wandering the streets, some violent, in a state of severe intoxication.
BC is about to head into a provincial election, so the gov't is getting this policy announcement in before they are precluded from doing so in a week's time.
This on the heels of BC's main opposition, the Conservative Party saying it would pursue involuntary treatment as well.
I think this is relevant, here, because we're seeing this shift in views across much of the country. Under NDP rule in BC, and under Conservative rule in Alberta and Ontario (we're not at this inflection point yet in Ontario, but the move to close a sizable number of safe injection sites, and open more treatment beds suggests similar policy moves in progress).
From the above:
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
PL1
Active Member
I disagree with the recriminalization/ forced incarceration. Unfortunately, we don't want to do the hard things to help these people. Treatment, housing, employment, etc are all necessary, as is safe consumption for those with addictions. Unfortunately, this is a complex problem that has developed over many years. The solution will not be simple, but I am sure this latest BC solution will just drive these problems out of sight.
I know there are a lot of opinions on this; this is mine
Northern Light
Superstar
I think that's fair.
I don't support recriminalization, nor the frivolous use of forced confinement or treatment.
I certainly agree, that anything that smacks of that primarily or alone is suspect.
However, I would also say that the opposite approach, one in which we are reluctant to institutionalize in the extreme has broadly proved to be as ineffective and dubious as its predecessor.
Are overdoses up or down? (Up); and addictions up or down (up); is the prevalence of people homeless due in part or whole to mental illness (not necessarily addiction) up or down? (up).
Clearly, we're getting something wrong.
Now I think the first part, is voluntary treatment on demand............not an infernal six month (or worse) wait lists
But surely we also need to find a method to address people who are not in their right mind, and/or in withdrawal in the case of addiction and ask whether declining treatment is in fact a reasonable and responsible choice.
I certainly agree we use to over-institutionalize and over criminalize, but I feel rather certain we haven't got the balance in the right place.
The details, of course, matter greatly; and in BC's case, we'll need to see what those entail.
yrt+viva=1system
Senior Member
Little-known program dominates Canada's massive guest-worker scheme
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/co...dominates-canadas-massive-guest-worker-scheme
Admiral Beez
Superstar
PM Poilievre had better rip this program into shreds. And while we're at it, why has the Federal Public Service grown by 43% or 110,738 employees since 2015 during Trudeau's governance when the population has grown by 15%? Assuming salary and benefits of $100k each, that's almost $12 billion in additional government spending. What are these employees doing that was not getting done before they arrived?
Population of the federal public service - Canada.ca
Snapshot Employment Numbers of the Federal Public Service.
picard102
Senior Member
Milhouse is beholden to the same corporate masters that Justin is. He's not planning to do a thing about it.
Coolibop
Active Member
We've been trying to figure this one out in Ontario as well as discussed previously... Please note that while I speak of Canada in the quote, I meant Ontario specifically when talking about criteria to hold a person against their will:
We should have ample data given the varying degree for how we deal with involuntary commitment (see the variation across US states and our provinces).
The balance of one's personal rights over public safety has been a problem (see above)...
The pendulum swings again...
Coolibop
Active Member
As I understand, the IMP does not tie a worker to a specific employer, so perhaps less room for abuse...
evandyk
Senior Member
The pendulum is swinging, maybe, but note that BC's current plan is to open... 10 spots in a facility in the Surrey Pretrial jail. I hate to break the news to the Premier of BC, but 10 beds is not going to make much of a dent in a drug problem that kills 7 people a day in BC right now. It's just more talk but not actually doing anything. An election announcement, with nothing concrete to back it up.
Northern Light
Superstar
In fairness to the Premier of BC, the proposal includes building at least one, and maybe 2 additional facilities, likely to be much larger in scale; this is absolutely a "what can do right this minute' measure in respect of the 10 beds. Standing up an entirely new building is something that will obviously take much longer.
I don't expect the 10 beds to make a huge difference, though it does need to be said, that I assume, in most cases, the intent is not to have a large spike in long-term care, but rather an interventional treatment, which would likely be measured in months.
So the 10 beds would presumably churn; now is that at 1x per year, 2x per year or 4x per year, I'm not sure what there plan is, but if, for arguments sake its 2x per year, then it would help with up to 40 people over a 2 year period.
Still entirely inadequate to the scale of the problem, no question, but certainly somewhere to start.
Edit to add:
BC did announce 180 new treatment beds for addition back in January of this year.