So let me see if I have this right.
When workers are at their most vulnerable—when, for example, they’ve decided to join a union and are attempting to negotiate a first contract with a more powerful, perhaps hostile employer—Jamie Baillie is a champion of free collective bargaining. Let the chips fall where they may… so long as they fall the way of Michelin and Sobeys.
On the other hand, when workers have some leverage—when, to pick another example out of the ether, transit workers vote 98.4 per cent to stop driving their buses to put pressure on the employer to negotiate better terms—Jamie Baillie thinks collective bargaining is a crock and wants the premier to legislate them back to work. Immediately.
At least the Tory leader is consistent in his inconsistency.
Jamie Baillie
When given the choice, Baillie will inevitably come down on the side of the over-dog.
Baillie doesn’t put it that way, of course. “I’m a believer in collective bargaining,” he declared disingenuously Friday.
Baillie’s idea of collective bargaining? The premier should lock both sides in his office, “tell them they’ve got 12 hours to work out their differences and if they’re not able to do so, then he’ll settle it himself.”
How would Baillie settle it? While he doesn’t offer specifics—three guesses on which side he would pick as premier—Baillie did say he wants the province to consider declaring transit an essential service so future collective bargaining could be rendered meaningless.
He’s a “believer” all right.
I will confess I’m not sure who’s right and who’s wrong in the current strike—or if the answer to that question can be one or the other.
But I do know both sides are under enormous pressure to find a settlement. Union members face the daunting prospect of buying groceries and paying mortgages on meagre strike pay. Management has to know that if the strike drags on it risks a permanent loss of riders to carpooling, biking and walking.
There may come a time when legislation is necessary. But not yet. Let the two sides bargain collectively. Without meddling from “believers” like Baillie.
STEPHEN KIMBER, a Professor of Journalism at the University of King's College in Halifax and co-founder of its MFA in Creative Nonfiction Program, is an award-winning writer, editor and broadcaster. He is the author of two novels and eight non-fiction books. Buy his books 
Don’t worry Mr. Hebb – we are going the way of Americanization fast enough and we will head down that road even faster especially if the right wing political parties have their wish.
In Canada we have unions to protect us from layoffs and firings more so than in the USA where unemployment and poverty is an issue we all know about but is never mentioned in the news!
Maybe unionization would protect more people from job losses and MAC jobs with payments that are poverty wages.
Some workers like to have decent wages and to be able to contribute to the economy.
UNIONS have just as much right as government to
argue and protect working people.
Stephen Kimber is right!
Don’t worry Mr. Hebb – we are going the way of Americanization fast enough and we will head down that road even faster especially if the right wing political parties have their wish.
In Canada we have unions to protect us from layoffs and firings more so than in the USA where unemployment and poverty is an issue we all know about but is never mentioned in the news!
Maybe unionization would protect more people from job losses and MAC jobs with payments that are poverty wages.
Some workers like to have decent wages and to be able to contribute to the economy.
UNIONS have just as much right as government to
argue and protect working people.
Stephen Kimber is right!
Hey – Mr. Hebb. In what way in this country is having a job a “privilege”? If the way that we distribute the necessities of life – you know clothes, food, housing, post secondary education etc. is by paying for them, and the way that we get money to pay for things is by working, and we have agreed to this as our social structure, then everyone should have a RIGHT to a job (and sir, I do not mean “right to work” as defined by U.S. states that outlaw unions and collective bargaining). If I do not have a right to a job, then am I being told that I must steal to eat, or perhaps you would have those that don’t “own” die in a ditch?(Then who would create the value that that owners can profit from?) A job is a RIGHT when that is the way that we distribute wealth. I guess I would be OK with me, although less efficient — everyone getting a guaranteed annual wage instead, and just doing work if they wanted, but I don’t think that’s what you had in mind. . . what DO you have in mind, as an alternative to distribution through work?
Gerry Curry:
I might think more kindly of the drivel you offered up as criticism of Kimber’s commentary if you had spelled his name right.
Also, there’s the question: what are you talking about? Kimber wrote the piece “sitting in a Chair” (what’s wrong with a chair?) that’s “funded by the biggest crooks in the telecommunications industry”. So Mr. Curry, you’re accusing Kimber of writing while sitting down in a chair bought by Rupert Murdoch? Highly unlikely sir.
There is no reason for this strike. Quite honestly, in Canada there is no reason for any strike. These people are not underpaid. Do they have crappy shifts? Yup but they could go an find other work if they don’t like it. DO they make more than the NS Avg? Yup and again if they don’t like it they can get another job. Unions, strikes and lockouts (to be fair) should be illegal. A job is a priviledge not a right. Move to Greece if you think you’ve got it tough.
Steven, I might think more kindly of this piece of drivel if you hadn’t accepted sitting in a Chair, funded by the biggest crooks in the telecommunications industry.
What will it take for the idea of binding arbitration to be mentioned or perhaps acted upon ?