Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/08/2015 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    JSYK,You a actually incorrect and do you work for WJ? Quoting only select paragraghs from recent CIRB documents that run over 900 pages and taking statements out of context is no different then your criticisim of the poster who used google search. The agreements that the WJPA has negotiated and signed with the officers of WJ are legal contracts, and the CIRB is not the only way that labour contracts can be legally enforced if required. As well you are incorrect as Encore pilots bring their years of service with them to WestJet for the purposes of vacation entitlement. As well it is a two way flow, as if WestJet ever laid off pilots, they could bump into Encore instead of being laid off, which will hopefully never happen. The WJPA has never had to take WJ to court because they have lived up to all the agreements negotiated since the start of the WJPA over 16 years ago. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is not correct, and mimics incorrect information that the WPPA has been spreading.
  2. 2 points
    I wish I had been wrong about Harper because that would mean he's motivated by principles, not partisanship and power. If he were a principled fiscal conservative, he would have instituted across the board income tax cuts benefitting everyone, rather than build fiscal policy around boutique tax cuts for hockey and arts programs, or home renovations. Instead of freezing out young people who have a mountain of student debt or single mothers, across the board measures would have had a better stimulative character, creating more good paying jobs for those young people and single parents. There are so many people trying to scrape by on part time work or self-employment that want full time work. Instead, Harper put all of his efforts into creating the energy super power because it would have consolidated his hold on western electors. No national or rationale economy strategy that would have benefit all Canadians. He'd rather quarrel with provincial premiers rather than work with them. Can you remember a federal-provincial conference during his tenure? He doesn't like collaboration, but sometimes compromise and collaboration are needed to move the country forward. Harper basically emasculates the federal government and tells the provinces, you go solve the problem. But some problems require federal mediation, even if the federal government doesn't spend money on the solution. Basically, everything he does is an electoral calculation. Foreign policy? Let's hug Netanyahu for sake Jewish votes. Let's hug Ukraine for sale of Ukrainian votes. We no longer have na independent foreign policy or foreign respect. He could have done bold things, like scrap supply management instead of being forced into it by the US and Southpac countries as seems to be the case with current trade negotiations. He's too worried about dairy farmer votes, and not enough about millions of Canadians paying too much for milk, butter and eggs. It's an electoral calculation. He doesn't need everyone's vote, just the select few to cobble together a win against a divided centre-left opposition. Don't get me wrong. I believe both the NDP and Liberals have some flawed policies as part of their electoral package. I'm not at all enamoured about more tax cuts for small businesses, many of which are numbered companies uses as tax dodges by rich professionals. And I think the Liberals tax the rich strategy will yield too few dollars and fosters the notion that we can all have a free lunch., But on balance, those two parties seem to stand for something broader than the 30% mosaic Harper governs for.
  3. 1 point
    When the economy burps and the musical seats game begins in earnest at WJ a real union will be installed in no time. When that day does finally come, the pressure for 'union help' will be great and immediate making it quite unlikely that the representative organization will be home grown; time constraints will necessitate letting either ALPA, or the CAW through the door.
  4. 1 point
    not quite politics but close. How many rights should criminals have when in prison? Talk about a waste of our tax money to argue this case. A Federal Court judge has ordered a new review of a Quebec prisoner's grievance over access to TV channels showing late-night pornography. Forty-six-year-old Haris Naraine filed a complaint after corrections officials cancelled two cable channels in March 2013, saying he and other inmates at the Montreal-area Archambault Institution paid for them. The channels were cut after Correctional Service Canada instructed prisons across the country to remove all sexually explicit material from facilities and to block X-rated television content. Naraine argued corrections had no right to censor what the inmates legally bought and said limiting access violated their charter right to freedom of expression. The service denied his grievance in March 2014, saying the right to access the material was not absolute and that banning the channels helped maintain a safe environment, especially for female correctional officers who expressed concern. In an affidavit, Naraine said he spent time in two other prisons where he had access to pornographic movies without any complaint from correctional officers. Nothing to suggest sexual harassment, judge rulesFederal Court Justice Jocelyne Gagné said in her decision that she agreed there must be a zero tolerance policy toward inmates sexually harassing correctional officers. But she said there is nothing to suggest that inmates who had access to sexually explicit television content were sexually harassing employees. "There is no evidence that the safety and healthful working environment of female correctional officers at Archambault is jeopardized," she said in her written ruling. Gagné said there are "significant gaps" in information provided by Correctional Service Canada, making it difficult to support its decision to deny the grievance. "There is no specific evidence relating to the conditions or circumstances of Mr. Naraine's own institution, nothing about the management issues discussed in the impugned decision." She also said the service did not provide enough information about whether it would be possible to limit only sexually explicit content. © The Canadian Press, 2015
  5. 1 point
    The MOA is a contract agreed to and signed by two parties and is a contract by any definition under common law. Companies can violate a collective agreement as well. The difference is that a certified group brings their case to the CIRB and the non-union representation takes it directly to the courts. Both would have part one of the Canada Labour Code applied as the airlines are a federally regulated body to which the code applies. Any quick google search will find several papers on this written by academics as well as law firms.
  6. 1 point
    I have to say that this is the most accurate part of your post and I agree with you. There is little doubt that the electoral game is being played as much as possible when it comes to dairy supply management. I think Harper supports dismantling it(and so do I) but is playing the waiting game based on votes. However, the opposition parties, especially the NDP would likely continue the present system of, as you stated, millions of Canadians paying too much. But as you said, an electoral calculation has been made on this. I do disagree with much of the earlier portion of the post which is mostly generalizations but you were quite detailed on this subject. It is the assumption that the only reason Harper supports Israel is for the Jewish vote. Without getting into an argument on Middle East politics, I would expect that there are as many muslim votes to lose as there are Jewish votes to gain. As far as I'm concerned, the government supports the idea what Israel represents overall when all good and bad has been taken into account rather than what the alternative has to offer when all is taken into account. That is a principled stand regardlees of how much you may disagree with it. The same could be said for the only country in Europe since WWII to have its land seized and then a civil war started inside it. I am not sure of the Russian/Ukranian ratio of voters in Canada but the government has made a principled stand regardless of whether or not you agree with it. To be honest, it is not much different than most other countries in the west with sanctions on Russia. I do happen to support both of these foreign policies which have been independently created in Harper's mind. Taking a stand does not mean a loss of an independent foreign policy. In the same manner, if the opposition were to get in power and reverse these two policies, I may disagree with them but it doesn't mean we have no independent foreign policy. One final note, you say that this country now has no respect from others. Well, here is what Forbes magazine stated recently: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2015/07/15/the-worlds-most-reputable-countries-2015/ "Which countries have the best reputations? What does that even mean? Reputation Institute, a global private consulting firm based in Boston and Copenhagen, has just released its sixth annual Country RepTrak of what it calls The Worlds Most Reputable Countries, a tool the firm uses to help it advise countries on how to bolster their reputations around the globe. It also counsels companies that want to know how their country of origin influences their reputation overseas, and companies interested in doing businesses abroad. The list ranks the 55 countries with the highest GDPs. In the No. 1 slot this year: Canada, which has been the winner four out of six times. The other two years, in 2014 and 2010, it was No. 2. This year Norway moved up to second place from sixth in 2014 and Sweden is third, as it was last year. The Scandinavian countries and Finland have ranked in the top 10 all six years, as have Switzerland, Australia and the Netherlands. The U.S. is down in 22nd place, behind Thailand and just above Poland (more on the U.S. below). To compile its data, RI ran online surveys of 48,000 consumers in G8 countries from February through April of this year. To flesh out the data, it interviewed 30,000 additional people in the 12 non-G8 countries with the biggest economies, including China, India and Brazil. To compile its rankings, it asked three broad questions about countries overall reputations: Did the respondents have a good feeling about the countries, did they admire or respect the countries, did they trust the countries and did they think the countries had a good overall reputation? The rankings are based on those questions alone."
  7. 1 point
    Written by a Flight Attendant. http://reizendoordewolken.nl/2015/03/29/to-my-colleagues-in-the-cockpit-proud-and-thankful