[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Maybe I missed it, but what exactly were the concerns with the new facility? I didn't see anything describing what the issues were with this new prison.

Also, very brave job leaving the other, unarmed workers in the prison without any protection from the inmates.

Isn't Google wonderful?

$1:

The union representing correctional officers at the Edmonton Remand Centre wants the province to hold off on transferring prisoners to the new facility until safety concerns are resolved.

The union says it has a list of shortcomings five pages long, which it can't release due to security reasons.

"Like the Titanic without enough lifeboats," said union spokesman Clarke McChesney said. "That's what this feels like."

The $580 million jail — which will be the largest in Canada — is set to soon receive prisoners from the overcrowded facility in downtown Edmonton.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees says the province hasn’t yet addressed any of the safety concerns raised over the past number of months.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... union.html

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

No it doesn't. I, as a worker, get to decide what is or is not dangerous. It doesn't matter what my union says any more than what my employer says. If I think it's unsafe, it's unsafe and I have the right to refuse work. Are you seriously having difficulty grasping that?

If you feel your workplace is unsafe, you inform your manager/supervisor of the hazard that poses a safety threat. It's their duty to look into the claim and decide if the workplace is safe. That's step 1. If they decide the workplace is safe, the worker is to return to work.

If the worker still isn't happy and still decides the workplace is unsafe, they can continue to refuse work which takes them to step 2 of the process and the MOL inspectors have to get involved.

Considering the MOL and union representatives have already deemed the workplace safe, this just looks like another episode of union posturing with workers already breaking lines and returning back to work.

[BartSimpson]

If the conditions are really that bad then the guards should just up and quit and move on to something safer...like working in the lumber industry or the fishing industry.

[Thanos]

It's been a long build up of a lot of issues in the provincial justice system that caused this walk-out. The inadequacy of the new jail is probably just the tipping point but it was probably the suspension of the two guards who put in safety complaints that lit the fuse. We've got child molesters being released without trial after spending a couple of years in jail without ever going to court because the system is so backed up. The province played the austerity game with one of the most important government sectors that it never should have ever subjected to the cutback nonsense and it looks like it's finally blown up in their faces.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

It's been a long build up of a lot of issues in the provincial justice system that caused this walk-out. The inadequacy of the new jail is probably just the tipping point but it was probably the suspension of the two guards who put in safety complaints that lit the fuse. We've got child molesters being released without trial after spending a couple of years in jail without ever going to court because the system is so backed up. The province played the austerity game with one of the most important government sectors that it never should have ever subjected to the cutback nonsense and it looks like it's finally blown up in their faces.

I wouldn't blame the situation with the prisons on austerity because the people who coddle the criminals have made the overall situation come about with the interaction of the laws and court decisions that elevate the rights of the criminals over the rights of everyone else.

We have similar things happening in the USA and austerity had nothing to do with what's happening here.

[Thanos]

I fully blame any defense lawyers for undue delays once a case gets into a courtroom. But the government is the entity responsible for the management of the justice infrastructure. In Alberta the system has been backlogged for years, with many huge problems ranging from lack of enough crown prosecutors to insufficient numbers of courtrooms to jail overcrowding. As much as I detest the defense lawyers they can't be blamed for a collapsed system that hampers the criminal from even getting into the courtroom for the process to begin. This is 100% the responsibility of the government that years ago subjected the justice process to the same austerity attacks that other departments were subject to. And, just like those other departments have shown with their own difficulties, a trainwreck inevitably occurs when austerity takes it's toll.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Maybe I missed it, but what exactly were the concerns with the new facility? I didn't see anything describing what the issues were with this new prison.

Also, very brave job leaving the other, unarmed workers in the prison without any protection from the inmates.

Isn't Google wonderful?

$1:

The union representing correctional officers at the Edmonton Remand Centre wants the province to hold off on transferring prisoners to the new facility until safety concerns are resolved.

The union says it has a list of shortcomings five pages long, which it can't release due to security reasons.

"Like the Titanic without enough lifeboats," said union spokesman Clarke McChesney said. "That's what this feels like."

The $580 million jail — which will be the largest in Canada — is set to soon receive prisoners from the overcrowded facility in downtown Edmonton.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees says the province hasn’t yet addressed any of the safety concerns raised over the past number of months.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... union.html

That honestly doesn't answer my question, at all. It has a five page list of shortcomings it can't release, and they raised those concerns about those shortcomings that went unaddressed. If the province didn't train the workers to deal with the new facility concept, they I can understand that, and certainly it can be seen as a shortcoming, but everything else is incredibly vague. On top of this, the same things you bolded were already in the original news article.

I still think the "solidarity" strikes at the eight other prisons should not be happening, at all.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

No it doesn't. I, as a worker, get to decide what is or is not dangerous. It doesn't matter what my union says any more than what my employer says. If I think it's unsafe, it's unsafe and I have the right to refuse work. Are you seriously having difficulty grasping that?

If you feel your workplace is unsafe, you inform your manager/supervisor of the hazard that poses a safety threat. It's their duty to look into the claim and decide if the workplace is safe. That's step 1. If they decide the workplace is safe, the worker is to return to work.

If the worker still isn't happy and still decides the workplace is unsafe, they can continue to refuse work which takes them to step 2 of the process and the MOL inspectors have to get involved.

Considering the MOL and union representatives have already deemed the workplace safe, this just looks like another episode of union posturing with workers already breaking lines and returning back to work.

Umm, they actually did Step 1 - presenting 5 pages of issues over a month ago. The government ignored them, and when two guards again complained, they suspended those guards indefinitely.

Then the other guards did Step 2 (refuse to work) and the government declared it an illegal work action and ordered them back to work.

And the Union has never deemed the facility safe to work in;

$1:

Clarke McChesney, chairman of The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees Local 003, said guards at the new remand centre brought forward a number of issues prior to the jail’s opening.

Further, the head of the entire AUPE supports this job action;

$1:

Following the initial decision, AUPE president Guy Smith acknowledged the board's ruling, but encouraged guards to stay off the job, a suggestion that was greeted by wild applause and cheering, the CBC's Janice Johnston reported.

...

“To go into a meeting thinking that you’re going to make some solutions to a very volatile situation across the province, and have them point their finger at [me] and tell me that I should be telling my members to go back to work — it’s shameful,” Smith said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... ction.html

They've literally done everything you have suggested and still the government hasn't listened.

While I admit being somewhat worried (I live pretty close to the new Remand Centre), I fully agree with the guard's stance on this. They already have a dangerous enough job, without the government making it worse.

[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

bootlegga bootlegga:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Maybe I missed it, but what exactly were the concerns with the new facility? I didn't see anything describing what the issues were with this new prison.

Also, very brave job leaving the other, unarmed workers in the prison without any protection from the inmates.

Isn't Google wonderful?

$1:

The union representing correctional officers at the Edmonton Remand Centre wants the province to hold off on transferring prisoners to the new facility until safety concerns are resolved.

The union says it has a list of shortcomings five pages long, which it can't release due to security reasons.

"Like the Titanic without enough lifeboats," said union spokesman Clarke McChesney said. "That's what this feels like."

The $580 million jail — which will be the largest in Canada — is set to soon receive prisoners from the overcrowded facility in downtown Edmonton.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees says the province hasn’t yet addressed any of the safety concerns raised over the past number of months.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... union.html

That honestly doesn't answer my question, at all. It has a five page list of shortcomings it can't release, and they raised those concerns about those shortcomings that went unaddressed. If the province didn't train the workers to deal with the new facility concept, they I can understand that, and certainly it can be seen as a shortcoming, but everything else is incredibly vague. On top of this, the same things you bolded were already in the original news article.

I still think the "solidarity" strikes at the eight other prisons should not be happening, at all.

Well, what part of, The union says it has a list of shortcomings five pages long, which it can't release due to security reasons. don't you understand?

Why anyone would want guards at a jail to publicly announce the shortcomings/security issues in ANY jail/prison is nothing short of unbelieveable if you ask me. The union did their due diligence and presented them in private to the government. To hand them over to the press (or anyone else) is totally irresponsible.

FTR, I agree with that the other solidarity strikes are questionable, but these guys really stick together from the sounds of things.

[Thanos]

Thin blue line, God bless 'em.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Umm, they actually did Step 1 - presenting 5 pages of issues over a month ago. The government ignored them, and when two guards again complained, they suspended those guards indefinitely.

Not exactly.

They presented the issues before the facility was opened. There were no people working in it at that time. There were 5 pages of suggested design flaws presented at that time despite the factility being approved by the Ministry of Labour and facility was deemed safe by occupational health and safety workers who are members of the same union.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Then the other guards did Step 2 (refuse to work) and the government declared it an illegal work action and ordered them back to work.

I'm assuming because they were told the facility is safe. Unless you're suggesting their fellow union members were lying when they said it was safe?

bootlegga bootlegga:

They've literally done everything you have suggested and still the government hasn't listened.

While I admit being somewhat worried (I live pretty close to the new Remand Centre), I fully agree with the guard's stance on this. They already have a dangerous enough job, without the government making it worse.

Ever considered for a moment that the Ministry of Labour and the inspectors are actually correct? That the place is actually safe to work in?

Perhaps they have listened and the concerns aren't worth of change?

Also note that the union has presented a list of 10 demands that must be met before the guards will return to work. Health and safety is only one of the items on the list.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I'm assuming because they were told the facility is safe. Unless you're suggesting their fellow union members were lying when they said it was safe?

Why does someone have to be lying? Maybe they're just wrong. Who's going to best be able to judge safety? Some bureaucrat from the union/management/MOL or the guy actually working in the facility?

[Thanos]

I'm sure the place is safe from tripping hazards and falling. But I doubt the OHS survey took into account the greater possibility of guards getting shanked by the convicts as a result of having to mingle more among them in a open-pod designed floor plan.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I'm assuming because they were told the facility is safe. Unless you're suggesting their fellow union members were lying when they said it was safe?

Why does someone have to be lying? Maybe they're just wrong. Who's going to best be able to judge safety? Some bureaucrat from the union/management/MOL or the guy actually working in the facility?

Being wrong could work on both sides of the coin.

Perhaps the workers are wrong and the safety concerns really aren't a problem...which may be the case, as workers are still on the job and/or crossing the line to head into work.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If you feel your workplace is unsafe, you inform your manager/supervisor of the hazard that poses a safety threat. It's their duty to look into the claim and decide if the workplace is safe. That's step 1. If they decide the workplace is safe, the worker is to return to work.

That system didn't work so great in bangladesh, did it?