[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish 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?

What is it with some people that they keep insisting on equating Canada with Bangladesh?

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce 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.

Sure it is - and when they continued to complain, two guards got suspended and these suspensions were weeks AFTER the facility opened BTW.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

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?

So what?

The head of the entire AUPE said the workers are right to pursue this job action. Apparently according to your POV, that makes the union members who said it was safe liars too - when it reality it doesn't.

The ones who should have the final say on safety in this facility are the ones who are working in it, not some desk jockey who toured the place a few times and stamped it a-okay.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

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?

See above - the people working there are the judges of what is safe and what isn't.

It's not like we're talking about how food should be stored or whether or not some heavy machinery has kill switiches, we're talking about a JAIL where the guards don't feel safe because of their close proximity to violent offenders and a lack of secure places to retreat to in the event of violence (that's what I've read anyways).

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

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.

That's just a red herring - it doesn't prove anything at all, either way.

[jj2424]

I can't remember the last time we had a province wide job action like this .

have we ever?

Another first for the worst premiere ever. Who were the idiots that voted for this Liberal?

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure it is - and when they continued to complain, two guards got suspended and these suspensions were weeks AFTER the facility opened BTW.

We don't have the full story here. There's more that we don't know about why and what exactly lead to this. Obviously the suspensions happened after the facility opened, it would be hard to complain about a place you've never worked in.

bootlegga bootlegga:

The ones who should have the final say on safety in this facility are the ones who are working in it, not some desk jockey who toured the place a few times and stamped it a-okay.

But that's not how it works. That's not how it's ever worked and it won't work that way going forward. Follow the process or get fined/fired. Simple.

bootlegga bootlegga:

See above - the people working there are the judges of what is safe and what isn't.

It's not like we're talking about how food should be stored or whether or not some heavy machinery has kill switiches, we're talking about a JAIL where the guards don't feel safe because of their close proximity to violent offenders and a lack of secure places to retreat to in the event of violence (that's what I've read anyways).

Some guards. Not all. All of this during a contract negotiation.

bootlegga bootlegga:

That's just a red herring - it doesn't prove anything at all, either way.

Absolutely it does. If safety is the reason they're not at work, that list should have 1 item on it. Safety.

Having additional demands while on an illegal strike goes to show their motives aren't entirely about safety concerns.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish 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?

What is it with some people that they keep insisting on equating Canada with Bangladesh?

The principle is you don't just leave it to the guy with a vested interest in things to decide what is safe and what is not.

[Public_Domain]

[Gunnair]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

An employer like OnTheIce would only serve to encourage employees to stay on the picket line.

OTI works on commission.

[raydan]

OTI works!!!

[OnTheIce]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

An employer like OnTheIce would only serve to encourage employees to stay on the picket line.

OTI works on commission.

Nope.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

Don't have an attitude bootlegga. I've been polite in this discussion, and all I wanted to know is some insight on the grievances. I can understand not wanting to disclose any security flaws about the facility, which is fully legitimate, but it doesn't exactly help me understand why they're striking. Plus, Unsound already addressed your point much more respectfully, as he mentioned that the guards were untrained to deal with the new facility concept, which, if true, is certainly a huge oversight by the government.

Even you, seemingly, in response to OTI, found information for this statement:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's not like we're talking about how food should be stored or whether or not some heavy machinery has kill switiches, we're talking about a JAIL where the guards don't feel safe because of their close proximity to violent offenders and a lack of secure places to retreat to in the event of violence (that's what I've read anyways).

And if that is true, then the prison is a horrible design that's putting the staff at great risk, and even being a conservative, I'd support the strike because of the risk the guards are being placed in.

I'm not anywhere close to Alberta, so I haven't even heard of anything about this prison before this article, so I figured locals like yourself might have more knowledge that the CBC didn't report. Seemingly, you and Unsound heard something, which certainly makes this less favorable towards the province, if what you two heard is true.

$1:

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

That, I can't agree with. There are better ways to stick together than striking at eight other facilities, which, I assume, are filled with prisoners, and are safe. Right now, they're putting a lot of lives at risk, including the actual prisoners, if they don't properly attend to their duties. They could find other way to stick together without putting the safety of the public, other prison workers, and the prisoners at risk.

[Gunnair]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

An employer like OnTheIce would only serve to encourage employees to stay on the picket line.

OTI works on commission.

Nope.

Sure you don't.

[OnTheIce]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

An employer like OnTheIce would only serve to encourage employees to stay on the picket line.

What do you do for a living?

[Public_Domain]

[raydan]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

An employer like OnTheIce would only serve to encourage employees to stay on the picket line.

OTI works on commission.

Nope.

Let me guess... you're non-union but part of your job is dealing with the union and/or union workers... and you don't like it.

[Gunnair]

raydan raydan:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Gunnair Gunnair:

OTI works on commission.

Nope.

Let me guess... you're non-union but part of your job is dealing with the union and/or union workers... and you don't like it.

He sells used cars.