Idiot student drives through picketlineFollow

I hate that training kicked in while watching that video. If they wanted to really picket, they should have used vehicles (Hell, even just one vehicle) to block off that gate. Not saying that the driver isn't an ***, just that the protesters weren't trying that hard.

Awww, no GTA style pedestrian squelching.

So are the police looking for the person because they ran that stop sign? Or is it really against the law to drive through a road as people move out of the way, just because they are part of a Union? The person didn't seem to be going that fast... 30-35mph maybe? I would treat people standing in the middle of the road the same way...

Sometimes I think these protesters need to use their brains and grow some skin. The last Union protest around here had people sticking their feet out in front of cars to get ran over just to cry foul to the police and try to get the Company and the "scab" employees hit with assault charges.

"Damn police, how dare they keep people from peacefully protesting!"

People ≠ Reasonable. You know that would be some people's reaction. Don't even pretend.

So they want to give him a ticket for running that stop sign?

Which has no more legal authority than a protest. Not sure why you'd think otherwise.



Of course it is. It's still a road with public access, right? It's not owned by those who are on strike? Are you suggesting that if someone walks into your house and blocks one of your doors that it's somehow not illegal because it's private property? Or, perhaps a more correct example would be blocking access to the restrooms in a restaurant. It has public access, but is on private property. Unless you are the owner of said property, you have no authority to block access to something which normally is accessible.



And?




I'm not saying that the guy didn't act recklessly. However, if it's illegal for him to do so and the police are the ones enforcing the road rules on him, then shouldn't they *also* enforce those rules on those who are blocking the entrances?

No Gbaji. Strikes are legal in Canada. In fact so are protests. They can hold up each car for up to 5 minutes but rarely do. What other course of action are they suppose to take? Give in and let there pensions, benefits and full time positions diesappear to be replaced with 1 year part time contracts? Maybe we should go back to the days where weekends didn't exist and once you could walk you could work in a factory.

Going off of this they're protesting because they don't want schools adding part-time jobs, possibly threatening the full-time positions. They're also arguing about wages since they felt what they were being offered wasn't enough, even though it would have put the average salary around 60K a year. Now these aren't professors or teachers, but your average school employees, like retail shop and cafeteria workers?

Is this correct or is there more that isn't being reported?

False dilemma. I didn't say that strikes or protests were illegal. I said that blocking traffic is illegal regardless of whether one is striking/protesting or not.



Really? It's legal in Canada for a non-police person to just decide to block traffic as long as they only do it for 5 minutes for each car? Or is there some special law giving special powers to people as long as they're "on strike"? If so, that's the dumbest law ever.

Having the right to do something doesn't include granting those doing it special powers they would not have otherwise.



Huh? I thought a strike was about refusing to work? I thought it was about showing the employer that the workers are more able to stand not getting paid than the employer is not having them labor for him. That's what it's supposed to be about, anyway. You strike because you believe that there's some work condition that is unfair, or unsafe, or that compensation isn't high enough. And you strike based on the assumption that your labor is valuable enough to your employer that he'll be willing to change whatever it is you're striking over rather than have you not work.

I'm not sure where disrupting traffic comes into this at all. If you don't have sufficient labor leverage to successfully strike without creating additional disruption, violence, damage, etc, then the thing you're striking for isn't legitimate. It's somewhat axiomatic.




If their labor is worth being paid those pensions, benefits, and full time positions, then their employer will give in to their demands. Strikers resort to actions other than simply refusing to work when they know that their labor *isn't* worth what they're demanding. The idea that the government would (according to you) pass special laws allowing striking workers to do more to disrupt a business than simply not doing their jobs seems to be unfair to the employer and frankly just plain moronic all the way around.


I'm all for labor fighting to get their "fair share". But that's got to be defined based on the value of their labor itself. It's no longer a fair share if they're allowed to legally apply additional costs or pain to the employer unrelated to the cost of replacing their labor. The only consideration an employer should have to calculate when dealing with a strike is whether or not the cost of hiring and training replacements is less than the cost of giving the workers what they want. Anything beyond that amounts to extortion and should not be legal IMO.

So who was it that brought about changes to labour?

You win I need to sleep so I can get up an hour earlier to get into class on time.

So union employees are making a fairly decent wage (not up to speed on cost of living in Canada so I assume 60K is a decent wage) working in positions that don't require any significant educational or professional background, and they're pissed that the school is trying to push out the union. So their answer is to strike and create issues with students who are trying to attend class?

Gee, I just can't understand why the school would be trying to push out the union.