David Cochrane: Is there going to be anything in this legislation that could limit the ability of unions to strike? Patty Hajdu: No. In fact, what this legislation is focused on is really those 5% of cases that lead to a labour disruption.

So: yes.

So, theyre only going to limit the unions ability to strike in the 5% of cases where they have to strike....

Narrator: yes. Translator: Fuck yes. Liberal supporters: no way jose, aren't you glad I didn't say orange? I mean, aren't you glad it's not pp?

So that was more of a “No, yeah”, and less of a “yeah, no”.

Hajdu is lying.

Soooo, yes?

Same Patty Hajdu

Strike is a labour disruption. Seems they will gut strong unions through privatization and deny them the ability to respond

Doesn't that sound exactly like they are removing the right of people to withhold their labour? Aren't strikes and labour disruptions essentially synonymous?

I presume she is referring to the strong possibility of a public service strike

See ya in court, Hajdu!

Can't stand her

LIAR

Labour disruptions are the purpose of strikes, Patty.

So under current law the threat of labour disruption resulted in just 5% of cases leading to actual labour disruption. And she thinks removing that threat will improve labour relations so much that actual disruptions will decline further?? She really doesn't know what she doing.

So I’m very torn. For whenever reason, sentiment seems to dictate that management doesn’t negotiate in “good faith”, but unions do Why is that? I don’t doubt that management wants to break a union, but does the union actually consider how their demands impact their employer?

Sorry westjet , air Canada and cupe your days are done

And as the Liberals erode your rights, you'll keep going back and thanking them for taking such good care of you My question is how much more do they need to break before Canadians realize they only want your compliance, not your loyalty?

👏More 👏Women👏Union 👏Busters

So we’re crushing the backs of the working class now….

It’s time.