Collective Bargaining now part of Charter rights

Now this, it must be said, is huge. Union leaders are indescribably happy, and on the one hand, you can't blame them.

"This is a huge victory for both health care and health-care workers because the Supreme Court of Canada said that Bill 29 violates the freedom of association protections in the charter, which cover the right to free collective bargaining," said HEU president Judy Darcy.

"In particular, the Supreme Court said that the denial of the right to negotiate around the issue of contracting out in health care was unconstitutional," she said.

On the face of it, I agree. You can't just set aside an agreement like the Campbell Liberals did. But there are two other considerations.

1. We're big supporters of public health care in these parts. But there are certainly issues of sustainability to consider. Sometimes contract workers are going to be able deliver services more cheaply. I'm not interested in the whole system going down the tubes over union intransigence.


2. It is no stretch to imagine right-wing governments "opting-out" of said charter right. Sure, they have to redo it every five years. But I like the fact that there is serious political cost to doing this now. Familiarity, it must be said, breeds contempt.

Personally, it seems past obvious to me that union interests are not 100% synonymous with progressive ideals. *shrug* It's more that we dislike the same people. And I say this as a member of two different unions. Plus, reality has to enter into this somewhere. We're already haemorrhaging manufacturing jobs. Does this make Canada any more of an attractive locale? Surely, some jobs are better than regressing entirely to hewers of wood and drawers of water.