this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
58 points (98.3% liked)

Canada

7224 readers
296 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
58
Canadian rail decision is a win for companies, union leader says (www.reuters.com)
submitted 3 months ago by Beaver@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

"Any federally regulated company, it's a win for them at this point," Boucher told Reuters in his first interview since the Thursday lockout. "This is disastrous for labour, for workers."

That title is a bit of a misrepresentation of the union leader's position. It should have read:

Canadian rail decision is a win for companies; disastrous for labour, and for workers, union leader says.

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, when I hear a union rep saying “this outcome was good for the employer”, I kind of assume it is consequently bad for the workers. I don’t really believe win/win situations really happen in labour agreement negos lol

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah, I agree, but you still have to be able to read between the lines to grock what it's saying. They left out the more important explicit part.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

He probably didn't say "and" If he did that it would be miss quoting which IMO is worse

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You're nitpicking. It's not a direct quote anyways; it's already paraphrased. They had no issue editorializing "them" to "companies", so adding an implied "and" wouldn't be any worse than that.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Pot calling kettle black, I understood the title without the bloody and

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Maybe I misunderstood your previous comment, because I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying my version of the title would have been fine without the "and" I added? I'm struggling to understand what you're taking issue with.

[–] StrangeQuark@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

Apart of a large union and would love to see solidarity between our groups.

Lisa Raitt did the same to us some years back and hamstrung our efforts

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like some corporate offices and some parliamemt buildings need to be burnt down

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago

Best I can do is a half-assed peaceful protest followed by complaining on Xitter, using words like "unalived."