Anti Scab Labour Bill Just won't go away!

I see the ANTI SCAB bill is rearing it's ugly head again in parliament. I know this is a sacred cow for the labour movement who always feel that they are being downtrodden and victimized. I just don't understand how having closed shops where employees don't have the right to work without being forced into the union or to have a secret vote when the union is holding a certification vote, a fundamental part of out democracy. It wouldn't be fair if people could vote against the union without the union bosses seeing who does not support them, would it?

Now the union says they need anti scab legislation in order to prevent an employer who is being struck, rightly or wrongly, from hiring temporary replacement workers.

I realize that there are times when employees are not treated fairly. An employer may not pay the staff fairly or fire without just cause or any number of other issues. There are times when it is difficult for a grieved employee to obtain a satisfactory resolution. If there is no ombudsman or other means to get fair treatment for the employee(s) a strike may be needed to force the issue.

However, there are many times a union wants pay or benefits that are unreasonable or that an employer simply can not afford to grant. In a case like that, a strong union can hold the employer to ransom over a pay raise that is unreasonble or unjustified. Often, it is not just the employer who is injured or hugely inconvenienced, but the public at large. Think government employee unions or transportation or utilities and many others. In many cases, the entire national economy could be put at serious risk.

Why is this a cause for concern now? The Liberal opposition under new leader Stephane Dion is supporting a bill sponsored by the Bloc Quebecois which is not very different that the bill they did not pass when they were in government. Why the change of philosophy now?

Now to my suggestion: PASS THE BILL INTO LAW, but with the following ammendment, "no striking worker will be permitted to accept any other paid employment during the period that the strike is in effect."

If the employer is to be denied the ability to make any money to cover ongoing expenses, pay the bills or create profits, why shouldn't the union members have the equal disadvantage? Or to put it another way, why should the striking workers be able to make money while they are preventing their employer from doing so?

Can you live with it?