RE:RE:RE:Disturbances or full strike ?One thing to remember is that the media in this country has a strong pro-company bias in their reporting. I don't know why this is. Maybe it's an anti-union bias, maybe trying maintain a cosy relationship for advertising dollars maybe the companies just have better connections to the editors? I don't know the reason but the result is that almost all of the reporting is steered by company news releases.
Take the CN/CPKC situation; most of the reporting was parroting the "look how much we pay these guys" line but the real issue the union had was the companies demands for onerous oncall coverage and the ability to force employees out to remote work locations where they couldn't find staff for extended periods of a month or longer. Did anyone see this reported? Would the average Canadian accept their bosses' demands that they must agree to contract with such terms and would public sentiment have changed if it was reported properly?
Another point that was glossed over was that it was the companies that simultaneously locked out the employees - to force a total shutdown and force the government's hand. Only one union issued strike notice, the other did not. Without the simultaneous lockout the pressure and need for government intervention would have been greatly reduced.
The AC/ALPA situation is similar. Carefully managed news releases from the company that avoid mentioning the underlying issues to sway public sentiment.