Air Canada flight attendants said on Sunday they will remain on strike and challenge a return-to-work order they called unconstitutional, defying a government decision to force them back to their duties by 2 p.m. ET (1800 GMT).
Air Canada had said it planned to resume flights on Sunday evening, a day after the Canadian government issued a directive to end a cabin crew strike that caused the suspension of around 700 daily flights, stranding more than 100,000 passengers.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees said in a statement that members would remain on strike and invited Air Canada back to the table to “negotiate a fair deal.”
American-owned Financial Post actually did some useful reporting around this issue. I guess whatever judge decided to quash the strike within hours is a former legal counsel of the Air Canada Corporation; i.e., there is very high apparent conflict of interest in that process and decision. Another bad look for the Carney government.
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/cupe-former-air-canada-counsel-to-decide-whether-to-end-cupe-air-canada-dispute-in-clear-conflict-of-interest
To be a little bit fair, the judge apparently last worked for Air Canada in 2004, and who really cares that much about a company they worked for 20 years ago?
How much stock in the company did they aquire during those years working there?
Why worry about the Rogers/Bell/Telus/etc exec from 20 yrs ago working at the CRTC? It was 20 years ago, how could it ever affect his decisions today?
You might not (think you’d) be biased towards a company you worked for 20 years about. And the type of compensation you received (i.e., salary only, stock options, bonuses/gifts) might affect that.
However, being former employees (although technically this person was probably contracted) is often included in conflict of interest definitions and for good reason.
Your argument is a very non-corrupt way of looking at things. I’d support it if illegal lobbying and corruption weren’t rampant in politics.
By the way, the House of Lords in the UK is in the process of striking down laws that they need to report their financial interests.
There’s a reason why politicians’ and high-ranking public servants’ financial ties should be tracked, because they increasingly decide our current ‘democracy’ more so than votes, and without some transparency we’re @#$%ed.
You might not, but it’s still a major conflict of interest.
Why even allow for the appearance of bias? Are we in a d drought of judges? Was there NO other judge with a lack of any attachments to Air Canada?
It strains credulity to breaking point, and as a member of the public, this is where our judgement is relevant. Ie: is our system working for us, or are some shitty people gaming things. I know where I land on this one; the lingering smell of influence and corruption hangs like a bygone fart near an overstuffed leather chair.
Just a hunch, but maybe most judges qualified to rule on an aviation case have at some point worked with some major carriers?
Okay, but being unbiased abd free of potential conflicts of interest are, to me, mitigating factors.
I don’t subscribe to justice via my hunches, and do not want my country to either.
Edit: is it your assertion that any other judge we’ve appointed, having been properly briefed with respect to the relevant facts in both parties, would be unqualified? If so, should your ire not be better directed at the glaring inefficiencies in our purportedly completely ineffective justice system?
No it’s not my assertion. I’m just offering an another way of looking at it. It’s still possibly a pure conflict of interest. I guess with limited information you never know
That’s CRTC logic!
Um, ok.
I do, she should recluse herself.