Comments on: Overseas Unions Express Support For B.U.T.

By: Onion juice

Onion juice — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 21:56:48 +0000

Bad press for Bermuda

By: spectre

spectre — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 21:26:44 +0000

Who cares about the overseas complainers? You don’t hear a peep from them when the Unions are off the chain. They have no jurisdiction here. If the really wanted to support education, the would send a cash grant to help the financially strapped government.

By: Kangoocar

Kangoocar — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:37:20 +0000

It is now official, not only does our local unions/plp spread misinformation locally, they now do it internationally!!!!!!!!

By: hmmm

hmmm — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:36:19 +0000

So please provide the procedures ………………..

By: hmmm

hmmm — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:14:31 +0000

Did they use it?

By: jt

jt — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:55:51 +0000

Why would they do that if they had information provided directly by their affiliates?
In any case, reading the above indicates they don’t have all the facts or history of union action in Bermuda.
Disagreeing with the legal action is one thing, but the way they have framed their letter clearly shows they are misinformed or partially informed.

By: clearasmud

clearasmud — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:35:13 +0000

There are already procedures in place to deal with a failure by either side to abide by a CBA. This is addressed on a case by case basis, but what the Government is attempting to do is legislate against future breeches of the CBA which I think is impossible.

By: jt

jt — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:09:50 +0000

@ tired….apologies…this was meant for Verly.

Thanks for your post. Clearly shows why the government is seeking an injunction and that local unions are misinforming overseas bodies.

By: jt

jt — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:06:22 +0000

No….they’re not. And those that are are clearly misinformed. You either don’t understand the case, didn’t read the article, or both.

By: Build a Better Bermuda

Build a Better Bermuda — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:53:35 +0000

Common practice, in an attempt to garner support, the information that seems to be passed to them implies that the government is seeking to infringe on labour rights, when in fact it is to prevent the labour from infringing on employers rights as they have agreed to in CBA’s and labour laws.

By: Quinton Berkley Butterfield

Quinton Berkley Butterfield — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:37:46 +0000

Are you saying that they do not have access to the internet to form their own decisions?

By: hmmm

hmmm — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:22:42 +0000

How about:
1) you read the ILO guidelines.
2) you realize that the Union broke their voluntarily agreed CBA.
3) you wake up and smell the truth that the injunction is there to ensure that any industrial action is in line with the CBA.

Someone has told the overseas folks a pack of untruths. The world isn’t watching, if you believe it is, then go seek help !

By: Tired of it all

Tired of it all — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:08:30 +0000

From the ILO:

Notice periods

In many countries, the law requires workers and their organizations to give a certain period of notice of their intention to strike. In so far as this requirement is conceived as an additional stage in the bargaining process and is designed to encourage the parties to engage in final negotiations before resorting to strike action, it may be seen as a measure taken to encourage and promote the development of voluntary collective bargaining, in accordance with Convention No. 98. However, the required notice period should not be so long as to unduly restrict the right to strike. Moreover, shorter periods of notice should be required where the preceding period of conciliation and mediation is already lengthy and has enabled the remaining matters in dispute to be clearly identified (General Survey, para. 172).

Notice periods that are applicable in general to all types of establishment should be short, whereas those applying in essential services or services of social or public interest may reasonably be longer. The Committee on Freedom of Association has found the following notice periods in such services to be compatible with principles of freedom of association:

a 20-day notice period in the case of services of social or public interest (Digest, para. 504); and

a 40-day notice period in the case of an essential service, provided that the time period is designed to provide the parties with further time for reflection (Digest, para. 505).

——————————————–

Given the ILO guidelines noted above I suggest that the Government allow the BUT and this overseas entity to take them to the ILO. Based on the above the BTUC and their overseas partners will lose.

It seems, however, that the BUT and BTUC have misled these organisations into believing that the injunction issued is to stop and prevent all forms of industrial action when in fact it is to prevent the constant wild cat and thus illegal strikes performed regularly by certain local Unions.

By: high road

high road — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:08:27 +0000

Isnt it unreasonable to think that every member of these affected unions should attend the hearing? I mean c’mon….completely unnecessary.

By: Verly

Verly — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:13:57 +0000

Good show of support from the overseas unions. Maybe the OBA government will open their eyes a bit with the knowledge that the world is watching.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:43:57 +0000

Someone has misinformed theses overseas folks.

By: Double S

Double S — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:36:18 +0000

Why is the BUT lying to these overseas organisations?

The upcoming court case isn’t to prevent the Unions from engaging in industrial action. It is simply to prevent wild cat industrial action and have the Unions abide by the CBA in the same manner thy demand of the employers. There is a grievance process which has been agreed to by both the Unions and the employers in which notice must be given before downing tools. Why can’t the Unions be truthful regarding this manner?