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

Canada

10027 readers
986 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 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 10 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 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

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