Monday, December 28, 2009

Saskatchewan Party Not Doing Enough to Address Labour Law Violations...

...In the eyes of the hopelessly partisan

Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party have rightly been proud of their record pursuing the perpetrators of labour law violations, and prosecuting them.

And while some twits insist on toeing an ideological line on the issue, they customarily say very little about it. There's good reason for this -- because when they do attempt to say something about it, they make themselves look extremely foolish.

During 2009, the government of Saskatchewan prosecuted eleven businesses for violations of labour law -- the most in 20 years.

"We're paying more attention to this activity. We're having the Ministry of Justice more engaged in helping us out in prosecuting," explained Laverne Moskal.

But Saskatchewan Federation of Labour President Larry Hubich said the Saskatchewan Party's record in pursuing labour law violations is actually no big deal, and certainly isn't worthy of applause.

"Eleven prosecutions in this province aren't something they should be bragging about," Hubich insisted. "It's hardly scratching the surface."

But, then again, Hubich has an excessively poor record in dealing with stories that aren't beneficial to his particular ideological camp.

For example, Hubich responded to the allegations -- which quickly became evidently factual -- circling around ACORN very poorly.

Considering that Hubich is widely known as a schill for the NDP, and is a fixture at their conventions, it's not shocking to find that the Wall government would be denied credit where credit is clearly due.

After all, perhaps there should be more than eleven prosecutions for labour law violations in Saskatchewan. But, at the same time, if the eleven secured this year is more than in any year of the past 20 in Saskatchewan, then that would mean that the Wall government has outperformed Hubich's NDP on this particular issue.

But that -- just as with the scope of the fraud being perpetrated by ACORN -- would be just another inconvenient detail for Larry Hubich, and those who choose to echo him.




5 comments:

  1. I am an admirer of Andrew Breitbart. I hope he writes a book giving us the inside story of everything that went on while the ACORN sting was bing played. It would make for some very interesting reading. And, what are the bets that the guy still has loads of aces up his sleeve?
    Love to see and read about lefty butt getting butted. What a high!

    ReplyDelete
  2. At the time of the DQ investigation/prosecution, Mike Carr was busy telling the press that the government had nothing at all to do with the number of labour law violations that were addressed, as it was a "complaint driven" process due to limited investigative resources.

    In addition, the Wall government was then essentially forced (note the difference between that an voluntarily choice) to take legal action against a company for breaking a statue that the Sask. Party not only disagreed with, but had also failed to address.

    If one has to go to these kinds of lengths to find things through which to credit the Sask Party with, that doesn't speak well for Wall and Co. "Looking foolish", indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Guess what, Audrey? That's the government's role.

    The government can't decide to simply decline to enforce a law they don't agree with -- and there's good reason to disagree with the law in question. Until the law is changed, that law is the law. Knowing what the laws are, businesses are required to comply with them. If they don't -- if they fail in their reporting practices (which, by the way, is an investigation that would be initiated at the government level, not as a complaint-driven process), as was partially the case with the DQ in question -- the law must be enforced.

    That's what law and order is about.

    Neither you nor Larry Hubich can realistically have this both ways. Either labour law violations must be investigated and prosecuted and so this is a good thing, or labour law violations must be ignored, and so this is a bad thing.

    Furthermore, you can't complain that the party in government isn't doing enough prosecuting and so doesn't deserve any credit when that government is doing more investigating and prosecuting than yours did in any of the past 20 years.

    Nope. You shant have it both ways, Audrey. Because realistically, you can't. No matter how badly you want to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're once again tilting at strawmen, Kid Cash.

    I've never once suggested that the complaint shouldn't have been investigated, or that governments should selectively and unequally apply the law (reading comprehension, FTW!).

    My complaint was very clearly directed at the inconsistencies involved in the rhetoric and bragging that was occurring. Ironically, the ones "wanting it both ways" are the Sask Party.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Audrey, you're a moron.

    Your suggestion -- that you very much made, although we all know you're going to lie about that now -- that the government should only apply the laws it agrees with is precisely that (dishonesty, FTW!).

    Your complaint was meaningless and hypocritical -- just like almost everything you write at your particular online toilet.

    ReplyDelete

Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.