Is CBC going to show the game.
I think so, the reason the last one wasn't aired, was due to BC's very strict labour laws and replacment worker regulations would have opened up the CBC to lawsuits.
Alberta's laws aren't so strict in this area, so the game can be aired from Edmonton
It could still be in trouble. CBC management had some picketers give them a tough time while they were setting up equipment.
The plan is still go with the "silent broadcast crew."
You sure wouldn't know what the hell they have planned for this game from their website: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/stats/cfl/scoreboard/ - there's no info at all! And we pay for this through our taxes! Shameful!
Stupid idiots @ CBC, hurry up and settle your labour problems ya lamos.
They aren't updating their website as who is there to do it?
If you really think the cancelled CBC broadcast last Saturday in BC Place featuring BC Lions and Montreal had anything to do with strict BC labour laws, please contact me so we arrange for you to purchase from me any public asset of your choice for $10,000.
They did games before. They offered to do this one but on one condition and that was not met by the BC Lions. That was, lift the local blackout and they wouldn't as it affects their walkup crowd and BC has a huge walk up crowd here of people who can't make a decision until the day of the game.
For CBC cancelling was a no-brainer and win win for them and their management crews with little downside with the public outside of BC. RDS carried the French version to Quebec and who cares if its in French anyway, use your radio or no sound. The game started in BC at 7 pm which was 10 pm in the east so if you wanted to see it you could get RDS or nothing as you are not a fan of either team.
On lionbackers.com there was all this repeating of the CBC stuff about strict BC labour laws only to be caught out in the end. This comes under federal labour law and no union would have dared picket BC Place and disrupting the game for fear of alienating workers in concessions earning 11-15 dollars an hour part-time and the fans who might have created a riot if the picketers looked to be stopping their game. For the well-lubricated arrival at a game the sight of a picket line (even if just an information line) could be like waving the proverbial red flag in front of the bull.
ok... just to correct you on a couple of things Football16....
#1 it WAS about BC labour laws for the CBC...
#2 CBC has NOT done games from BC during this lockout before...
#3 it was TSN not CBC that said they would take the game if the Lions lifted the blackout
#4 Provinces DO have their own labour laws in addition to the Federal laws... this falls under the BC labour law.... section 68 of the BC labour code deals with replacement workers.. CBC would have broken BC labour laws if they had carried on with the broadcast... labour laws for BC can be found here http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/L/96244_01.htm
#5 Unions look out for THEMSELVES and expect other unions and workers to support them... they WILL picket anywhere where they feel they will have an impact on the company that employs them... and besides... they didn't have to picket... CBC would have broken labour laws regardless of whether or not CBC employees set up picket lines..
please contact me so we arrange for you to purchase from me any public asset of your choice for $10,000 for thinking that CBC cancelling the BC - Mtl. game had nothing to do with BC labour laws
You are dead wrong on a lot of points here pal.
IF BC labour laws applied to the Telus dispute and the CBC dispute how then would either outfit move managers to work sites that they are not normally assigned to. How ridiculous to spout the BC Labour laws when the lock out as in the case with Telus is federal labour law. Check out the Supreme Court of Canada Case.
If you want to quote legislation quote the right stuff.
Of course the CBC was using that to dump the game. Let's see if the dump the rest of the games this year and dump the NHL.
I am not from BC so I do not know your labour laws, but I do know some constitutional stuff, studied it in University. The one thing that I do know is that for the most part labour laws are a provincial matter, hense the reason that they are different from one province to another. BC and Saskatchewan are very pro union, so their labour laws reflect that, while Alberta is anti-union for the most part and their labour laws reflect that. IF BC does have tough anti replacement worker laws then it is their laws that would trump any federal law that are out there.
You guys are correct that provincial labour laws are normally paramount however the Supreme Court of Canada and the Parliament of Canada have faced these issues in telecommunications, railways, stevedores and now the CBC lockout. Parliament many years ago put into law that the Canada Labour Code will apply to issues such as arise in the case of railways and shipping and telecom.
You can't just quote the labour laws as CBC is a federal entity. There have been numerous cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and I will cite for you one that determines the test of jurisdiction the best.
This was a 1990 case the Supreme Court of Canada heard on appeal between Central Western Railway Corporation operating in Alberta and the United Transportation Union, et al. The Canada Labour Relations Board and The Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General for Alberta were heard as Interveners.
The Justices accepted as fact that "Primary provincial competence over labour relations remains the rule to this day: see Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. v. Communication Workers of Canada,  1 S.C.R. 733 (Northern Telecom (No. 2))." However the Justices went on to state that " Parliament responded to this decision by amending its legislation to provide that the federal Act applied only to "employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business which is within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada": see An Act to amend The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, S.C. 1925, c. 14. This approach to Parliament's jurisdiction in labour matters has remained largely unchanged and is now reflected in ss. 2 and
108 (now s. 4) of the Canada Labour Code quoted above."
Case law was required as the Constitution Act of 1867 s. 92(10)(a) sets out what is to constitute federal jurisdiction under that section but the framers could not foresee changes in labour situations, etc so Parliament has had to act and the Courts have interpreted the rules.
In the Central Western case the court on appeal had to decide if it was "a federal work or undertaking under s. 92(10)(a) of
the Constitution Act, 1867 so as to make it subject to the Canada Labour Code?"
In arriving at the test while preserving provincial jurisdiction for labour legislation they applied the following test to determine if this was federal or provincial and this test remains to this day. The judgement states:
"In Northern Telecom No. 1, the guiding principles were summarized
from the decision of Beetz J. in Construction Montcalm Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission,  1 S.C.R. 754, and set out as follows at pp. 132-133:
(1) Parliament has no authority over labour relations as such nor over the terms of a contract of employment; exclusive provincial competence is the rule.
(2) By way of exception, however, Parliament may assert exclusive
jurisdiction over these matters if it is shown that such jurisdiction is an integral part of its primary competence over some other single federal subject.
(3) Primary federal competence over a given subject can prevent the
application of provincial law relating to labour relations and the conditions of
employment but only if it is demonstrated that federal authority over these matters is an integral element of such federal competence.
(4) Thus, the regulation of wages to be paid by an undertaking, service or business, and the regulation of its labour relations, being related to an integral part of the operation of the undertaking, service or business, are removed from provincial jurisdiction and immune from the effect of provincial law if the undertaking, service or business is a federal one.
(5) The question whether an undertaking, service or business is a federal one depends on the nature of its operation.
(6) In order to determine the nature of the operation, one must look at the normal or habitual activities of the business as those of a "going concern", without regard for exceptional or casual factors; otherwise, the Constitution could not be applied with any degree of continuity and regularity."
I will leave chronicallywrong to look up the situation with respect to the CBC and the CMG members it locked out as this is clearly a case where the BC labour law precluding managers from being moved to other locations does not apply as it doesn't in the Telus dispute.
Chronicallywrong should ask himself how the Telus managers are doing the union members work and in locations that they are not normally assigned? It is because it is a federal labour code matter just like the CBC. Do you think if BC laws applied that they wouldn't have the Telus management before the BC Labour Relations Board??? They'd do it in the blink of an eye!!!
Premier Campbell has said he will not change the BC laws that the NDP put in to prevent managers from being moved to jobs outside their normal workplace. Why? It appears he sees this a good incentive for both parties to settle quickly or not to strike at all such as in the case of BC Crown Corporations as management can't win too easily with these rules and their customers will be pi$$ed off big time.
Why has the BC gov't allowed Telus managers to work all over the place where they would not be allowed to under BC laws is because it has no jurisdiction as it comes under federal law.
To the issue of the CBC locked out staff picketing. Unions will seek cooperation of others in a dispute and in this case I am sure that picketting BC Place stadium for the CMG would have been stupid from a PR perspective and dangerous as they might have got attacked by drunks heading to the game. Unions do go and say don't picket us and in this case the wages at BC Place part time are about 11-15 dollars an hour so that is not about to occur. The telecast or not has nothing to do with security of the premises and selling beer, hotdogs and coffee. Give your head a shake chronic.
ok... i'll address the following quote now... and the rest i'll address later once i look deeper into it... because there has to be something to this labour law thing since i have no heard lawyers come out and say that the CBC is wrong... also.. if the CBC had lied about that and there are no labour laws preventing them from showing the game... Braley would have been irate and we would have heard about it (remember his comments when he found out that the first Lions game shown on CBC after the lockout began in Sask. was going to have no play by play or colour?)... but Braley didn't say anything other than he was dissapointed... so there had to be something that prevented them from broadcasting it...
as for the quote i will comment on right away....
agreed it would have been bad PR... and sure it might have been dangerous as well... hell it MIGHT have been illegal... not sure if you can picket a building/business that is not owned by the company that the locked out/striking employees work for... but where did i say that whether to telecast or not had ANYTHING to do with "security of the premises and selling beer, hotdogs and coffee." ? i didn't say that... please don't imply that i said things that i didn't...
also... "Chronicallywrong" ?... ok... aside from the labour laws thing that i MIGHT be wrong on.. (i'll be looking deeper into that this weekend).. what else in my post am i wrong about??... it is YOU that was wrong when you said that the CBC offered to show the game if the Lions lifted the blackout... when in fact is was TSN that said they would pick up the game if the Lions lifted the blackout... and it was also YOU that was wrong when you said that the CBC had "done it before" reffering to broadcasting a game from BC... that was the FIRST home game for the Lions that was to be shown on CBC... so while i MAY be wrong on one thing... you were definitely wrong on 2.
Let me get this straight.
Are you saying the union would not have picketed BC place because of the unionized workers there out in order to co-operate with their union?
If that is what you are saying then it is obvious that you have never had to deal with unious before.
Yes, ro .. that is not out of the ordinary and I have dealt with BC labour law as a senior exec in a unionized business.
Further I sat on a board of a struck organization that had several unions and there we got pickets from a big union who was not involved in the dispute but decided to shut us down for an afternoon. That was all in the 80s before unions started to fight for themselves and their workers and not allow others to halt their cheques unnecessarily. In the dispute I am referring to it was the union movement who halted the outside interference from union who seemed to want to get into to take over the whole organization. All this done behind the scenes.
When the ugly mess settled and how was the big labour bosses talking to one of our board who was big on the employers side and amazingly a process to resolve the dispute was developed that both parties including me had rejected. I was quite impressed as I was on the 3 member labour committee of the board who managed labour negotiations.
All this labour stuff is reallly a read herring to the reason the CBC really dumped the Lions-Als game but used BC labour laws that don't apply here. CBC can use managers. The CBC's union would have risked violence if they had picketted BC Place.
Have you been there and noticed how many well boozed up types arrive that way to the games. A PR nightmare that the Guild would lose badly if they put part-time workers jobs at risk by picketting the game and having 35-45,000 fans turning up at the stadium to find that the game was cancelled as ushers, security and concessionaires failed to cross the picket line.
Yes, I have dealt with unions but you have to understand first which rules this is being run by and quoting provincial rules is not relevant.
Let's see if the Grey Cup game is cancelled or Hockey Night in Canada due to strict BC labour laws.
ro1313- you have made NO point other than contending I don't know labour laws... I do including relevant cases in law that apply to labour situations. Do you?
Just to correct the record on BC tough labour laws preventing the game from going on.
It was just pointed out on Lionbackers.com - what I forgot to mention -
According to a report in the Vancouver Sun, the CBC turned the game back to TSN who then said no as BC refused to lift the broadcast. The Province reported that TSN said no as they had 3 games going already and couldn't easily move the crews around. You got to bet that without showing in the local BC area, showing the game at 10 pm in the east for the start was just not appealing as RDS was doing the French version anyway.
Why would TSN consider doing the game if they too believed that strict BC labour laws would lead to a picket as TSN (the rights holder who contracted the game to CBC) would then be putting in replacement workers and scabs who'd cross a picket line.
You guys may know that normally labour law is a provincial jurisdiction but may have missed the course in critical thinking and reasoning skills.
Would you boys be union members??
Actually I was asking exactly what you meant.
Maybe the unions get along better out there than they do here but I for one have been affected personally by one union not giving a rats patootie about another.
Where I work there is one road leading first to my company and then to another. One several occasions the other company while on strike would block the road and not allow access to their shop or our shop. My companies unions each time went to their union and asked them to move their road block down the road or at least allow access to our employees because they were not getting payed because they could not report for work. Each time they were promptly told to kiss off.
There have also been countless times where a company with more than one union would have one on strike and they would prevent access to workers of other unions.
Like I said, maybe the mentality is different out there but here its every man for himself
I heard the reason the Lions/Als game was dropped was because if CBC was picketing then the BC Place employees would not cross the picket lines and there would be trouble putting the game on so the decision to drop the game was strictly so the game would still be played.
Lionbacker - did you not see TSN said they do the game but the Lions wouldn't lift the black out? That says that pickets had zilch to do with it.
I suspect the CBC workers wouldn't dare picket a Lions game and put $11-15 hour part timers out of work. Are you on crack?
Didn't hear about TSN doing the game. Just stating what I had heard.
Let's get you boys up on the labour situation at the CBC.
News flash: Note this is the FEDERAL Min. of Labour -
Labour minister calls CBC lockout meeting
Last Updated Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:16:26 EDT
Labour Minister Joe Fontana has invited CBC management and the Canadian Media Guild to Ottawa to discuss the broadcaster's ongoing lockout on Monday, the day Parliament is set to resume.
"There's a sense of urgency to it, and that's good," CMG spokeswoman Lise Lareau told The Canadian Press. "I believe that's the result of Liberal caucus pressure that's been building."
Fontana's invitation comes a day after the Guild presented what it called its first comprehensive contract offer.
CBC responded by criticizing the offer for failing to deal with two key issues: the CBC's wish to make greater use of contract employees and the qualifications a laid-off employee would have to have to justify bumping a colleague with less seniority.
"The proposal also moves us apart in five or six key areas by including additional issues never previously tabled," CBC said in a statement.
The CBC locked out about 5,500 employees - including journalists, technicians and other staff - on Aug. 15, after more than a year of negotiations.
From Bargaining 101 at the CBC website (note that this is the CANADA Labour Code not a provincial set of rules).
As I noted in the Supreme Court Case concerning federal and prov'l jurisdiction, the case at bar in the provincial railway case was whether a railway operating as it was in the prov of Alberta could be deemed to be a federal much like the stevedores strike case heard earlier where there are not shiploaders all across Canada. That is why they came up with the tests.
"Canada Labour Code Timelines
Collective bargaining has rules and requirements under the Canada Labour Code, particularly regarding negotiations, conciliation, strike votes and timelines.
If, for any reason either party believes that an impasse has been reached, the CBC or the CMG, or both, can apply for conciliation to the Federal Minister of Labour, advising him that the parties have bargained but have been unable to reach agreement.
On May 9, 2005 after a year of negotiations, CBC filed this notice, and on May 25, 2005 a Conciliation Officer was appointed to assist the parties.
Under the Canada Labour Code, the timelines are as follows:
Conciliation (up to 60 days) May 25 - July 24
CMG Strike Vote July 13 & July 14
Cooling-off period (21 days) July 25 - Aug 14
Strike or lockout notice (72 hours) "
We know that they are locked out. Preemptive strike by management.
This story on the locked out CBC Guild members website speaks volumes about the kind of people who are locked out and how they are not the hand dragging unionists of a former era.
Quite frankly, I agree with their concerns for their jobs and their views that the CBC want to be able to get rid of them at will which is too often happening in this day of disposable workers.
This is the story of the discussion between the locked out people and one of Terry Fox's family so you will see that the mentality of the workers is not to stop others from their events but to get their job concerns worked through with the employer who seems to be enjoying saving their money.
Quite frankly it is about time the CBC settled this dispute and to do so fairly.
I doubt the Guild will mind the reprint of this touching story written by the Guild President. There was no copyright. Maybe we should all be writing in our support to get this resolved fairly:
September 16, 2005
Innocent bystanders in a vicious lockout
The Terry Fox anniversary underscores a clash of values and the myth of â€œindependentâ€? productions
By Lise Lareau
CMG National President
I am marking the Terry Fox anniversary with a range of emotion, but mostly tears. Not only for the loss of a national hero but also for the loss of a national sense of knowing the difference between right and wrong.
This is a story of how two very different groups became innocent victims in a lockout that the CBC orchestrated on August 15. And how the shifting sands of public perceptions pit one against the other.
One group, the Terry Fox Foundation run by Terryâ€™s brother Darrell Fox, had been planning to mark the 25th anniversary of Terryâ€™s Marathon of Hope in a momentous way today, September 16. Together with the CBC, there was to be a multi-faceted national day of celebrations, involving children, teachers and community leaders -- to be broadcast from coast to coast.
The other group of people involved in this are us: members of the Canadian Media Guild. We were to broadcast this occasion. Peter Mansbridge and Ian Hanomansing were to host it on television. There was going to be an immense archiving project online. Hundreds of Guild members were to work on it, in one way or another. It was going to be one of those all-day Canadian broadcast events that only the CBC can do well.
As we all know, the CBC locked out those employees nearly six weeks ago. Its senior managers chose this extreme action and they chose the timing. They decided late August/September/October were the â€œbestâ€? times in the year to take such drastic action because the Winter Olympics were not on and there is no election in the cards. Evidently, the Terry Fox event was not deemed to be quite as important in the CBCâ€™s calculations.
But the CBC didnâ€™t hand off the Terry Fox project to a network that could do it justice under the changed circumstances: it decided to do it in a shortened and underhanded way. An all-day broadcast event was scaled down to a two-hour â€œlive-to-tapeâ€? broadcast of events across the country. The CBC contracted the same three people who were working on the project (under CMG collective agreement rules) prior to the lockout and kept them on as an â€œindependent production companyâ€? after the lockout.
What we now know is that this production company has contracted at least five other crews across the country today to shoot and broadcast events â€“ in St. Johnâ€™s, Ottawa, Oshawa, Regina and Victoria. Actually these are not crews â€“ they are scabs, or replacement workers in the polite vernacular. They are doing work CMG members would have done if their employer had not locked them out.
The producers engaged a mobile truck and operator, called TV2GO, to provide a satellite uplink of the St. Johnâ€™s event. In a really wicked twist, the company actually asked CBC retirees and locked-out workers if they wanted to work on the broadcast. Oh, and they forgot to mention the â€œscabâ€? thing. Some were told it was a CTV production, others were told it was for an â€œindependent production companyâ€?. They were offered good money.
So the St. Johnâ€™s location unit of the Guild set up picket lines when they saw the truck try to enter the national park at Signal Hill yesterday. Several people who were contracted to work as crew turned around at the picket line when informed it was actually a CBC production under another name. The mobile truck was blocked.
The police and CBC managers (just in case anyone mistook the production for an independent one) stayed at the scene all day.
I contacted Darrell Fox, explained that all of us were victims of a lockout and asked for his support in delaying the broadcast of the event until after the lockout. It seemed like a good solution to a lousy situation: the celebrations could go ahead as planned, and people could watch it all after the lockout ended.
But Fox has a different vision and a different set of priorities, and who can blame him. He has devoted his life to Terryâ€™s legacy and to raising money for cancer research. And one can certainly understand his overwhelming desire to see todayâ€™s events go off as planned, albeit in a diminished broadcast.
These were difficult conversations: I wanted to ensure the events themselves were unaffected, but tried to explain that the way the CBC was broadcasting them posed serious difficulties for us, that what the CBC was doing was actually immoral and illegal. I had to defend our members whose work and livelihood has been taken away from them. He was of the view that this â€œdisputeâ€?, whatever itâ€™s about, is secondary to the legacy of Terry Fox.
To most people, Foxâ€™s view might prevail. In fact, he and the CBC are both counting on it. Until you consider the words of cancer survivor and activist Gerry Rogers, who spoke at a St. Johnâ€™s news conference about the planned use of scab labour. She said Terry Fox was about more than the quest to overcome all odds and beat cancer and that life â€œjust isnâ€™t every man woman and child out for themselvesâ€?. When I read that quote, I realized this cancer survivor had framed our struggle in the most precise way possible.
What neither Fox or I could articulate is that we are engaged in different struggles and that the CBC has forced a situation in which those struggles are competing right now â€“ in the national media, in public perception. And thatâ€™s wrong. By the end of the day, Darrell Fox and I reached a compromise. The Guild will not picket the crews at any of the events today, out of respect for the events themselves. And Darrell Fox promises that the St. Johnâ€™s element of the broadcast will not go ahead as planned. The children will still sing at Signal Hill, but no one will be engaged as a scab to cover it.
Itâ€™s perhaps symbolic that Darrell Fox and I could have these animated discussions and come up with an agreement at the end of the day. The CBC, on the other hand, just gets away with locking out its staff, making a million dollars a week (in Richard Stursbergâ€™s reported words) by doing so and violating the principles of Canadian labour law by using scab workers. Somehow the Corporation doesnâ€™t feel obliged to answer to any of it.
And what about the â€œindependent production companyâ€?? Remember these names: Moyra Rodger, Shannon Lowry and Heather Smith. You might add Jody Vance, the host, to this list, depending on whose story of â€œmisunderstandingsâ€? you believe. So whoâ€™s right and whoâ€™s wrong in all of this? The sad reality is that a lot of people have forgotten how to tell the difference. Except the people of St. Johnâ€™s