The tension rises between the Legault government and the union centers, which threaten to create a movement comparable to that of the maple spring to counter Bill 89 on strikes.
“This will be the issue of the next election,” said the president of the Quebec Workers’ Federation, Magali Picard, before talking about spring 2012. “There is a government that lost the elections in 2012 with a maple spring. »»
At the time, the voters “changed government” even if they did not all agree with the student strike, “she added. “On the other hand, they voted because they wanted the means of pressure to stop, and that’s what may happen. »»
Mme Picard made these remarks Thursday afternoon at the end of a meeting with the Prime Minister and his colleagues from the Confederation of National Unions (CSN), the Central of Democratic Unions and the Central of the Union of Quebec.
Placed in February, Bill 89 aims to “consider the needs of the population” in the event of a strike or lockout. If adopted, new criteria could be invoked to require a minimum service of services during a labor conflict. It would also allow the government to force, in certain cases, the intervention of an arbitrator authorized to determine the working conditions.
“It is a bill which, by reducing the balance of workers and workers, will impoverish them,” denounced the president of the CSN, Caroline Senneville.
Again Thursday, the Minister of Labor, Jean Boulet, defended himself from wanting to undermine the rights of workers with his bill. “We do not put an end to the right to strike. We ensure that there are minimum services that are maintained to protect the population, particularly that which is in a situation of helplessness or vulnerability, “he said when the questions before the question period.
“For me, social dialogue is important and it must continue independently of the circumstances,” he added, inviting unions to propose anything other than the pure and simple withdrawal of his bill.
A “shame”
The meeting between the Prime Minister and the unions had been planned during the International Day of Workers, and whose government had stressed the importance at the Red Show earlier.
But during the same question period, the Prime Minister had been against a group of union members. It is a “shame” that demonstrators went to the residence of the Minister of Labor, Jean Boulet, this weekend, he said, stung.
The Prime Minister deplored the Decision of Québec Solidaire (QS) to refuse to grant his consent to a motion tabled the day before to denounce the demonstration organized by the Ouvrière Alliance, the Syndicate of Amazon Laval-CSN workers and the movement “Here, on Boycotte Amazon”. The latter demonstrated again Thursday morning in front of the National Assembly. “Shame in Quebec Solidaire!” Total shame! Had launched Mr. Legault.
Questioned on this subject, Caroline Senneville argued that she had nothing to do with this event and that she reproved such methods. “We weren’t aware, we weren’t behind that. […] We do not have demonstrations in front of the residences. »»
In the morning, the Amazon Laval-CSN workers’ union said it said that the minister “still refuses to qualify the massive dismissal of 4,700 people as a crisis.”
“We tried everything so that Mr. Boulet will hear us, but he continues to turn a deaf ear. We went to his home on Saturday and he didn’t like it, so we came to the National Assembly. Will he finally listen to the workers, or start saying in the media that we are exaggerating to avoid talking about the real problem? “Said the president of the union, Félix Trudeau.
While the workers demonstrated outside, Jean Boulet filed a motion at the Red Show for “that the National Assembly underlines the International Day of Workers, which takes place on 1is May and which has been celebrated for over 100 years ”. Québec Solidaire refused to debate it.
“There is always a context at a motion. The context exists, then we are not able … It is impossible not to consider the context in the work we do, “explained the temporary spokesperson for QS, Guillaume Cliche-Rivard, adding that he had proposed several amendments which have been refused by the government.
