I'm telling you this issue is really debated on the streets. I have been approached by people that I don't even know telling me - That was not right at all!!!
I tell them what I know and they're very concern especially with the story of the Liberal worker.
A reader posted this one tonight and I decided to blog it!!!!
Although some attention should be on ADHD, there is certainly no reason to drop this. Charles 'admitted' from the first that he was pissed that Tom Mann supported the ban-that was the whole point!
Letting 'bygones be bygones' is not what Charles does best, which is why he's a good blogger. If he did that he would have given up on ADHD and all the other issues long ago and 'let bygones be bygones'. Far too many New Brunswickers and Canadians simply accept what politicians and others do to society and then come next election 'let bygones be bygones'.
Tom Mann certainly didn't have to come out and publicly state that he supported banning a New Brunswick citizen from the legislature. It's bad enough that he feels that way, but if he kept it to himself then nobody would know either way and Charles wouldn't have been blogging it. So he's far from 'innocent'. We never saw the New Brunswick Union's President come out and say that, or even the Union that represents workers at the legislature (the New Brunswick Union is a federation of Unions).
So for 'innocence' you are barking up the wrong tree. I notice how the word 'innocent' is never applied to Charles even though there has been no evidence against him of harassment in the legislature.
The only reason some of us didn't want Charles to pursue this is because the bullhorn incident could land him in jail, and we don't want that. Tom Mann is VERY guilty here, and deserves-as Charles says-'to be blogged to the end of time'. Tom Mann never did squat for those union members, if they registered a complaint he could have come and spoken to Charles personally, or at least sent a letter. Nothing of the kind was done.
# posted by Anonymous : 11:10 PM
Thursday, July 20, 2006
NEW BRUNSWICK UNION PRESIDENT TOM MANN SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You suggest Mann should have talked to Charles. This doesn't make much sense. A union leader speaks on behalf of members to the employer. If Mann’s members had a problem with Charles it is because the employer (Legislature) let it happen, so Mann’s complaint should have gone to Legislature.
As for Mann’s public declaration, this only hurts his cause as unions should not try to fight with employer’s in the media – it is unfair and irresponsible.
Adamtheknight, where do you think Employers fight with Unions??? In the media of course! The NB newspapers (and a lot of the mainstream media) are so anti-union, it's scary. The Irvings control so much of what goes on (as Charltes knows very well) that they can fight Unions through the media.
The above is quite true, except that Tom Mann is the Executive Director, NOT a union negotiator. HE is not the one who takes up the issue with the legislature. He was just shooting off his mouth to the media. If he was really interested in the issue he could very easily have spoken to Charles to see what the problem was.
The only 'harassment' was in the blog. Charles maintains that he never even spoke to workers there, and his adventures there are printed in his blog. The workers have not said differently, and it would be easy enough to have an open forum where evidence would be presented and examined-they do it all the tim e in the courts.
We KNOW what the harassment was. It was charles continually posting Dan Brussieres picture and talking about the 'quebec security.
In fact, there was a blog I recall where Charles said somebody told him not to blog it because NB has so much trade with Quebec.
These are all things that would come out in an open trial. Contrary to popular belief, some guy telling charles what to do is not legislative protocol. If he is out of line, you write a documentable letter stating what the issue is and how it can be resolved.
But they didn't want that, because Charles was perfectly right to blog the security staff because they cost him his job at the legislature. This seems lost on those pinheads who keep telling charles to 'get a job'-he HAD one, but was fired because of the Quebec security staff.
However, I agree that Tom Mann is just an idiot and doesn't figure highly in the matter. As the above post mentions, its not like union leaders have tons of clout here in New Brunswick, so he certainly wasnt the one making the decision. That rests with eight governing officials, and the sooner the heat gets back on them, the better.
Post a Comment