Larry Hubich Never Misses An Opportunity To Miss An Opportunity

You know, if Larry Hubich had any political smarts, he’d make a public offer to sit down with Brad Wall and to help the Sask. Party government redraw its essential services legislation.

Of course, there’s no way in Hell Brad Wall would ever take him up on that offer, because of the fears of, you know, getting all those union cooties. But when Wall turns it down, the union movement looks more like the adults in the relationship between workers and management. I mean, just as the Leader-Post’s Murray Mandryk points out, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench has delivered a kick in the balls to Wall’s governing philosophy, and you never kick a man when he’s down — you wait until he’s on his kness, then you can’t miss!

Instead Hubich does this. Just like Wall, Hubich is playing to his narrow base. Doesn’t Saskatchewan politics deserve better?

Author: Stephen LaRose

2006 winner of the Canadian Association of University Teachers's Award of Excellence in Journalism for a bunch of prairie dog stuff. Invited into the best homes in Regina. Once.

9 thoughts on “Larry Hubich Never Misses An Opportunity To Miss An Opportunity”

  1. Chiefly for Ron’s benefit: the Court of Queen’s Bench decision shows that the system works (checks and balances, and Mr. Hubich’s reaction shows why there was support for the legislation in the first place. The polarization continues, to no one’s benefit.

  2. When someone trys to take away your rights as a person or as a group and it costs you all kinds of time,effort and lawyers fees to defend those right, do you not believe you have some grounds to at least claim damages even if collecting them is a longshot?

  3. The judge is apparently going to meet with the parties to discuss “remedy” (see last-linked article above). That might mean financial compensation, or it might mean an agreement on the government’s part to ditch the idea of appealing and to arrange for discussions with labour reps on new legislation, or a combination of both. It’s a matter of priorities. Which is the better vengeance: to get legislation more in line with what organized labour can live with, or to penalize the taxpayer? There’s a delicate negotiation coming up, and I hope that both sides look at the long term.

  4. #3 First of all, other provinces have ‘essential services legislation.’ So, why does the Sask. Party insist on drawing up legislation which is not only more restrictive, but also unconstitutional? Secondly, if you want to destroy Wall’s credibility, take this issue and offer to meet him.

    Wall never will. Even if it makes him look more like an unreasonable jerk.

  5. Both the Sask. Party government and the SFL et al have said they’ll meet to talk.

    “What we’d like do with organized labour is sit down and work with them and see what types of things can be resolved,” Morgan said, according to CBC.

    What is most interesting is that both sides have met in the past — with useless results. Justice Ball’s ruling said that the government did not appropriately consult with unions or employee representatives. This is not because there was never a meeting (although there seems to have been very few), but because the government ignored what was said in those meetings.

    Allowing a labour leader like Larry Hubich into your office every once in a while, ignoring what he has to say and then doing whatever the hell you want does not actually constitute “consultation.”

  6. Don Morgan’s scrum was a little contradictory. He said in one breath they want to sit down with unions and work something out. Then he said they’ll circulate “discussion papers” to get their input. He also insisted more consultation is “always good” — while the judge stressed they failed to consult at all before drafting the bill. Interesting.

  7. I do not see how either the SFL and company can claim a victory out of this nor how Brad Wall’s image takes a hit from this.

    The supposedly overturned Essential Services legislation still exists for up to a year as Judge Ball’s decision supports the need for such a law, it only needs some changes to make it deemed less restrictive.

    The amemdments made to the Trade Union Act were no overturned by Judge Ball, so the SFL and participants lost that one.

    Also the fact Larry Hubich and SFL lawyer Larry Kowalchuk have suggested a possible lawsuit involving compensation doesn’t bode well for them in the public eye. This might give the Gov’t a reason to appeal the decision.

    Are both sides truly willing to work together to resolve this? It’s hard to say since both have strong opposing viewpoints.

Comments are closed.