LogFAQs > #955328242

Smarkil posted...

Yes. A paramedic walking away from their job with a patient in the backseat is definitely the same thing.

Logically? Yeah, it is. Obviously, that's a much more immediate danger than simply not having a riot squad for a few days, but fundamentally, it's a matter of people who have a responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of those under their care shirking that duty as a means of coercing society into giving them what they want. If a riot were to have happened on Friday night, it can be reasonably presumed that the riot force's inaction would have resulted in pretty substantial property damage, injuries, and possibly death, and they took this action knowing full well that the threat of that would help get them what they wanted.

Broadly, collective bargaining works because the employer values the workforce's collective productivity more than they value whatever the workforce's demands will cost. In cases of emergency services, though, that question of productivity and costs moves beyond money and into questions of saving/costing innocent lives. That's not something we want anyone to be bargaining with, so - by necessity - emergency services have limits placed on what sort of job actions they're allowed to take. Otherwise, you'd see the power granted by controlling lives abused by corrupt individuals and forces to effect privileges those emergency services should never have (such as not being charged for committing assault). That corruption is exactly what's happened here, with the entire force resigning to use the threat of innocents in danger to protest their colleague being held accountable for his actions.

The line between ethical collective bargaining and corruption can be fine, sometimes, but when the end goal is something as clearly malicious as preventing a colleague from being charged for a crime he obviously committed, there's little question as to which side it falls on. This was an act of corruption, and that corruption should be met with appropriate legal consequences.

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

After reading your post hes doin the right thing blocking you. Youre a racist. Not Zeus bad but ya got issues.

Oh, he blocked me, which means he decided to keep me from seeing his posts (after ignoring me off and on for a while). The last exchange I remember having with him was one where he tried to claim that the increase in overdose cases in BC over the past year had resulted in more deaths than Covid had (his central argument being that Covid restrictions had done more harm than Covid could have), to which I replied with actual monthly death numbers (which he asked for) that showed that was nowhere close to being the case. Apparently he just got tired of being proven wrong so frequently, so instead of trying to not be wrong, he took away people's ability to see how wrong he was.

Really, I treat it as a compliment. He has explicitly admitted that he is too inferior to ever hope to compete with me. That comparison may not be particularly high praise, but I appreciate the sentiment.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.