The other contentious issue in the fiscal update

A lot of focus has been heavily placed on pulling the $1.95 per vote to parties, and rightly so because a party's ability to offer itself as a choice to voters should not be determined by who can most afford to run.

When voters cast their ballot, many realize they are also giving their preferred party this money which is why many still vote for that party even when they know it can't win in their riding.

So the funding does reflect the will of the people. To remove this would hamper our electoral system, giving preference to parties heavily backed by big money, placing yet more power in the hands of a few self-serving individuals.

This issue, while greatly misrepresented by the CONs, took the front news last week with the attacks on Quebec quickly picking up steam.

The other big issue in the update that the CONs dropped, hoping to save their asses was their stated intention of making it illegal for public servants to go on strike for four years.

Layton brought it up at the weekend rallies, but the media is not picking up on it in any serious fashion, yet it is an extremely important issue, and one that will not go away even if it isn't reported.

PSAC signed a four year deal after bargaining in good faith. The deal protects some of their benefits long term, but agrees to a greatly reduced cost of living increase. The raises, spread over four years will actually set PSAC public servants back economically.

OK, fine, at a time when we face financial crisis, everyone needs to cut back, including public servants. From those I spoke with, most public servants with PSCA agree.

However, by making it illegal to strike for four years, the government does not extend the same right to bargain in good faith to the other unions. But that's the least of it.

If it becomes illegal to strike, there is nothing to force the government to honour any agreement it has with PSAC or any other public service union. That means the slim agreement signed with PSAC is worthless. That means the government can cut benefits, cut jobs, restructure as it wishes with no repercussions from the unions.

The public service is viewed by some Canadians as a bloated, useless, overpaid, lazy group of elitists. The current government, with it's propensity for divisive tactics, does little to discourage that myth. I will not use this post to dissuade anyone who does believe that BS, but will focus on what castrating the public service through their unions would do to the rest of Canada.

Public service unions fight for wages, pay equity, benefits, fiar hiring practices. They fight for legislation to protect workers from harrassment. These battles fought and won set precedents for the private sector, making it easier for workers in that sector to fight for, and defend their rights.

Take away the wages and benefits, and workers rights from the public service, and similar rights and benefits are threatened in the private sector as well. Very few companies will give more to workers than they absolutely have to. It's a bargaining issue through which management seeks to determine how little they need to spend on human resources in order to maximize their profits.

Add to this an economic crisis where we have reached the highest job loss/unemployment rates since 1982, and it doesn't take a master economist to figure out that companies can get away with violating workers rights and cutting their pay and benefits even more since there are more unemployed people than before ready to take the workers' places.

It doesn't matter if there are labour boards and human rights boards to go to if workers can't afford the lengthy process of appeal and complaints.

But Harper backed off on the banning strikes deal, right?

Until when?

It wasn't a sense of fairness or respect for workers and the public service that made him change his mind, it was done to save his own ass from a non-confidence vote.

No words were uttered by him or his government to make anyone believe that he had a sudden realization that banning strikes would be undemocratic, or vicious, or underhanded.

That leaves little doubt that at the first opportunity to enact such a measure, he will leap at it.

Whether or not anyone supports the public service, they should oppose any government that seeks to limit any workers' rights to strike without very good cause - such as in the case where striking could endanger the health and safety of citizens.

To do it for political purposes is extremely dangerous to our democracy and social economic balance. Love 'em or hate 'em, unions are necessary to assure that workers' rights aren't sacrificed for the profits of a few. They have their problems, but without them, and without their ability to exercise the will of those they represent, we would be back to the days of serfdom.