The Union is supposed to be there to protect the workers from various job hazards. Among these hazards are things like health and safety concerns, lousy pay, poor benefits, poor job security and various kinds of abuse.
That's what I expect unions to do, whether I agree with them or not.
I do not expect unions to protect and cover up for workers who are abusing other workers.
Call me crazy, but I thought that the union's job was to protect the victims, not the abusers.
Maybe they're a little confused.
They're so confused, in fact, that the employers have stepped in and filed a Human Rights complaint against the Union.
I mean, wow.
That's like Stephen Harper calling you on your sick day just to make sure you're not out on a golf course.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
I Blame The No Grammar Teaching
The Canadian Press wants you to know that Texting, Twitter and "no grammar teaching" is causing students to have poor grammar.
First of all, there's this quote:
You "go", do you? The verb you want there is "say".
Moving on. Moving on.
Break that sentence down. "He blames no grammar instruction in lower schools."
That doesn't make sense. What the writer means to say is that Budra is blaming a lack of grammar instruction. Instead, the sentence as written actually means that Budra does not blame grammar instruction at all.
Imagine if you were arguing with a Conservative who was determined to blame the recession on the poor. You might reply with, "I blame no poor person for this recession."
With that sentence, you would be saying that you are not blaming poor people. But, according to the "grammar" in this particular article, you would be blaming the recession on a lack of poor people.
Grammar: if you're going to write an article about it, get your act together.
First of all, there's this quote:
"I get their essays and I go 'You obviously don't know what a sentence fragment is. You think commas are sort of like parmesan cheese that you sprinkle on your words'," said Budra.
You "go", do you? The verb you want there is "say".
Moving on. Moving on.
He [Budra] too blames poor - or no - grammar instruction in lower schools.
Break that sentence down. "He blames no grammar instruction in lower schools."
That doesn't make sense. What the writer means to say is that Budra is blaming a lack of grammar instruction. Instead, the sentence as written actually means that Budra does not blame grammar instruction at all.
Imagine if you were arguing with a Conservative who was determined to blame the recession on the poor. You might reply with, "I blame no poor person for this recession."
With that sentence, you would be saying that you are not blaming poor people. But, according to the "grammar" in this particular article, you would be blaming the recession on a lack of poor people.
Grammar: if you're going to write an article about it, get your act together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)