Air Canada (AC.TO), flight attendants want to make gains on unpaid work that go beyond recent advances secured by their U.S. counterparts, a union leader said on Wednesday, in a fresh test of the way airlines compensate cabin crews.
...
New labor agreements at American Airlines (AAL.O), and Alaska Airlines (ALK.N), legally require carriers to start the clock for paying flight attendants when passengers are boarding, not when the flight starts to taxi down the runway. Those gains came after Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), whose flight attendants are not in a union, instituted boarding pay for its cabin crew at half of their hourly wages in 2022 when they were trying to organize.
They acknowledged that Texas law allows lawmakers who are absent from the Capitol to face civil arrest, but they say state officials have no legal right to detain legislators who are already present at the Capitol to ensure they don't leave.
Am I having a stroke?? I'm really missing where she entered canada illegally. People keep saying she did but I don't think it says that anywhere. Can someone help me out?
My understanding is that she's a NZ citizen, which means she doesn't need a visa to enter canada.
Edit: canada sucks too and they absolutely detain children in horrific conditions for indeterminate amounts of time too, but people saying they made the states do the dirty work for them here, I don't get it.
Very much agree with this. Why does such a community exist? To talk shit instead of choosing to ignore others or working on addressing the conflict if you feel you can't let go.
Communities like this drive harassment because when there is a popular post against someone, some people assume it must be accurate or valid and pile on. It's incredibly unwelcoming.
There is a difference between "gotcha, I am very smart" and "this is harmful content/a person that harms the community - be wary".
People are still talking about vtc for whatever reason, it makes sense Hamid's going to hear about it (people have community outside of lemmy??? Weird right?). I'd probably try and rile them up too. It's really wild.
It was successfully appealed in 2008, if we're being picky.
The appeal was based in the fact that the judge found that the basis upon which a regulation was made (i.e. the position that the states is a safe country) does not have to be absolutely correct, so long as the gov considered if it might be true.
[57] Understanding precisely what is in issue in a judicial review application is important when it comes time to determine the standard of review as well as the scope of the review that can be conducted by the Court. An attack aimed at the vires of a regulation involves the narrow question of whether the conditions precedent set out by Parliament for the exercise of the delegated authority are present at the time of the promulgation, an issue that invariably calls for a standard of correctness.
...
[60] Despite this language, the matter raised by the application is a pure vires issue (see the relevant part of the application for judicial review quoted at paragraph 15 above).
...
[78] Subsection 101(2) does not refer to “actual” compliance or compliance “in absolute terms” nor does it otherwise specify the type and extent of compliance contemplated. However, Parliament has specified the four factors to be considered in determining whether a country can be designated. These factors are general in nature and are indicative of Parliament’s intent that the matter of compliance be assessed on the basis of an appreciation by the GIC of the country’s policies, practices and human rights record. Once it is accepted, as it must be in this case, that the GIC has given due consideration to these four factors, and formed the opinion that the candidate country is compliant with the relevant Articles of the Conventions, there is nothing left to be reviewed judicially. I stress that there is no suggestion in this case that the GIC acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
I mentioned it was challenged back then to demonstrate that it's been known to be problematic since the beginning.
If we want to follow along with the details there have been further challenges, started in 2017, which were on the basis that it violated the charter. The courts agreed in 2020, but again it was appealed and the court gave it's ruling in 2023: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19957/index.do
I remember watching Trudeau respond to this in 2020, when he was doing his daily appearances from the governor generals cottage.
I'm not trying to shame anyone for not knowing, I get that there is a lot going on in the world and people are struggling in an individual basis too. But it really shocks me when are surprised that it's not all sunshine and rainbows and open arms. I actually learned about it in 2017, when the PM was on TV saying canada would welcome people. Not if they are being deported from the US, I guess 🤷🏻♀️
Folks have been suing the gov about the Safe Third a country agreement since 2005 - opposition isn't new. And yes, the courts did strike it down but the gov appealed, and it's still under review.
Her pending claim for protection in the Great White North could be a landmark case, the American believes.
'I'm here in Canada with a terrific lawyer taking up my unprecedented case: seeking asylum from the United States of America on the grounds of violation of human rights,' she posted online.
'My case is a precedent-setting one, and if successful, could make asylum for trans people in the U.S. possible.'
I hope she's successful. The Safe Third Country agreement needs to be ended. Until that time, the path to claiming refuge status from the US will be extremely expensive and onerous and not likely to be successful. The canadian government needs to be called out on their hypocrisy and refusal to 'rock the boat' by ending it.
No one has been granted refugee status on the grounds yet, so it's not possible to say. People are immigrating by other means.
The Safe Third Country agreement is a major barrier and must be dropped, but that's not going to happen: despite all the warm and fuzzy talk the give has had during the previous trump admin and the current, the gov continues to fight challenges to the agreement in court: https://ccrweb.ca/en/safe-third-country
I think there is a gross overestimation of the support that is available. I've seen a lot of bad articles copying and pasting different parts of immigration policy and programs but without understanding how it works as a whole.
I think people really underestimate how much work it is to maintain a community online. It's something that is so outside of my skillset and capabilities that I feel awe when I see it done successfully.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/air-canada-flight-attendants-try-build-us-gains-unpaid-work-2025-08-06/
...