Letter to the Editor -
Dear Editor,
I read your follow-up editorial to Roland Genge's letter "Rationalization is not the answer."
Yet the editorial tackles just one issue, essentially, which is the flexibility harvesters have in combining and buddying-up. This is a matter of federal policy, of course, not provincial, and views or disputes surrounding relate to harvesters and their Union, not the MOU.
That said, it becomes less clear what the editorial is saying Mr. Genge has right. The issue is neither resolved nor addressed "on paper in St. John's." You write "It's stupid logic." and go on to say no wonder Mr. Genge has little faith in the MOU process.
At the same time the editorial states "there is room for rationalization in many parts of the industry." Given there are two parts and it is written in the plural, I assume this means processing and harvesting. That is what the MOU is addressing. So how can, logically speaking, the editorial concur with Mr. Genge's 'argument' with the MOU when in fact the editorial agrees with rationalization and then spends the major part of it talking about something altogether different?
Regards, Derek Butler
Association of Seafood Producers
Strikes and Strokes
.jpg)
.jpg)
