WSIB Blocks Path to Resolution as Strike Enters Fourth Week
Article content
TORONTO — After a full weekend of mediated negotiations aimed at ending the ongoing strike, the union representing more than 3,600 Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) employees says the agency is once again delaying a fair resolution, this time by rejecting a neutral path forward: a supervised vote by its own workforce.
Article content
OCEU/CUPE 1750 says that despite extensive efforts by the union to move bargaining ahead, including participating in intensive mediation all weekend and through Monday, WSIB shut down the latest opportunity for progress. The employer has the option to request a government supervised vote on their final offer, but WSIB squashed that option.
Article content
'WSIB is blocking even the most reasonable steps forward,' said Harry Goslin, President of OCEU/CUPE 1750. 'They refused to let their own workers vote on their own offer. What are they afraid of? This isn't how a serious employer acts, it's how you stall, delay, and deepen a crisis.'
Article content
This latest refusal comes as backlogs grow, and frontline services remain disrupted across Ontario. Internal memos have already confirmed that the strike is leading to delayed claims and shortcuts that risk long-term harm to injured workers. Meanwhile, a follow-up mental health survey conducted by the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW) reveals that WSIB staff are now facing rates of anxiety and depression twice the national average —among the worst findings OHCOW has seen in more than a decade.
Article content
OCEU/CUPE 1750 members have been on strike since May 21, fighting for fair wages, manageable workloads, and an end to reckless outsourcing of Ontario jobs. This marks the first strike in WSIB's 110-year history.
Article content
Despite repeated efforts by the union to find common ground, including meaningful movement on wages, workload, and seniority — WSIB continues to advance proposals that ignore the realities facing staff and stall any serious progress.
Article content
'The people on the picket lines want to get back to work and restore services,' Goslin said. 'The WSIB won't improve their offer and won't use the tools available to them to bring their deal to the workforce. It's WSIB that's refusing to move, and the Ford government is enabling that delay. These delay tactics are hurting Ontario's injured.'
Article content
OCEU/CUPE 1750 is calling on WSIB leadership and the provincial government to end the delay tactics, stop interfering in the process, and finally deliver a fair deal that respects the workers who keep Ontario's compensation system running, and the injured workers who rely on it.
Article content
Article content
Article content
Article content
Article content
Contacts
Article content
For more information, please contact:
Article content
Article content
Bill Chalupiak
Article content
Article content
Article content
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
25 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
54% of Nvidia's Q1 Revenue Came From 4 Mystery Customers -- Who Could They Be?
Most artificial intelligence (AI) models are trained and then deployed in data centers, which are filled with thousands of specialized chips called graphics processing units (GPUs). Most AI developers don't have the financial resources to build that infrastructure themselves, but they can rent it from a handful of technology giants that operate hundreds of centralized data centers all over the world. Those tech giants typically buy most of their GPUs from Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA), which supplies the best AI hardware in the industry. The chipmaker continues to experience more demand than it can fill, which is driving a surge in its revenue and earnings. In fact, Nvidia has added a staggering $3 trillion to its market capitalization since the beginning of 2023, and it's now the second most valuable company in the world. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » However, the fact that only a handful of companies can afford to build the best AI infrastructure isn't a good thing for Nvidia. During the fiscal 2026 first quarter (ended April 27), more than half of the company's total revenue came from just four unnamed customers, which means a pullback in AI infrastructure spending from any one of them could threaten the chip giant's incredible run of growth. Let's take a look at who those top customers might be, so we can assess the sustainability of Nvidia's data center business. Nvidia's revenue is highly concentrated Nvidia generated $44.1 billion in total revenue during the fiscal 2026 first quarter. The data center segment was responsible for $39.1 billion of that figure, so AI GPUs are now the company's most important product by far. While Nvidia doesn't disclose who its customers are, it does report some data on the concentration of its revenue base. During the first quarter, just four mystery customers alone accounted for 54% of the company's $44.1 billion in sales: Customer Proportion of Nvidia's Q1 Revenue Customer A 16% Customer B 14% Customer C 13% Customer D 11% Data source: Nvidia. That means Customer A spent around $7 billion with Nvidia during the first quarter, and there are only a handful of companies in the world with enough financial resources to keep that up. As I mentioned earlier, this creates a risk for Nvidia because if Customer A were to reduce its capital expenditures, it would be very hard for the chipmaker to replace that revenue. Who are Nvidia's mystery customers? It's impossible to identify Nvidia's top customers with certainty, but we can make some pretty reasonable assumptions based on public forecasts issued by some of the world's biggest tech companies: Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) said it will spend around $105 billion on AI data center infrastructure this calendar year. Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) said it is on track to spend over $80 billion on AI infrastructure during its fiscal year 2025 (which ends on June 30). Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG)(NASDAQ: GOOGL) plans to spend $75 billion on AI infrastructure this calendar year. Meta Platforms (NASDAQ: META) says it will spend up to $72 billion to fuel its AI ambitions this year (a figure it recently increased from $65 billion). Several other AI companies have smaller -- but not insignificant -- capital investments in the pipeline. Oracle, for example, recently told investors it will increase its data center spending to over $25 billion during its fiscal year 2026 (which just began on June 1). Then there are top AI start-ups like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Elon Musk's xAI, which also have very deep pockets. While all of the above companies are developing AI for their own purposes, Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet are also three of the world's largest providers of cloud services. In other words, they build the centralized data centers I mentioned earlier, which they rent to AI developers for a profit. A potential $1 trillion annual opportunity Despite the exorbitant amount of AI infrastructure spending on the table this year, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang thinks this is just the beginning. He predicts capital expenditures could top $1 trillion per year by 2028, because every new generation of AI models requires more computing capacity than the last. For example, Huang says some of the newest "reasoning" models consume up to 1,000 times more computing capacity than their predecessors. These models spend time "thinking" in the background before rendering responses, ensuring they produce more accurate information than traditional large language models (LLMs), which generate fast, one-shot responses. Nvidia's Blackwell and Blackwell Ultra GPU architectures were designed to meet the growing demand for inference capacity from reasoning models, which is why chips like the GB200 and GB300 are the most sought-after in the world. If Huang is right about the trajectory of AI infrastructure spending, then the risks associated with Nvidia's highly concentrated revenue probably won't materialize for at least a few more years. Since Nvidia stock is trading at a relatively attractive valuation right now, those potential risks probably shouldn't keep investors from buying it right now. Should you invest $1,000 in Nvidia right now? Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Nvidia wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,702!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $870,207!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is988% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to172%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Anthony Di Pizio has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
National Post
32 minutes ago
- National Post
Michel Maisonneuve: Canada's military can't be fixed with cash alone
Prime Minister Mark Carney's surprise pledge to meet NATO's defence spending target is long overdue, but without real reform, leadership and a shift away from bureaucracy and social experimentation, it risks falling short of what the moment demands. Article content Canada committed in 2014 to spend two per cent of its gross national product on defence — a NATO target meant to ensure collective security and more equitable burden-sharing. We never made it past 1.37 per cent, drawing criticism from allies and, in my view, breaching our obligation. Now, the prime minister says we'll hit the target by the end of fiscal year 2025-26. That's welcome news, but it comes with serious challenges. Article content Reaching the two per cent was always possible. It just required political courage. The announced $9 billion in new defence spending shows intent, and Carney's remarks about protecting Canadians are encouraging. But the reality is our military readiness is at a breaking point. With global instability rising — including conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East— Canada's ability to defend its territory or contribute meaningfully to NATO is under scrutiny. Less than half of our army vehicles, ships and aircraft are currently operational. Article content Article content I'm told the Treasury Board has already approved the new funds, making this more than just political spin. Much of the money appears to be going where it's most needed. Pay and benefit increases for serving members should help with retention, and bonuses for re-enlistment are reportedly being considered. Recruiting and civilian staffing will also get a boost, though I question adding more to an already bloated public service. Reserves and cadet programs weren't mentioned but they also need attention. Article content Equipment upgrades are just as urgent. A new procurement agency is planned, overseen by a secretary of state — hopefully with members in uniform involved. In the meantime, accelerating existing projects is a good way to ensure the money flows quickly. Restocking ammunition is a priority. Buying Canadian and diversifying suppliers makes sense. The Business Council of Canada has signalled its support for a national defence industrial strategy. That's encouraging, but none of it will matter without follow-through. Article content Article content Infrastructure is also in dire shape. Bases, housing, training facilities and armouries are in disrepair. Rebuilding these will not only help operations but also improve recruitment and retention. So will improved training, including more sea days, flying hours and field operations. Article content All of this looks promising on paper, but if the Department of National Defence can't spend funds effectively, it won't matter. Around $1 billion a year typically lapses due to missing project staff and excessive bureaucracy. As one colleague warned, 'implementation (of the program) … must occur as a whole-of-government activity, with trust-based partnerships across industry and academe, or else it will fail.'
National Post
33 minutes ago
- National Post
Jamie Sarkonak: Mark Carney is demanding power to suspend all federal laws. What will he use it for?
Article content Making matters more concerning are Carney's own potential private-sector interests: he is the former chair and environmental, social, governance (ESG) lead of Brookfield Asset Management. Carney's publicly traded assets have been put into a blind trust, but we're still waiting on financial disclosures through the ethics commissioner. All considered, he could stand to benefit from the suspension of law in the area of modular housing and green energy, for example, given Brookfield's holdings. Article content Aside from the corruption risk, the Building Canada Act could ultimately create the expectation that the feds should selectively suspend clunky laws to get anything of worth built, incentivizing lobbying campaigns and distracting from the actual job of government. If some Canadian laws are so hostile to development that they warrant total suspension, as the Liberals seem to admit by tabling Bill C-5, they should spend their time fixing them. Fast-tracking exceptions aren't out of the question, either: if Parliament wants to give cabinet the ability to suspend certain pre-determined clauses in certain cases, it can go right ahead. Article content Indeed, the left decried Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's plan to repeal the burdensome Impact Assessment Act, which hasn't approved a single project in its six years of existence, and requires proponents to file everything from sociology dissertations to greenhouse gas projections in their applications. But Poilievre's intent was to replace it with something else — and he certainly didn't set out to suspend the whole roster of environmental laws, as seems to be Carney's approach. Article content Proponents of the scheme will likely defend it by pointing to the fact that Bill C-5, as it's currently written, proposes a list of only 13 suspendable laws. These include the Impact Assessment Act (and its predecessor, which still applies to a number of projects underway in Canada), the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the National Capital Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, a part of the Canada Transportation Act, the Species at Risk Act, and a handful of federal laws that govern Canadian bodies of water. Article content Article content It's a fraction of the hundreds of federal laws that are on the books — but that's just for now. The moment the Building Canada Act becomes law, that list can be expanded at cabinet's pleasure. In that way, Bill C-5 is a Trojan horse. Article content The Liberals are now moving the bill along at a pace so fast that it escapes the rule of law. The House of Commons transport committee is scheduled to handle the bill this week, with only one day of witness hearings planned before MPs hit their deadline to propose amendments. It will simply be impossible to give this wide-ranging bill the full consideration it deserves, as a proposal to allow cabinet to pause any law at any time should take months, not hours. Article content Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet got it right last week when he denounced the bill and promised to fight the Liberals' attempt to speed it through the House of Commons without any meaningful debate. Article content The Conservatives are still on the fence, but they shouldn't be. Supporting Bill C-5 in its current form means unleashing the Liberals from the oversight of Parliament, which would be a catastrophic dereliction of duty for the Opposition. Article content
