That's exactly my point, sir. But you're sitting on the other side of the table and you're telling the employer, the company, that based on this legislation, if it passes, they cannot hire somebody to replace that worker who has gone on strike. I don't think it's a balance. A person, as an employee, can go get another job somewhere else while they're on strike, but the employer cannot get somebody to replace that person who is on strike. How is that balanced?
If you want a balanced system—which I think the present legislation, not the one proposed, actually supports—then if you're on strike, that's fine. For the 3% of strikes that actually happen, which is the number you used today, if there is a need for a replacement worker who has ability to do the job—and that's not the case in all cases, because there are unionized jobs for people who have special skills sets, so let's be realistic that they are not replaceable by people off the street without a lot of training and so on to make that happen—does the present legislation not give balance both to the employer and the employee in the present situation?