cannuck

To some of us, this is just another footnote in history, but to my darling wife, it is a sad reminder of what one of her beloved aunts survived. She also suffered serious health problems directly as a result of her time there, as no doubt many others did. Sometimes I worry that the constant and consistent rehash of the Holocaust risks fomenting the anger of the skinhead types, and that is no doubt true. But, if you have EVER heard first hand accounts of the Nazi death camps or for that matter the Japanese occupation of China (as I have), then you know that these stories really MUST be told.

I think the best answer is contained within this thread...with a bit of interpretation. Yeah, the Mars thing. First of all, there is no way anyone could build something on Mars for a measely trillion bux. BUT: the Mullah's don't know that. All we need to do is round up ALL of those in Iran who would support such a ridiculous regime, bring them together to inspect a demonstration of a new, privately funded ICMB that they can pay for in oil outside of sanctions, load them onto some Space-X capsules, (Promise them 72 virgins and they should file in like Noah's Ark.) point them at Mars and launch. Problem solved.

The friend I mentioned in the previous post is a non-union employer. EVERY person who is out in the field is making well over 6 figure income. They are in an industry with few union shops, so same rules apply as if RTW. I have been waiting 30 years to see any of this degredation in income, benefits, safety, working conditions. All I see is an endless lineup of people trying to get employed at branches all over Canada and the USA. A union ticket WAS once an assurance that the trades PROVIDED by your contractor (you do not contract the union, as I said, they are not a business), but in today's real world, it merely means you are getting someone who has paid their dues. They MAY be highly competent, but when we put in a call to a union hall, there is no such guarantee and we often send several of them back simply because they are not competent. The ONLY advantage to an employer is that allows one to bid work in closed shop sites (by using bodies from the hall). In several cases, we have been on such sites and the agreement requires us to take people who have absolutely no knowledge of our equipment or what we or the equipment must do, but since there is pipework in the equipment, we get a plumber'; since there is high voltage involved, we get a lineman; etc. NONE of these people can or have any intention to actually DO anything - it just pads up the bill with several completely useless bodies. NONE of whom would be a cost to the job (thus ultimately to the consumer) in an RTW situation.

Since we allowed closed shops. Under most collective agreements, the unions have absolute monopoly on labour inside of that agreement. When there is a need (such as turnarounds, when permanent staff has nowhere near the manpower needed) trades must be taken from the union hall - thus independent tradesmen have no right to work to satisfy that demand. Similarly, the business has no right to have work performed by anyone BUT unionized members. Many companies (such as the FCL refinery in question) have to negotiate a deal with the union (i.e. pay an official bribe) to be able to affect major projects, and even then private contractors are also required to hire trades from the hall (obviously, tech and eng jobs outside of that scope). Give you and example of why these things matter: Many years ago, I had a client that manufactured some large equipment critical to every heavy industrial site. I was asked to take a young EET with me and give him some training in the applied side of his profession. We had discovered some MAJOR wiring problems in the equipment (co-incidentally due to a labour problem within their unionized plant) that would have prevented successful commissioning. Since we were the manufacturer and had an engineering technologist on site (the young guy) the factory asked us to do the warranty repair in the field. The equipment was a few hundred TONS, and now fully assembled, so moving it back to the factory was not practical. We started doing what was needed - i.e. correcting the control wiring errors. When the site union (construction) found that, they immediately filed a grievance with the general contractor. Since the equipment was now on land covered by the site collective agreement, we had no "right" to work on our own equipment (not officially turned over until commissioned). The union imposed random tradesmen who were supposed to do the actual work under our supervision. Reality was they not only could not actually DO this kind of thing to our standard, but they now were trying to do work that my client (the manufacturer) would have to warranty. We had to go back to the general contractor and stop work until they resolved the issue - or they would not have this ultra-critical piece of equipment commissioned. The quick thinking site superintendent called the union steward into his office and slid a large stack of documents across the table at him, saying that this was a contract for the union to assume the liability for warranty on a multi-million dollar piece of equipment that could take a year to replace if it failed (with a business loss claim of about a half mil a day). Of course the steward did not want to sign such an agreement (which was, as I recall actually some kind of scheduling documents) and the compromise was that we would simply come in at night and do the work that was technically required by the collective agreement to be handed to an unaccountable and unqualified union to perform. BTW: the young trainee learned a valuable lesson from that encounter. He rose very quickly through the ranks of that company and soon left to develop a three man shop from obscurity to become over the next three decades the largest company of its kind in North America. He often reminds me that it was that lesson in why unions simply don't work that helped him structure a major consulting engineering, testing and field service enterprise that avoided internal unions and understood the limits of client unions. I can tell you for a fact that virtually none of his nearly 2,000 employees have any desire whatsoever to be involved with trade unions in their workplace.

A union is NOT a business in any sense of the word. They have no investment, they have no accountability. A CONTRACTOR is a business. As such, they must meet the required amount of work contracted to do, and must stand behind that work and do so to a pre-determined price. A union is pretty much the exact opposite of that. If one wishes to become business like (and it is to be noted SOME unions are actually doing this) they need to bid against other sources to provide the same work that a contractor would do, and be prepared to guarantee that work for both quality and cost. When there is a closed shop, that can not happen. Under RTW legislation, that would be easily accommodated. What you really are missing is that in a province and country without actual personal freedoms and rights in place it is possible to force an employer to become unionized. As an employer, I am NOT free to simply walk away, nor is anyone subsequently as even the building in which I may do business after being forced to accept a monopoly on labour from becoming unionized, nobody else can come into that building and do that business without assuming the same collective bargaining agreement.

I will welcome the couple if they do decide to come here (as looks probable). Don't really give a rat's ass about their personal lives, but what I DO want is for Canada to renew its connection to the culture from which most of ours was derived. Not only that, but the UK is still very strong on science and tech, but lacks the resources we have and access to the US market...that we have. Unlike China, UK is only retains a bit of the exploiting personality and business culture and can make for good working relationships. We have too much focus on the US and China and even post-Brexit, UK could be a good window into the EU for trade and tech. Dumping a pair or Royals onto Vancouver Island will keep Canada very much in the mind of Britons. We could also be a useful bridge between UK and China.

of course, when you set up a system of opponents you will always get conflicting results. Besides, it is not the "propoganda" that had Unifor members and president arrested and the union fined $100,000.00, it was their illegal and possibly criminal activity.

Whether unions and companies collaborate or not, I simply do not care. I absolutely REFUSE to be controlled in any way by some collective agreement, association, regulation, etc. As I said, I will fight for your right to freely associate with your trade union or whatever else, but NOT at the expense of my right or freedom to associate with or not associate with whoever or whatever I choose. How difficult is that for you to understand? I will come back to what I always fall back to: the very definition of good legislation is that it REMOVES privilege, and granting unions the privilege of closed shop and forced adaptation by companies of collective agreements is granting a privilege to one collective that is not available to another. The constant "union good, company bad" juxtaposition that the union movement here uses to exploit the "us against them" mentality, and worse of all the envy nonsense that anyone who happens to have been successful must be sitting on the ass and exploiting the hard done by "workers" (and that in the case of unions today is very much a joke to use that word) is completely out of date. Are there companies that treat workers poorly today? Yes, there no doubt are, but you are free to simply walk out of the door and work somewhere else. The implication that you are "trapped" in a job in this modern world is ludicrous. This idea of oppressed workers once had some genuine validity, but those days are long, long gone. What unions are today in North America is one of the several things that makes us not competitive in business internationally, and wildly expensive for essential services (best example: crown corps and of course the entire wasteful and totally ineffective government bureaucracies). Unions screw consumers, plain and simple. Unions screw employers, plain and simple. Unions screw workers, plain and simple (ones that actually want to work, that is).

Because you taking away my rights and freedoms is extremely objectionable to me. It's the kind of thing that in a country where people had and brains and balls should result in armed insurrection. We maintained an armed force to protect us from rights and freedoms being restricted, only to watch the socialist movement from the days of the Regina Manifesto on accomplish exactly what Mother Russia would have wished for in their heyday.

What total, utter tripe. I can show you literally tens of thousands of companies that are non union and treat their employees very well indeed. One of my clients and for decades a JV partner is a fairly large non-union company (well over 1,000 employees in 14 branches around NA). Ask ANYONE there if they would want to unionize, and I can guarantee you the reply will be very short, very direct and probably quite profane. When some of the young guys have a good year and can put down the cash for a hundred grand worth of new truck, do you think they would be restricted in their hours, terms, conditions, etc. that the many union companies (who have to hire them to get done what can NOT be accomplished from within unionized ranks). When people can just negotiate their work schedule to burn the midnight oil all summer then just take 3 or 4 months off in the winter to ski or lay around a tropical beach, you REALLY think they want to give that up?????? One of my best friends is a small company (30 or so employees in two branches). Not union but a profit sharing deal established over 40 years ago by owner and carried on by his son. Many of the staff have been there for the whole 40 years I have lived here. You think they stay because working conditions are so terrible?? There is a HUGE difference between communicating with your employer and mutually agreeing on what goals are and how they are to be reached vs. the confrontational style of most trade unions that need to use intimidation, deceit, etc. to force employers to do what the union movement thinks is the appropriate view of the world. Taking away either the employee OR the employer's right to walk away from that is a horrible breach of human rights.

As should be your choice to do. However, making it illegal for those who wish to take personal responsibility and initiative is clearly highly biased towards collectivism at the expense of personal rights and freedoms. If we had a real constitution, that might not be the case. We CAN easily fix that with right-to-work legislation. Doesn't end right to organize, just ends the collective right for you to remove my freedom.

The lockout happened because they were served with a strike notice. The point is the workers ARE allowed to work, they just choose to join a union that limits their freedom to do so. Refinery has been running just fine, just that the workers are being intimidated and interfered with illegally, as are those who must transport product. The idea that government or anyone else can hold a company hostage is pure socialist bullshit. Right to work pits UNIONS against companies and frees individuals to associate and work as they choose - as it should be.

You must be in a hurry this morning, as you are clearly not thinking clearly. Because something is stupid for 70 or 80 years, that is your justification for doing more stupid things for 100??? I did not and could not call SK the wellspring of "democracy" for patently obvious reasons. Obviously the problem is a lot bigger than one strike, but when even the institutions of the socialist movement find it unacceptable it is clearly time for individual rights and freedoms to achieve what that implies. MB has parallel issues in downsizing its crowns, but none have yet gone to the job action level.

I doubt this strike has made national news, but obviously, as the Co-op refinery in Regina provides most of the fuel for SK and the MT/ND areas to the South, the severe interference with access to the site for fuel haulers has become a serious disruption to the economy. First, that has been a LOT of intimidation, harassment and even assault on people trying to enter either to operate the plant or to ship product: https://globalnews.ca/news/6441876/14-co-op-picketers-charged-with-mischief-unifor-escalates-boycott/ The courts felt that the insolence of Unifor was intolerable, so a hundred grand fine yesterday: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-union-fined-for-violating-court-order-in-regina-refinery-labour-2/ I won't debate the merits of the union's demand, but I will offer both sides to those who might be interested: https://www.fcl.crs/our-business/refinery-facts/?utm_source=loknow&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=crc&gclid=Cj0KCQiApaXxBRDNARIsAGFdaB-8SqVIw5SFQtH2GGTpgjERu7ugmPsdQ47RNQCwMDsy4gw8yGNOonwaAvliEALw_wcB http://www.unifor594.com/bargaining-2019/ It is ironic that here in the wellspring of socialism it is of all companies the Co-op (Federated Co-operatives Limited) that has been forced to stand up against unreasonable demands of trade unions. They had to endure a totally ridiculous job action over the last couple years where the union insisted that new hires be given full wage of established employees (in their retail gas station/C stores). The Co-op stood their ground, but it was clear that the unions were looking to draw a line in the sand and had mistakenly targeted the Co-op thinking very wrongly that they would find some sympathy from either the organization or its members. Hitting the refinery (that is famous for paying far too much money for not very much work of its employees) was a bold move that once again, it seems they thought would be so critical to the economy that someone along the line would give in once more putting the CLC back into the driver's seat. Awkward for the NDP (which, if you don't remember was formed as a formal amalgamation of the CCF - the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the CLC - Canadian Labour Congress) that has removed the Regina Manifesto from its website to try to appear distant from their Marxist roots. The solution is simple, and it needs to be implemented in MB, SK and AB before the opportunity is lost: we need right to work legislation. The idea that Pallister, Moe and Kenny are somehow "conservatives" is now on the line. If you guys want to keep claiming that ground, time to grow a pair and step up to the plate. Recognize individual rights and freedoms for what they should be and place collectivism back on the shelf where it belongs.

Agreed so much on the tax thing for ANY institution, business, etc. I learned from an extremely capable economist long ago what constitutes good legislation and regulation: the removal of privilege. In any case, if one person or group is eligible, EVERY person or group should be eligible..or required to pay. BTW: what you might notice that the cults do is operate seniours homes and paliative care facilities. Purpose seems to be to influence their chance of inheriting $$$$$$. I believe any inheritance outside of family needs to be fair game for the tax man.

I am afraid I fall into the small category that believes church and state need to be COMPLETELY separated. When it comes to private money, one should be free to do whatever suits them, but as soon as the taxpayer is footing the bill, NOTHING to do with religion should have any bearing whatsoever on eligibility, spending, access, etc.

The "professionals" in the field make their money from having immigrants to deal with. When you say "the immigrants", which ones are you speaking of? I know a lot of immigrants who are great for our economy, but none of them came in as refugees - they had to wait in line, put up their investment money, prove where that money came from and then came over to join us in our struggling economy. Genuine refugees, I would have no problem with...IF we could afford them - and we can not. Most of what the Liberals seem to want are those looking for a better life, such as the Siks who smuggle in illegal immigrants to work in the trucking industry...here because they know we are too stupid and naiive to stop criminal activity. Why would I/we give a flying purple fxxk about what the slimey limey press is writing?????

what is needed to save the economy is to do useful, productive work. No amount if immigration will change or effect that, but it WILL add to our debt if we don't get smart and only bring in useful, educated, skilled and well financed immigrants. Haitian drug dealers and Somali terrorists don't fit that profile very well.

It would be nice of them to bear the burden of cleaning up the mess on their doorstep rather than counting on Uncle Sam to do their dirty work.

I feel the same, plus worth noting that the Iranian Canadians lost were almost all academics and professionals. HUGE loss to Canada, but more than that, THESE are the people who could return to Iran once the Mullah's are sent packing to put the country back together again. I have a very good friend who is Iranian, and her whole generation plus all but her Mother from that generation are expatriots. For that reason (she could easily have been on that flight, or any of her cousins) I was really touched by this disaster. BUT: I am even more disturbed that the ambulance chasers could even think of trying to make their blood money from such a tragedy.

see PM

I understand your sentiment, but in reality, airlines are just another business. No different from a bus service or taco stand. They are NOT diplomats with embassies. THAT is where responsibility for this lies, NOT with either the airline or its passengers. If either the airline or its passengers didn't feel safe, the answer is very simple: don't fly. Further, if it is not legislated and regulated that they must do something, why would you reasonably expect them to do it?

Two things: In a country with staggering debt and a budget many, many billions negative, there should simply be NO allowance for the Liberal (or so-called "Conservatives") to virtue signal with massive "refugee" programmes. The Canadian taxpayer should have the brains and balls to stand up and say enough is enough, but as demonstrated by the last election, East of Thunder Bay that is not the case. Secondly, the issue of "where" to locate those on the public dole. Why in ANY city? Life in rural Canada seems to be something rural Canadians can manage - and do so on a lot less money than in the cities. I still think reserves would be even better destination for immigrants, as they can get the "real deal" on Canadian culture.

Close, but not quite. It is up to the ATC system to ALLOW what flights can and can not leave, and where they can go. Airlines, charter operators, private aircraft and passengers are free to choose if and when they want avail themselves of what ATC system is offering. Well, more if than when, as the release of clearance applied for under the filed flight plan is at ATC's discression, and their's alone.

Why is it the airline's responsibility, and where is that legislated? THEIR responsibility is to rely on the authorities who grant or deny them privilege of access to SAFE airspace. The "right protocols" are that you have a clearance from ATC or you do not. Very simple. Their "mistake" was in trusting Iran, and that is exactly the same mistake that those visiting made.