sideshow

None of us know...but given enough first hand knowledge of who what and when,coupled with the draconian rules that WBC forces employers to implement, we can make a reasonable call and say that WBC is a mixed up screwy rip off for a lot of people. The whole system is wrong. Right intentions, wrong implimentation. WBC mandates, injury-file a report no matter how small an injury. Rates are based on injury profile and claims. So the circular route is thus....make claim cost goes up, make claim but no payout, cost goes up, ergo next time you dont want a claim used against you so your rates decline, all the while roughly the same number of claims have to be paid, yet there are fewer dollars coming in thus the rates must go up to cover the existing claims, and then employers tighten up about no claims being reported unless very serious..and so on and so on. My case (as a young man) worked in an abbotoir. Pushing sows on the rail and one jumps the track and the 4LB stainles steel bar comes down, with the sow (220lbs) still on and hits me in the neck knocking me out cold the whole while I am face down in an inch of cold pig blood. I am awakended by a co worker and taken to the nurse. She calls the boss who hired me (plant manager) and we talk. He asks do I think I am alright. Yes I think I will be. Do I want to make a WBC claim , or could we discuss you taking as much time off as needed WITH full pay in lieu of claim at WBC. I took the days off , even tho that night I was rushed into emergency due to something I contracted in the pig blood. One night stay and released with a letter for my boss. WBC never knew about it. And you know why? The main reason was this was not a negligent accident by the company. It was purely blind luck and lack of epxerience on my part. I felt they were being fair with me, likewise in return. Well first off, your company broke the law-they have to report that injury. Now if your company wants to be self insured, they could still send you home on full pay (call it sick time, whatever.). You can file a no timeloss claims which doesnt raise the employers experience rating premiums, and gives you time to heal. I think a lot of the problem is that employers and employees know nothing of the act, or the way its administered. I know that at my last employer I had to deal with the most inept HR people that had no clue how to deal with this sort of thing. Educating them takes time, as the act is not just a little nothing paper.

I got liberal. Interesting as I like NDP and Conservatives-both for different reasons.

Wow, lots to answer. @August 1991: I do believe the "race to the bottom" theory. In fact it is not a theory, but a proven fact. Just look at what happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when northamerica was devoid of "minimum wages". People fought long and hard to work for the least amount. And they suffered. Now I am not an economist, so I really cant throw facts and figures and blah blah blah out there. I can tell you that I have been educated in working class history and do know that when there wasn't regulations in place to provide minimums (and this includes everything from welfare, cpp, ei, wages, wcb, human rights, etc.) peoples living conditions in general were not as good as today. I am not naive enough to believe that these are the ONLY reason why things are better-but they play a HUGE part in it. Your thoughts on exploitation I can respect. But I disagree with them. I think that there should be a floor for how little ones labour could be paid. And who sets that floor? Like every other aspect we deal with, I am personally comfortable with government setting it. Some aren't, but then they can vote at the ballot box for those that will set the floor more to their liking. See I also believe in a ceiling. I think there should be a maximum wage to be paid as well. And this shouldinclude how much profit an employer can make. If an employer is (for sake of argument) employing one individual, and paying this guy 30 k a year, yet brings in 1 million a year in profit for himself, then he is obviously not paying the worker what he is worth. So why should two symbiotic parts to the whole (ie people that are working together to make a living and a profitable one at that) have such disparaging wage differences (im sure i will get a few alberta blasts on this one.....)? @Renegade: Im not sure how someone on welfare cannot get a minimum wage job. And Im not being sarcastic. Do you have an example for me? I can then respond. The government sets the expectation of what is the minimum a person should/could live on. And if the employer is expected to "pay" for it-cost of doing business. No different than the government regulates pretty much everything like when you can drive your vehicle, where you can drive it, how many hours a trucker can drive it, where you can park it, how much your taxes are, when you pay them buy, how much you pay for tariffs, your utility costs, and the list goes on and on and on. This is just one of many regulations that employers need to contend with if they want to do business. And most manage to do it. In fact, even in the historically minimum wage jobs areas, employers are paying higher, so its almost becoming a non issue period. "It is not up to you or anyone else to decide what a product is worth. That determination is made by what the consumer is willing to pay for. It seems to me devoid of any basic economics to conclude that the worth of the product is based upon the labour. Sometimes it is worth more, sometimes it is worth less. You are ignorig the fact that employers too have choices. If as the employer I deem the cost of labour too high for me to produce a viable product, I can: 1. Use labour where labour is cheaper. 2. Use alternatives to labour (eg automation) 3. Not produce the product at all. 4. Pass on the cost to the consumer. You seem to think that employers are forced to use labour and can always pass on the cost to the consumer." Exactly. I couldn't agree with you more. But a product is made by materials and labour. And if those labours and materials cannot add up to a base in which the consumer will ultimately pay higher than that base (ie the profit zone), then the product is not worth its cost (which would put us into a number 3 (yours) scenario. And then the employer has the choices you outlined above. So they may outsource offshore, they may attempt automation (not always, or even usually a cost advantage), leave the market, or raise prices which depending on the product, consumers may or may not pay. I think that the lack of employment for an employee is very much a risk-as much so as the risk to the employer. See at the end of the day, both will be without an income. So the risk is divided and shared. As for 'taking no wage to grow the business' kind of argument-bah. Never seen it, dont believe it. Some may for short time frames defer a raise, or live a bit on savings, but for the vast vast majority, the hardships they face (and there hardships, the least of them not the stress), are less than their employees-when dealing with the financial aspect. So of to sort of answer your question about employer liability, I guess my point would be that since employers are given the privilege to set up business in Canada, and have the right to make profits, they must then adhere to guidelines. Environmental, labour related, whatever. So as a price of doing business, they must have some checks and balances to keep them operating in a fashion which is acceptable to the majority of canadians (as evidenced at the ballot box). I guess the debate could be changed to "should minimum wage be lowered (or raised), and that would throw another big fat fly into the soup. "So what you are saying is that there are only two kinds of jobs, ones that offer a sense of satisfaction and ones undertaken for suvival. You are saying that there is no possibility that I may undertake a job and give up partially monetary compensation in order to increase my level of job satisifaction? That's what your saying right? How about if I'm retired, and I like looking after kids for a couple of hours a day it gives me job satisifaction. Can I charge $2 hour to defray my expenses or is that not allowed in your world?" No I cant disagree with your assertions. I don't know the mindset of all people. Perhaps I didn't think that one through. "Let me list a few other examples for you: 1. As a trade I may build up experience and learning. I am willing to take a low wage job because to me the experience I get is more valuable than the pay. 2. I may already have a means of survival (existing wealth or another job) and am taking the job part-time because I enjoy it. 3. I may enjoy the prestge of the job (eg being a model) or any other benefits and may value it over monetary compensation. In your examples above, I doubt that a drug addicted prostitute would give a damn about minimium wage laws, however hopefully you see that there are multiple circumstances where labour can and should be offered below a threshold." Your examples are flawed. Trades people, those with existing wealth and models arent working for less than minimum wage-and wouldnt. So it really is a non issue. My point on the prostitute, was not so much about the minimum wage laws, but an example of people working for whatever they can given desperation. I could have used the example of the 7 year olds working for carrots for 12 hours a day in the mine and having their limbs blown off, etc. circa 19th century, but i thought that the prostitute analogy would hit home a little more. and who should set the wage rates for worker? the employer? well we know that his only thought is how much more profit can he make himself. it would have nothing to do with worth,as much as greed. A little right love in of reading can be found: "The Principles of Scientific Management" by Fredrick Taylor. Actually a very interesting read and gives a nice perspective from the formations of the "speed up" crowd.

See, that is intelligent thinking. Working with your hands is satisfying and nowadays with a trade is as financially rewarding as having a degree. I worked with my hands while finishing university, and dont regret a minute of it. And soon i will be expanding my education into a completely different direction when I start college courses in fall. And I was able to do this and still start my family. You can never learn too much, have too many skills, or open too many doors. I can't think of a better thing for a young high school graduate to do than go get a trade. By 22, 23, you have a skill that will always provide you with a source of income, you will have "put your time in the trenches" of the workforce, and then will have some funds behind you to attend university if you so choose. It just seems that so many are not willing to get their hands "dirty" these days, or are too coddled at home, or afraid of hard work. And nowadays employers are dying for workers in the trades, which lets workers command better salaries, and allows them to be treated with more respect than in the past, because if they arent treated well, they just walk two blocks down and go to the next desperate employer.

@CharlesAnthony Your responses show your right wing bias. You simply cannot look at an argument from any angle than your own narrow, right winged view, so debating and/or discussing an issue with you is really pointless as you refuse to accept that other opinions or views could have merit. Businesses go out of business-but employers will not live on less than minimum wage to do so. Ever own a business? Without workers, employers cannot make profit. They NEED workers to provide the labour to make them the profits. This is a simple concept, not "devoid of reality". When is the last time a car built itself on the toyota assembly line making profit for the company? You accuse me of not being serious in the conversation, yet add nothing other than picking apart the views of others. So if you could in your infinite, non-myopic opinion of greatness enlighten those of us that are so delusional that our opinions are just nonsensical, rubbish, it would be greatly appreciated. And I was being VERY serious about the prostitute/retiree comment that I made in my last post. Do you have any other examples as you seem to think that people are clamboring and deserving to work for less than poverty wages.

LOL! Yes, sounds very "compcall" in nature...... The vast majority of employees know nothing of the process, and as such, while injured, are just happy for any scraps that can be tossed to them to pay bills while they recover. As for your wife, I knew nothing of her condition, so I could not comment on her status. I can hope for a speedy recovery for her though. Do you think perhaps that some of her coworkers may see her as a "scammer" for being off for 9 months? It seems those that use the system (rightfully so?) are always suspect. Oh, and how do you deduce who the scammers are? Are you a physician? Provide a polygraph? I think it is unfair to judge whether or not someone else is in pain or not without a full (which in my experience is almost never done) evaluation. Touching your toes and coughing at a company recommended GP doesnt address health issues.

Case in point. Employers hate WCB. It's a cost (of doing business) that they dont want. Because today, like in the past, there are some employers (Hydraboss it seems would be in this category) would just as soon see the workers as "Canaries in the tunnels" as pay to cover their injury costs.

@Renegade "So, would you support that the welfare program should be made vastly more restrictive than it is? For example an employable person would not be eligible except for a small transitional period? As it is now, virually everyone is eligible for welfare for an indefinite period." My answer would be yes. The system in my opinion is abused for the most part. And part of that abuse is the fault of those administering it. ie the government and its regulations. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Your example of an employable person being eligible for a small transitional period is excellent. For instance, I would support short term assistance for someone relocating for employment reasons. This is a helping hand, not a hand out. "I'll agree with you that it should be taken out of the equation when it isn't an available choice for the employable. Maybe it shouldn't be, but the reality today is that it is." I guess we have to agree on this. Because of the way welfare is administered, I guess it IS a choice for some people-which personally I find distasteful, but I guess that that is reality. "You seem to ignore the fact that people make logical choices. Despite what your intended use of welfare, its availbility sets a bottom threshold for wages. If the choice is between a job which pays less than welfare and welfare, common senses says that that worker shoudl be on welfare. That is not what I would call "abuse of welfare", it is simply a rational choice." I would say that that is a fair statement. So I guess that by abolishing the minimum wage (which is at a higher level than welfare) it would only ENCOURAGE more people to not work and apply for welfare. Not an option in my opinion. "Moving back to the discussion on minimium wage. There is a market price for labour. That market price is set by how much an employer is willing to offer for that labour and how much an individual is willing to accept. Where the market price is higher than the minimium wage, the miminium wage is irrelevant. However, if the market price is lower than the minimium wage, then that itself is proof that the labour is "worth" less than minimium wage. The real question is if society feels it is inhumane that an individual survives on such a low wage, why does it impose the obligation to make up the difference upon the employer? Why is this not an obligation of society in general?" My answer to this is that minimum wage is exactly that-the minimum that a person should be expected to survive upon. So if market price is "less" than the minimum that is set, then the product is not worth the labour, thus making it a losing proposition. It's a bit of a matter of perspective. See, I would highly doubt that ANY employer, large or small, would pay themselves "minimum wage" after expenses. So if they don't expect to live off that, why would/should they expect others to? As well, those on the right look at it as if the employer is providing employment to the worker, and thus the worker should be grateful and/or subservient to the employer. But those on the left look at it as if the worker is providing the employer with the labour needed to pad his/her pocket. So once again its all a matter of perspective. I see it as more of a ying yang kind of thing. It's definately a tough balancing act though. "Do you think it should be illegal for a company to offer volunteer positions, afterall these are jobs with no pay?" No. Volunteering is completely different. Those volunteering are doing it for a sense of satisfaction not survival. Just my opinion here. "Do you think that there are other reasons a person might accept to exchange their labour other than for monitary gain?" Well other than drug addicted prostitutes exchanging their "labour" for drug money, or retirees volunteering for personal satisfaction (because work can and is satisfying and provides us with a sense of self worth) I can't think of any circumstances. But that doesn't mean there aren't any. "Do you not see that as much as minimium wage legislation poses limitation on employers, it also imposes limitations on employees in that it restricts their ability to accept certain jobs?" No. Not at all. If people won't take a job for 6 bucks an hour, they won't take it for 3 bucks an hour.

If the NDP and Greens were smart, they would roll into the liberal party, and at have a much better chance of pushing their agendas from within the machine, rather than nattering on the sidelines.

No. It is a very important issue because your logic makes no sense. You suggested that if there is no minimum wage, employees throughout the economy would be forced to accept lower wages. The existence of people making more than minimum wage proves that your logic is completely wrong. Employees get paid what they demand and what employers can supply. No. The fact that some make more than minimum wage is irrelevant-as they employer and employee have already agreed to a fair wage for the work performed. But with no minimum, the employer can pay anything they want-1 buck an hour, 2 bucks, whatever. And desperate people will do it. I simply don't see by abolishing minimum wage legislation, how it will affect lets say a CN employee working for 25 bucks an hour. Nobody will work there for 2 bucks an hour, so its a non issue in such a case. That is the question I am asking YOU. That question disproves your logic. You are suggesting that without minimum wage every employer will offer only lower wages. Do you not see your contradiction? No. Because that is neither what I said, or my logic. Many employers will be completely unaffected by an abolishment of minimum wage-one way or the other. If the minimum wage is 8 bucks now, and you were to get rid of it (or raise it for that matter to lets say 10 bucks), and they currently pay 14 bucks an hours and still can't fill the jobs they need to fill, it really is a non issue. So these "above minimum wage paying employers" really have nothing to fear by having a minimum wage. It's only the dark few out there really that will benefit from this. The few that will exploit workers for cheaper than currently provided (which is so low its laughable really) wages really dont need any help from parliament in this matter. Check out this thread: Using the [ Quote ] Feature Thanks for that last one.

People miss the point of the WCB and the act that governs its actions. WCB came about as a compromise. In, I believe it was 1915 or so, when it was enacted, the purpose was two fold-to provide workers with an income during times of injury, and to relieve employers of the threat of being sued by injured employees. Now this was obviously more of a win for the employees, as they would usually lose their lawsuits anyways, but it did supply the employer with a measure of stability. As to the conservatives messing with the act, they did make some changes in 90 and 92, but it was mostly due to some eligibility and financial tweaks-in employers favour of course. And the NDP have made a few tweaks in the other direction (im speaking of the manitoba perspective here). The problem with the WCB act is it deals with issues after workers are injured. Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt working. But safety is very much a matter of cost. Perhaps some of the money put into the reactive WCB should be put into proactive (Health and Safety) rules/regulations? And the WCB does have several levels of appeal, and an independant panel that makes decisions. To be honest, I think that if anyone is abusing the system, it is employers as they threaten, hide claims, or frustrate the process to keep their experience ratings (dollars per hour premium costs) down. But we all know there will and are people stealing from what is a good program.

You make the statement that welfare is not 100% accessable and poorly managed. So how accessable is it? Is it 98% or only 10% accessable. If it is 98%, are you advocating that minimium wage legislation be put in place to catch the 2% who don't have access to welfare? If your point is that deficiencies in the welafare system are the reason we have minimium wage legislation, then doesn' it make more sense to resolve those deficiencies rather than advocate solutions such as minimium wage which impose a burden on employer. Without explicitly saying so, you seem to accept that welfare is an alternative to very low wages. Would it make you more comfortable if we renamed welfare "minimium guaranteed income" and it replaced minimium wage leglislation? To this question I say that I do not have an exact number-suffice it to say, some who should be eligible are not at times, and some (probably a much higher margin-or at least from what I have seen) who should not be eligible are on the dole. I think that minimum wage legislation is exactly that-a minimum amount a worker should/could be PAID for WORK. wages for labour. Welfare, as I see it, should (but obviously is not because of mismanagement, abuse of people, etc) be a system of income to provide for those within society that cannot work. So for those that are disabled, either physically or mentally, or those that are in a transitional state (perhaps, and I am just throwing out examples here, a beaten housewife that flees with small children, etc.) it should/could provide for their needs. I think that welfare is (or should be) exactly that-welfare to keep those that truly need it from being on the streets. But you can't take welfare out of the equation! An economic sytem depends upon people making the best choice among available choices. Welfare is one of those choices. It makes no more sense to take it out of the equation than to state, "But taking all higher paying jobs out of the equation". I disagree with your assertion that welfare can't be taken out of the equation. I don't think that welfare should be an "available choice." Welfare should be a social safety net for those that have NO other options. That is what it was (and in theory is still, though not administered as such) originally intended to do. So having an employer pay a minimum wage for a days labour, should really have nothing to do with those that CANNOT work and rely on a social program such as welfare. The fact that some people abuse welfare and make it an "available choice" rather than working for minimum wage is really not argument that works in favour of abolishing minimum wages-in fact it bolsters it. ie if people work for less than the current minimums there would be MORE incentive to abuse the current welfare system. As for higher paying jobs, well I think that is really a non-issue in this argument. If the employer is paying their workers "higher" wages, either through individual contracts or collective bargaining, that is their "choice", and a cost of doing business. They obviously have the "choice" right now to pay their workers minimum wage-so why not do it? ----- It would be apprecited if you can learn to use quotes properly. Your responses to multiple posters are difficult to read otherwise. Thanks Thanks for correction. HINT: When I use the @ symbol, it means I am responding to a certain posters past quotations. So rather than cut and paste the entire thread of everyone, I save forum space by using the @ symbol. Tell you what. You show me how to use the quotes properly, and I will show you how to use the spell check (I find it annoying to read the writings by supposedly educated adults that cannot, either through ineptitude or laziness spell properly or use the spell check function). Thanks dude.

I tend to agree. I think that the conservatives will either pull off a razor thin majority, or a razor thin minority. But they will stay in power. Probably if anything, they will gain a few seats and the liberals will gain a few seats, and the bloc and ndp will drop a few. Just my guess though.

No one has commented on this, and I haven't come across any specific federal place that pays less than $10. It would appear to be a pretty safe proposal to set the minimum at $10. Or it would be entirely pointless. If that's really the case then I suppose they're just compulsive regulators. I couldn't agree more. What is funny is that since a 10 dollar an hour minimum is really such a non issue, why does anyone care (one way or the other)? Perhaps sleeping dogs should be left to lie. And some people think we don't think that there should be any minimum wages period........

You managed to ignore the context of the question asked. Let me repeat it and see if it helps. Since welfare is available, why would someone work for less? Isn't welfare better than "nothing" or "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat", and if you agree it is, why would a sane person work for "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat" rather than collect welfare? You are partially correct. I was answering the question outside of the welfare system. Welfare is better than nothing. But welfare is not 100% accessible, poorly managed on so many levels, and supplies an income in many cases which is really less than minimum wage-which may be a contributing factor in crime, under the table work, people working for less than minimum wage (it happens right now), etc. But taking welfare our of the equation, and simply answering to the question of abolishing minimum wage legislation, i think that history has shown (time and time again) in Canada and elsewhere, that without minimum (whether wages, or whatever) standards, there will be those that will exploit, and those desperate enough to be exploited. It's unfortunate, but it's simply the case. While there are many many fair and responsible employers, there are also many many that are not. Interesting reading for those that may want to actually educate themselves rather than spewing Fox rhetoric: Canadian Working Class History, 2nd edition, MacDowell, Radforth. @blueblood I'm not familiar with Irish economics, so I really cant respond to any degree. I would say that there are many factors that affect economic policy that vary between countries so it may be a bit of apples and oranges. @Charles Anthony "Please, whether you grew up in a shoe box or I grew up in the hall-way makes ZERO difference in the determination of economic policy." wrong. it makes every difference because peoples upbringings and experiences shape their views of how things should be done. and since we vote, spend, or work towards differing ways of the country being run, those with one view point will "tug o war" with those of another view point. so ultimately our upbringing will affect economic policy-both how we vote and how we live. "What makes me more sick is when people impose economic policy when they know ZERO economics." I couldn't agree more. I think it should be a requirement that all parliamentarians take economic courses that are taught from all "perspectives." Since they spend OUR money, they should at least know the ins and outs. "- irrelevent. You are making suggestions for imposing economic policy and you can not defend them." As stated above, very relevent. My vote, my spending habits, my living style are dictated by my beliefs-which were shaped by my upbringing. How I view economic policy is part of that. And I don't need to defend my beliefs-they are my beliefs as yours are yours. I simply believe that if you look at how history has shaped the country, minimum wage legislation is an important part of raising the living standards of those at the bottom end of the spectrum. "Can you provide ONE SINGLE reference to a school of economic thought (raging socialist and Marxist theorists included) that support your belief???" Read the book in my last post. I could refer you to dozens of university textbooks, etc. that I have read/studied, but to be honest its all very accessible information on the net or the library. All you have to do is go looking. I'm not one for "raging socialist and/or Marxist theories" so I really can't comment on them to any degree. And "schools of thought" are just labels- like "conservative" or "liberal". There are good and bad inside/outside all of them.

Right, and minimum wage legislation prevents someone from doing so. Agreed. And that is why minimum wage legislation is necessary. Because in the absence of it, we would see employers offer less, people work for less, and the poor would become more poor, and the employers would simply use the "savings" to pad their pockets further.

Fortunately for the people who are not so deluded by non-existent economics, "nothing" is not the only choice. Can your delusional economic theory explain why people exist in Canada earning more than minimum wage?!?!?!? Welcome to Canada. Leave your crockonomics at the door. Well obviously you've never seen the "dark side" of Canada (or the world). It must be nice to be so blessed and sheltered. It is much different to be raised in an upper middle class home and read about the "lower" class than to actually see it. Go slumming a bit my friend. If you were to see how many many people live in this country at a first hand look, you would be surprised. Unless you see it, it really cant even be explained. And it would make you sick to your stomach. And in case I get "labelled" here, I will just say this. I'm in a highly taxed income bracket, i vote NDP (both for the candidate who I respect as a person, and for the party who I believe has a strong social conscience), I like most of the conservatives economic policies, some of their other policies, and think overall that they are doing a pretty good job and should be given a chance, i do like some liberal policies and dont feel that they did that bad of a job (no worse than the previous or current conservatives anyways), and am pro union, pro government regulation, but I am conservative in many aspects of life.

Every contribution to a pension is an employee contribution at the end of the day, those contributions are part of their compensation agreements and should be respected in full. Even employer contributors are clearly an aspect of a compsenation package. great point. because basically what an employer contribution is, is a deferred wage increase. so instead of "money now", the employee (though their union) negotiates the employer to put money into the pension plan so that they will have an income upon retirement. if the plan happens to do exceptionally well, then that money should be the employees and the employees only. having said that, if the plan is doing exceptionally well, the employer could leverage this at bargaining time to their advantage by arguing for lower contributions-which saves the employer (government in this case) money. and if the union was smart, they would accomodate the government in the good times (for the employees) so that in the tougher times there would be a bit more room to wiggle.

Explain why. the natural selection need for survival. anything is better than nothing. which is why people would would work for scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat rather than freeze or starve to death. i believe someone else said.........welcome to the 19th century.....

Desperate people will work for less than minimum wage. But desperate people will also sell their bodies to fat, hairy business men for 20 bucks on lunch hour, and we don't think that is acceptable either. I can't believe anyone begrudges that someone makes minimum (what 7-8 bucks an hour?) wage. What a bunch of whiners.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17197.htm Wellllll.........anytime I have a "whip" at my back telling me how I should vote, I don't exactly consider it free................ And, and keep in mind no proof here, I am sure there was a subtle "whip" above many conservatives backs as well......

I would be curious to know if there are any workers in the federal jurisdiction that make less than 10 per hour. As its a relatively small portion of the workforce (transportation, banking, etc.) and since the clc requires them to be paid the provincial minimums, and since unemployment is not out of control, etc. are there many people even WILLING to work for less than 10? I mean 7-11 is paying 8 bucks per hour in manitoba where the minimum wage is like 7. And transportation companies, etc. tend to pay a bit higher than that anyways, so if I'm wrong well whatever, but otherwise, maybe let the NDP have this feel good exercise and if it affects a few hundred or a few thousand people across the country or whatever, it will simply be a "blip" on the economic radar anyways. Anyone know of any specific places that are federal that pay less than 10 in the country? I would love to know.

Complete exercise in a waste of time for all sides. While the law hasnt been used i can see both sides of the argument, and why people could be in support of it, or against it. I think it would have been more productive to have a free vote on all sides and let the chips fall where they may.

a 200 million hospital? would be very small. Maybe even something as simple as ten beds, a few diagnostic machines, and a even *oh my!* a doctor and nurse? Might not seem like much unless you live in the rural area or are visiting and need a bit of care. As a capital cost, it may not go super far-but much further than sending it to build sand castles for others.

Makes for a good photo op and probably gets a few votes. Imagine what kind of hospital you could build and outfit in any of many needy rural areas of Canada-the same place where the people paid the taxes to amass that 200 million.