RB

yes this would be solution especially if we develop into some common market like the EU and why not there are hardly any dissimilarities in the economies here and with your advantage of cooperation and joint decision (hmm i think these are the lingo they usually use) my take is canada exist in this relationship with the US, that we need to finesse gently. now if you are traditionist and believe in marriage for life then I won’t bother to argue about dangers of being left out of decision making, afterall its your welfare, and especially when one partner is trying to bond with others. what i am saying is you either join the US as the 2nd biggest opportune and participate, or be in some silly lose-lose loop now just for argument sake ... say canada was to impose some economic or trade sanctions, like take some stand aginst china for something moral .... human rights abuse. how does it impact china’s economy? Ditto! because we know fully well that other trading partners will continue to do business. well that, and also our canada is not important enough to have economic impact by itself and therefore needs to ally with the US and be the extension of the US, and to admit we are an extension well firstly the basis of establishing trading blocs is different in Europe, than Asia, than the Americas. For example : Europe - with their Political agenda 1) where integration of trading blocs serve the purpose of control of destructive nationalism 2) blocs are inward looking with such concerns of conflicts of region nation states 3) they have common rules, standard and centralized policy for their area 4) here is an acqusition they are mostly self-absorbed and not engaging with multilateral systems North America - with an Economic agenda 1) a free trade zone set up to help with external tariff that is too costly 2) more so to pusue regional economic integration 3) outward looking – and serve as a building bloc toward global trade 4) so now try and enlarge NAFTA with smaller countries, the US loses some policy dependence – because it would have to harmonise with more countries - some agenda here 5) canada’s interest with the US is preferiential arrangements same as Mexico Asia with international economic agenda 1) ASEAN and APEC initiatives are for international influence and bargaining to regulate their market 2) Institutional sturctures – a sharp contrast to EU So who would you like to join up with, the asians for institutional structures and some common external policies, and would you be able to keep cost and benefits in check? Or you'd rather join up with more politics on yin yang in EU? Or then perhaps you'd rather stay with the US and be ambiguous? and unknown? how about that Larry King chap with Brian Mulroney former Prime Minister of Great Britain here is how we are signed off MULRONEY: Good to see you, Larry. Thank you for having me and delighted to be with you. KING: My pleasure. Good guy. Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister of Great Britain (sic).

custom unions (cu) are a far more superior arrangement than FTA however you are looking at it. it is simple with common external tariff, eliminated obstacles of rules of origin (though some Euro communities retain quotas), and whatever else you have written up my opinion if trade zones are established in other areas such as Europe and Asia then we definitely need to liberalized the Americas. canada cannot be contented to have bi-lateral arrangements, while say Mexico have several arrangements with the The Group of Three, FTA, NAFTA so we must agree to pact with more of NAFTA to proceed i am much in favor of some hybrid arrangement of FTA and CU -like some arrangements of cut-off tariff rates say 1% -eliminate rules of origin, since tariff is so low we would have achieved our transshipment problem of trade deflection and now no one is very concern about political implications of rules set in Washington because that is what extended negotiation and a promotion of joint decision making with the US means to Canada

Economic left/right: 3.88 Social libertarian/authoritarian: 1.90 mmm i did this before, dang....slight move further right and i keep thinking i am a liberal

i am with business on this one ... they usually have a one track mind and a softly corporate "killers instinct" it means staying in business and also keeping it the thin line drawn for extended 3-4 seconds to mess around and have fun should not be to some detrimental ripple effect and expense of businesses bottom line and i actually do support gays in their quest for what is equal

alternatives? yes wind turbines solar-paneled rooftops fusion energy ITER Project - Canada withdraw or my special promotion i have a stake in methol try METHANEX

i would say anyone regarless of sexual orientation that exhibits behaviors not consistent with "community values" was the argument - should be told to stop for example two naked folks show up at the bar whether they are both women, both males, or one man one women - the value system does not allow entry, but maybe a very low hang jeans revealing a thong - possibility is yes however, the bar owner did he kick the folks out? did he refuse to serve them? or did he served them that day, and prior days. but they did make an incorrect assumption and left to file a complaint also my question would be how long were the folks in the bar, were they at table, and were service? they must have been happy, because then they would decidingly move to the couch with an unconscienous pre-think of an intend to shock the audience and i believe that both hetero and homo types would shock an audience in red deer? with exhibition of sexual behaviours

"community values" i like but to incorporate community values into legislature? community values are sort a different in varying regions no? a workable by-law then? but here is my point, these folks frequented the bar numerous times, every wednesday nights and they were never refused service - yes, well one can deduce that they return because they were continually treated with respect, they liked the atmosphere, the good customer relations and the good service etc. they must have known the "community values" on one particular day in question they did something different, intending to shock? there are some precedents for potential drunks, where the pub owner responsibilty can't weaver, and the owner is allowed to say you can't have more drinks, here is the limit. why should'nt he have some leverage to control other potential destructs within his establishment when perhaps who knows a potential full sex activity was about to result. well the basis for this is the selection of environment to commence activity was ideal: -couch -cosy -cuddling

the rise in prices is due largly to demand and supply. and the increase in demand is coming from china and india. hedging contracts four months ago somehow we knew the price of gas was going to increase for the summer - the big winners are obviously not the franchise gas pumps - what do they get 1c per litre well or maybe the rise in prices are due largely to capitalise with higher profits like high prices = high profits imperial oil haul in profits last quarter ending dec. 100%, petro-canada try over 300% government interference? maybe they can try with interest rates and inflation - keep it down - and continue working with tight labor market - they have experience with this

August 1991 well lets say i had to scrutinise Friedman's "the swedes got it right" in much detail sometime back - i liked coase work because of the creativeness of a simple idea that won the nobel oppose to say the fisher's model loaded with mathematics and economic theories is also creative and working solve able richard posner it is oh i have been forever meaning to read life of a pi - so soon i hope

i guess i become attached to various books at varying points i liked those mentioned double helix works by posner as a kid liked - oscar wilde plays Jack Welch & The GE Way Ronald Coase autobiography

well more of the blah blah well, it is more of a difficult task to attach union to the charter because "reasonable limits" "demonstratrable justified" means different things to various judges .... for example Dolphine Delivery case, courts held that secondary picketing could be justified under s.1 of the charter by "keeping a labor dispute from having an undue effect on parties not directly involved in it" in these other cases PSAC v. Canada, RWDSC v. Saskatchewan the court held that a guarantee freedom of association s.2(d) does not include a right to bargain or strike what i mean is how far of "right" can we extend the union the thing to realise is that the work environment keeps changing and it will take much years before a body of juispurdence evolves around this charter a debate really about competition trading and protectionism union. it would of course be silly not to realise the gains from trade are real, and larger, trading raises real income and also raises the standard of living with any trading there is job loss, but the loss is usually reconciled in the expanding sectors but can you put a costs figure for unions to operate, then a cost to victims of unemployment when you assess the gains from trade....what did you think? its not that i am pro-union, but unions are clearly a needed service and is part of the industrial relations systems, delete it and you are left with a Dunlop hanging model

procedural rights are leading the edge with management and union relations.....meaning unions negotiations by far outweighs conditions of employment in the workplace compared to employment standards legislation who lags behind but what takes precedence and up-held in courts and these negotiations is rather interesting the unions usually finds themselves in a precocious position using the charter to end their means well those who have examined the charter will tell you that individual rights is constitutionally entrenched in charter's very existence unions are a viewed as a collective body and union rights takes a position as second class nature insofar as they are legal rights without constitutional bases ... defending solidaristic principles of unions would be even more daunting well that's a stab to figure the exempt - maybe there is a correct answer oh, not being a smilie fanatic, i wish i had some micro help for those smilies - i can never determine who this is? never the less i am always safe with

the statement is not a true reflection of decline for the entire market well there was a nearly double recession happening during the 1990's there was increases of income during this period depending how you look at the gap between the rich and poor ... widen greatly. the rich well they got richer and the poor as they hit rock bottom as wage earner got poorer and that's not all the poorer folks came out in record numbers to work such as: retired people, youths, women entering the workforce, just anyone who able to work causing some reversal impact on wages - what i am suggesting is that the deline you claim is explainable - these folks are -more low income earners -making more hours and has wiped out the meagre wage gains from the market see link below Hourly earning flat from 1992 - avg. family earning take a spiraling hit 89-93

well i am still in school, one of those lifelong learner that support higher education, and if there are some system of interest free loans/bursaries/grants available and i qualify and the incentive to use this outweights all other i will access this system having said that in 98 i was given a student loan of 24k first year at university - good grief i never wanted loans again - so i had to come up with alternatives, nowadays research funds are easy come what may in the programs but i do think there should be some loan support system base on financial need for those accessing higher education (HE), but maybe it should not be the only financial alternative to access HE

our current monetary policy allows us to keep our inflation down. in the canadian economy inflation is not a major problem, if we presume a steady fully anticipation of inflation approx. 75% of movement in consumer prices will be incorporated into wage rates. most companies benchmark their compensation. in my experience with bargaining and compensation management i see inflation affecting wage increase as anticipationary ...... that’s why the wage increase usually is only .2-2.5% in some tandem is being generous with some spill over bargaining well, truth is wages hardly ever decline but even though i cannot substantiate a relationship between wages and unemployment, sometimes i wish rather than lay blame with union as some root when problem arises we could encourage more of development in employment creation and fixes such as: 1) some job strategies to integrate/help workers into the labor force because of the way technology is advancing 2) highest unemployment occurs with women and youths so strategies help the these folk with training/experience 3) give financial or training assistance to the unemployed 4) stimulate innovative market solutions to labor problems 5) also there are some chronic areas that have high unemployment rates due to economic, closure or other reasons as you know unemployment and inflation are your give and take dilemmas - and i am suggesting that inflation is not a union issue so my criticism for public workers is that high unemployment seem to affect public workers less than private sector maybe that is a reason why governments do not relate to employment creation? but the government do relate to inflation.....there is one study done by cousineau and lacroix on effects of inflation for wage determination conclusion wage rates for the public sector is more responsive to inflation than the private sector ..... reason being that public wage is derived from taxes and borrowing rather than the marketplace so depending of which side you are looking take a pick and curb inflation or unemployment Unions do not drive inflation, BUT inflation do impact wages esp. the public sector – well the gov’t usually tries to curtail spending via its fiscal and monetary policies, while also causing high interest rates then a spiraling wage and price increase otherwise other than unions here is another good start of pointing whatever finger directly at consumers because they really have some pessimistic expectations

my take is that it is a few forward thinking multinational that provides us this impetus for global think translates to global trade is good well, look at it this way competition trading brings us cheap prices for goods as efficiently as possible. my thinking is if were always looking at an efficiency level you always give up something to get the other, so in this case you want to increase productivity then lower you standard of living - i did not mention canada. this brings me to the a first reason why businesses become er gobal and ends up where human right laws or environmental laws are not a barrier per sa china, brazil and the usual loss to whom? but we do have tax evasion made possible, business and government sleeping arrangements with bribes etc. is besides the point so few companies have power yes, now the trade laws, well they tend to favor those power companies, yes. well, its the same like you own a property yes, the property rights tend to favor those who have owership of property yes the explanation is that we like to synergise all our resources in order to use it as efficiently as possible so maybe government should be constrained to operate in the economy by their limited laws. for the good government the explanation is that they are limited because they want a viable market with a flow of investment and jobs to flow into their country. unless! you can tell me how difficult would it be to design an economy that can control corporate power whilst still operating efficiently? efficiency is defined as maximising production with a variety of high-quality goods just for cheap while having stable labor now if this is some kind of conspiracy belief that few multinational corporations constitute gobalization with their juxtaposition feudal arrangements with the state then here is the proposition: that it necessary for some other groups to see beyond their own myopic borders and guess who leads my list TRADE UNIONS, besides religious, non and ex and political groups and other groups a few companies with agendas cannot solve pressing issues such as: security, the environment, exploitive human rights or other issues in the post what i mean is that for globalisation to expand creatively we somehow prosper in opposing groups just like competition

JCCC i did'nt this so - we could plug most of those comments into any aggreement or laws alas, but no cando, i was going to try put this into a matrix format for easy reading but try matching the numbers Why the Union got started 1) Divorce of labour and capital 2) Expansion of competitive markets 3) Consciousness of job insecurity 4) Unified group psychology 5) Insecurity caused by machines 6) Quest for Short-Term gains 7) Reduce frustrations and provide greater security 8) Emergence of industrial systems 9) Reaction to management strategic choice Goal of union 1) Establish national min. standard 2) To take labor out of competition 3) To ensure worker control of scarce jobs 4) Relation of unions & capitalism 5) Union-management cooperation 6) Overthrow of capitalism 7) Soften the impact of industrialization on the worker 9) No longer unilaterally determined by unions, it becomes a response to mgmt. Strategic choice Why workers join unions 1) Improve wage and working conditions 2) Protect wages and conditions 3) To gain systematic access to scarce jobs 4) Involve individuals in group consciousness 5) Quest for security 6) Short-term gains 7) To achieve standards of successful living 8) For labor protest against industrialization 9) As a reaction to the impact of strategic choices made by mgmt; strategic choices that attempt to have a positive impact on the workplace will lessen the need for unions (this is not occuring in canada yet unlike the US) if you would like to lessen unions in canada the major criticism is that canadian managers have opt for and operates within the collective bargaining system in reaction to market forces my next criticism is can you face up to canadian realities or not: 1) that we have a stronger unions and 2) a pervasive legal system to work with 3) and we need to make some strategic choices .... more criticism for employers. employers utlimate goals should be that labor movements is not determine by labor but by the actions of themselves. employers are the ones that contributes to rise of unions and employers can also control the growth of unions result unions can only gain members if employers failed in its stategic choice the choice strategic choices that attempt to have a positive impact on the workplace will lessen the need for unions thats all

Hhalimar Well if people didn’t dislike the union so much there would never be an emergence of good lawyers a competent lawyer is one that can argue from both sides of the mouth, er well they are not overly honest otherwise they might not be able to decipher when they are up to other people’s trickery. but Hjalimar what is interesting is from dayton and the union view Darwinism exists then as it exist now, and it is the same Darwinism that is also existing in the capitalistic framework you wish to promote. you see what you choose to see, but i assure you that you cannot resolve some conflicts by choosing conflicts or denial or descrimation .. something has got to give ... and i am in favor of cooperation with management and an empowered union - you just can't decidely reject unions in the bigger scope when planning - otherwise you end up losing everytime MYTHS ABOUT UNION From IWA Canada Local 2171 website i am sure you can also do the search on myths about union in finances MORE MYTHS ABOUT UNIONS

Hjalmar only because it is rather late in the night now i decided to leave something to ponder from a US lawyer, Clarence Darrow "with all their faults, trade-unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed. they have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character in man, than any other association of men"

Here is what I see Competition is for surviving the climb to the very top and cooperation is that negotiated breathing strength to remain there. men like to portray themselves so silent, strong and tough going while women tend to see the inside of men being weak and fragile. so i presume when we speak of the “weaker” sex it would mean MEN not women but i think men are inherently competitive by nature and will compete even with a tiny white ball, putting it in many holes for some power. here is the secret with women .... nothing ever changes. and women are not reproach that they were actually molded and modeled by the efforts of cooperation and demands from men. trouble is when you think you find an advanced solution such as cooperation to the problem, it changes the problem completely. so salute to you when as i gleefully pronounce nowadays women can challenge men on their own terms using “cooperation”. quite frankly if i were a man i might just prefer to stay just the way i am especially with women like these running around.

men are confuse because the unanswered question still lingers "what do women want?" women aparently were not made to governed, but now we have taken keen interest in just that and have become chess players

companies need to be up-to-date with benchmarked wages when bargaining, there are all kinds of surveys out and techniques use to gauge wages. bargaining is just what it says bargaining, a wage difference of $10 vs $20 for comparable work performed is bad enough.. no union make irrational demand but they can try a trick or three, but someone has to do their homework if you say to me this is a step range from $10-$20 well then thats is just the way it works Yes, try your good government - your biggest empoyer - didn't they add a few more ministries, well they are into job creation and keep expanding exponentially here is what i meant when i mentioned job security when bargaining economic variability of companies should be into account, smart companies will run with concession bargaining idea -in this case job security means more than just holding on to a permanent job or but also not proceeding with layoffs - it could mean no-layoff clause in return for concessions over work rules - it could mean redeployment to lesser jobs and lower wages to lessen unemployment at some later date - it could mean management takes a pay cut along with production workers - it could mean implicit job security that guarantees plant investments - it could mean re-hiring laid-off employees first - it could mean formal arrangement to include union in business decisions - it could mean linking unions to companies goals and performance well it could mean a lot of things, but get this concessions can be asked for and extracted from unions though are not necessary to the continued operation or the detriment of companies what i am suggesting is that management and union cooperation at every level of the organization could very well be the new trend and make companies competitive with companies domestically and globally its just too bad that you are speaking of union and destruction in the same context

it is very disturbing to see such hostility towards unions but i like the way unions are diminishing slowing, mind you it is still big but it continues to lose economic power, public influence, prestige and nowadays it is very much more on the defensive and under scrutiny the industries that usually seek to be unionised are typical: government-teachers, health, municipal workers, actors, pilots&flight attendants, textile, postal workers, telephone companies, paper/printing industry, steel industry, truck drivers, farmers, construction, carpenters, food-service industry. there is a common theme within all these industry that is check! check! reality --- JOBS ARE UNSTABLE, look at it this way without some negiotiation for job security these industry would have the highest rate of unemployment, perhaps you'd like to contribute more to the EI funds i don't particularly care for unions but also cannot deny their existence or be antagonistic, the instant disappearing act you wish for is not in a near future either .... there is an actual need for unions, how many millions in need have you quoted? employers should see an advantage of capitalising on what is in their control. i believe if companies have good relations with their employees, set out fair rules and best practices by which employees can follow, and give them motivators to work with there is no need for employees to seek out and bring on new deal with unions

this is usually a manufacturing/producers burden which mostly is filtered to the consumer. it is a manufacturing because they have increase the safety of the vehicle or they are requirements e.g. say you want also clean air in the city (your can't tax the air we breathe), so the manufacturers will build the SUV to enhance livelyhood for clear air

some will argue that double taxing is inefficient and immoral – while others would argue delete the tax this could only benefit the rich. i find that if you did work out the risk aversion with this double taxation – that there are minimal outcome affects i.e. give the profits to those will invest will have minimal change well so you agree that the size of the tax bill for company/individual etc. is determine though government tax laws and based on the government forecasted budget also you agree that tax is a result of political and economic forces ideally a tax system should: 1) distribute tax burden equitably 2) tax should not influence efficient allocation of resources by market 3) easy to read and administer here is my argument and an influence has to be in economic growth in order to change my mind that tax burden on companies is for equal distribution. this idea is similar to the transfer higher income/lower income tax burden which is progressive, well if you are upset with the personal income tax system then you won’t like the corporate system much either what i meant is that companies generate profits that rises in the corporate sector and falls in the unincorporated sector....until the rate of return for both sectors become equalize. corporate taxes then can fall on capital income BUT is spread among income from all capital sources hence being taxed twice companies that want to invest they go ahead anyway and (a flip reasoning to what August 1991 says) economic powers is concentrated only in few corp. of which say large companies of where most revenues are derived.. may not necessarily be “profit maximizers” and since you don’t use profits before tax lets have some introduction of tax is adjustments ... and hello you can shift some burden to consumers in terms of prices/low wages well it is better to find ways to launder via the tax-loops systems how about a tax-free intercorporate dividend to a holding company that some growing out of control