Peter F

I would agree with you if I accepted that union demands are outrageous. I want a zillion dollars/hour and banked sick time: Am I going to get it? Not likely. Why not? because management will indeed refuse my demands. The garbage collectors of Toronto may or may not be going on strike. They may be going on strike because management refused the unions demands. So, the point that other posters are making about management not refusing demands is very obviously false. Therefore it is irrational to conclude that management doesnt have the power or incentive to refuse because management clearly does have the power (and I assume incentive) to refuse demands. There is no need to address management lack of power when they have power coming out the yin-yang. The one and only thing unions can do is withhold labour and appeal to the courts. Thats IT. See Bill C-10 for an example of Union POWER! Bill C-10 part 10.

Fine. I have no problem with. Offer these unskilled uneducated grunts the paltry sum you think their worth. Who's stopping you? Hey, take it up with Riverwind. He says we should jail/sack union folk for not doing their jobs. Seems he doesn't realize that gubamit already have the legal power to do so and have done so and no revolutions. He thinks he's advocatings something new and wild and well outofthebox...but he isnt.

Oh, I get it: Management should never be confronted. Dream on. What ?!? You mean 'Back-to-work' legislation or designating people as 'essential workers'? There'd be a Revolution!

Of course they demand such things. Why wouldn't they? I demand to be paid a zillion dollars and hour too. Do you think managers are a bunch of helpless infants or what? Collective agreements. To fire someone bosses need cause. However government has legislation available to over-ride contracts...so nothing is stopping govt from sacking everybody and contracting out. Who's stopping management from managing? Nobody.

Thus bargaining. Huh? No free negotiations? Well, the feds passed C-10 so it seems you're right. Government unions competeing with private sector on tax payer funded work? Since when is it the unions job to do the job of management? Unions, Riverwind, have SFA to say about how work is organized. Thats managements department. Unions have absolutely noting - nada - to say about tax payer funded work. Whereever did you get the cockamamy idea that they do?

More abusive? No, I doubt that. Equally abusive - yes. But perhaps you are right and abuse has nothing to do with women in unions. Argus' post above explained why more women are in public sector unions than private - ease of unionizing Not a problem. Organizing a private workplace is alot more difficult than organizing a government workplace. In fact the difference is huge for a very simple reason: Governments require union representation for nearly all non-management employee's. The ease of getting union representation in a government workplace will account for why the majority of government employee's are unionized. The unions never have to fight card-signing campains to unionize a government workplace. Since over 50% of government employee's are female and the government demands they have a union to represent them, Argus concisely explained why that was and why that was not the wierdness you thought it was. Try organizing Visa or Mastercard workers sometime and see how easy it is. It isn't easy at all but is very stressfull and employee organizers are often the subject of managerial harrassment to the point of quiting. As far as organizing public sector unions as compared to organizing private sector unions, The two are entirely different animals. Governments require unionized employee's. It makes things soooooo much easier. Surely you don't believe that each government employee should negotiate their own contract? And then expect Treasury Board to control employment costs? Governments require unions, August. Can you imagine? each manager signing seperate employment contrats with each employee? The system would be rife with corruption! Governments require unions - for the sake of the nation and the budget! Also, I reject your notion that unions only want employee's money. To be sure there are many corrupt unions but not all unions are corrupt . I'd say most of them arn't. But then I have nothing to back that up as you have nothing to back up unions are only in it for money horseshit. The difference between me and you is you think money motivates everything and I dont.

Whats absurd about banked sick days? I love the idea! I wantsomothat! What? Management was again 'forced' to observe a negotiated contract? Shocking! There aughta be a law...

Im pretty sure that public servants who dont pay taxes are liable for jail terms also...just like everybody else. Regarding who you would or would not unionize, Why wouldn't you help organize Visa or Mastercard employee's? Because they don't make enough money? it seems to me that you have no idea what unions are for. Maybe, just maybe, women find that they are better protected against abusive managers if they have a union. What it means for Canada is that we will become a happier more content place.

Yes freedom is wonderful. Yes we can say what we want in private among friends (or enemies or the indifferent). Did you not know that?

August, after 40 years of experience, they work just fine. As far as private choices go, the state has been involved in regulating private choices since Socrates was given Hemlock. What do you think the courts of the land are? Government getting involved in private choices. The provinces legislatures have all passed legistlation regarding discrimination and they have all set up tribunals and commissions to deal with the results of those various acts. They are as legitimate as any court of queens bench or the Canadian criminal code or the Quebic Civil Law.

I did indeed read your introductory post. You claim that you should be able to say whatever you like to whoever you like and they should smile and say 'thankyou'. Read what case? you linked a Vancouver Sun article - not the case. 'Course you can't link the case because the case has yet to be heard. Here's the actual allegation from the BC human rights tribunal: [3] Ms. Pardy alleges that she was discriminated against in the provision of a service, in breach of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, on the basis of her sex and sexual orientation. BC HRT Decisions 2008REASONS FOR PRELIMINARY DECISION Section 8 of the BC Human Rights Code says: Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility 8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification, (a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or ( discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or class of persons In fact Pardy isn't complaining about offensive jokes but that the comedian actually went out of his way to harass her. (from the BC HRT link above) [2] Ms. Pardy alleges that she and her same-sex partner were subjected to a tirade of homophobic and sexist comments by Mr. Earle, a comic appearing on stage at Zesty’s Restaurant. As such she experienced harassment. She also alleges that Mr. Ismail, Zesty’s owner and manager, did not intervene to prevent the tirade, or the harassment from continuing. [3] Ms. Pardy alleges that she was discriminated against in the provision of a service, in breach of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, on the basis of her sex and sexual orientation. [4] Mr. Earle denies that he discriminated, while admitting that his interactions with Ms. Pardy and her partner were heated. He says that is because she and her companions were loud, disruptive, and heckled the comics who performed that evening, including him. Your statement that the comedian told a couple of Lesbian jokes is, I suggest, quite far from what actually occurred. in fact the BC HRT determined that (from the BCHRT link again): [15] In this case, Ms. Pardy is a member of two protected groups, because of her sex and her sexual orientation. She alleges that the respondents discriminated against her on both of those grounds when she was harassed. The public comments made by Mr. Earle were related both to Ms. Pardy’s sex and her sexual orientation and, if Ms. Pardy’s evidence is accepted at a hearing, were intended to humiliate her. Further, Zesty and Mr. Ismail, as service providers, have an obligation to ensure that their services are provided in a non-discriminatory manner. ...but I understand. You don't like her or anyone else having the ability to make such charges. LOL. There are 11 years worth of BC HRT decisions here BC HRT decisions and you are actually claiming that the complainants have won every one of them? GOOD. Sorry Jerry, Freedom of Speach doe's not include treating others like dirt. Good for Chilling effects on such 'freedom of expression.' Forced to defend himself out of his own pocket? Whats wrong with that? Of course he pays the expenses of his defence and if it is found that he did what she claims he did (which happens 100% of the time) then he may have to pay for her expenses too. There is nothing wrong here Jerry. If someone files a claim against you in a court guess who pays your expenses - You do. Again Jerry this isnt about hurt feelings. Hurt Feelings are not subject to HR tribunals in BC or any other province in Canada. and I can't believe you think that Human Rights Tribunals/commissions hear cases about feelings being hurt. Perhaps you should read the various enabling statutes. You'll find that Hurt Feelings are not cause for anything. well you certainly would. That was certainly your claim Jerry. You claimed it was you that people were trying to shut up. Yes. That was me.

The state shouldn't be involved in the above choices and in fact doesn't get involved in the above choices. Your whole argument here is a strawman. The state isn't going to intervene and re-educate him. I get the distinct impression that you have no idea what the various HR statutes actually say. Jerry can hire whoever he likes to cut his hair. But if Jerry owns a hair salon catering to the public then Jerry doe's not get to reject qualified people because of thier sexual orientation/handedness/eyecolour-orwhatever-other-characteristic-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-performance-of-the-duties-of-the-job. Jerry can hire a whoever he likes to be nanny to his kids. But if Jerry runs a Nanny business then Jerry must hire based solely on the ability of the applicant to perform the duties required. Jerry can procure the services of any prostitute and reject another, for whatever reason's please Jerry. But if Jerry is running an escort service then Jerry must hire base on the ability of the applicant to perform the duties they are hired for. and, finally, the state will not tell Jerry that he must like Gays and think they are normal. I will, of course, but I am not the state. But if Jerry staples posters around town encouraging others to think Gays are abnormal and to treat Gays differently because of that percieved abnormality - then the state will intervene...and rightly so. This idea that the state through HR commissions/tribunals is interfering in what we whisper to each other in bed or say at a barbecue is bogus and based on no reality.

I see. Lorna Pardy is not filing a complaint against you. So this woman has filed a complaint that you know absolutly nothing of the circumstances that led to the complaint or what, exactly, the woman is alleging the comedian did...and this is a clear-cut example of your freespeach is being curtailed? The case hasn't even been decided yet you know she'll win; know she has no case; know all complaints succeed; know what the fine will be and know who's costs are what and who pays. You are jumping to alot of conclusions and have zero to base those conclusions on. Who has shut-you-up Jerry? Admit it - nobody.

"They", Jerry? "They"? If a complaint has been laid before the CHRC there'd be a name, Jerry - not "They". So who's filing a complaint with the CHRC against you and what part of the statutes is this person/group saying you have contravened? Any specifics at all or is this just a pile of BS you're using to make up for the fact that you don't actually have a victim card to play.

And who's stoppin ya?

Actually its much better for my mental health to confront fools.

Why? To please you? Who the hell are you to say I shouldn't be offended by your offensive behaviour?

I know of what you speak. I have seen it in others during my few years in the military. It is important, certainly. I only say that the source of your honour and professionalism will not be found in me or ottawa university profs.

I second that, Army Guy. Don't be lookin to people like me for your sense of Honour.

So what was Tiller guilty of again?

Truth be told I don't think the morale of the CAF is as fragile as you think it is. That the morale of the soldiers cracks because somebody makes allegations is rediculous. Hell, I can make an allegation that our soldiers murder civilians every day and the reason folks would not investigate such allegations is that it is based on zero facts from somebody who knows zilch about what our soldiers are doing. Would the RCR collapse into a heap of jello because of that allegation? No. It wouldn't. You want to discount the military powers that be taking the profs allegations seriously - because they were based on some sort of actual evidence - you go right ahead. I think the boffins and DNDHQ did the right thing, for once. And another thing, it aint us civilians that make or break soldiers morale. That is made or broke by the combined action of the enemy and the CAF command, officers and NCO's. Allegations ruing soldiers morale! Bullshit.

Its right there in the CTV link Army Guy posted. Some ottawa prof with - could it be? - an arguably Arabic surname! Possibly (gasp!) a Muslim! a terrorist no doubt, or someone who secretly supports terrorism (as Mark Steyn says Muslims, if not actual terrorists secretly support terrorism) So effin' what? An allegation was made and the Military get to look at the allegation and decide wether the allegation has some sort of merit that deserves further investigation. Y'see they can toss alegations whenever they feel like it. In this case, they didn't and investigated. Is that not the way things should work?

An allegation was made and the Military took it seriously. I have absolutely no problem with that. Its actually a good thing.

...and Vice Versa. So stop the whining and screaming.

Well, I think the Fat Lady has yet to sing...