Bob Macadoo

Actually Canada east of Montreal has the drug and solicitation trade run by Satan's Choice, Hell's Angels, etc. Set up nice and dug in like....your neighbour would be a brother and you wouldn't know. Nice looking anglosaxons not like those scary Jamaicans.

Leave it to MH to play the puck even when the puck is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

That is the cold hard truth.

That made as much sense as a fart in a windstorm.....come again?

I never made it to Havana but I can place it on a map because I've visited Cuba. I'd take odds a Yank who's been to Toronto couldn't place Montreal.

Now we're moving... Right, which shows unions aren't always the greedy lot (even public sector) they're portrayed as by the think tanks. I would agree. What private sector equivalent would you use to compare emergency services? Security guards for police? What about the subject workers? Would you compare a electrical technician dealing with high kV lines with the guy you're paying under the table to wire your track lighting? I'd agree if we can negotiate everyone's (yours too) contract with unequal comparisons.The part I would agree with is an arbitrator bumping up the increase over the comparison contract just because its 6 months old. If conditions haven't changed then no additional.

Right but then you could pinpoint the destinations (towns/cities)...I think that is a more arduous task for Americans.

Right and how would they arrive at the current level of compensation without the Big 3 (I see you keep omitting unionized Ford, must be an oversight) setting the bar? Are you an Econ expert like Rue is a lawyer? Accepted....you might want to ensure your sure footing before your next attack....oh wait....... Alright then, you are an advocate for arbitration....or just subjugation? What would be your new terms of reference for ompensation & benefits? Its easy to say no to anything much more difficult to say yes to something.

I find those that think we are common have never really experienced Canada or are so municipally-centric they actually believe everyone islike them.

Being Anti-Ford is not the definition of negativity......just decisive.....long before all the bandwagon "Ford Haters".

That makes us Federalists, it doesn't unite us....big difference. You can see it in posts here.....the sneers for Toronto, the disdain for Montreal, the ambivalence for Vancouver, the disappointment with Calgary, etc. We are a loose collective blended together only to use each region for their strategic advantage.

I liked Land of "The Frost Giants". Maybe PEI is actually Asgard.I'd bet most could place every state of equivalent size of our average province. NY, TX, CA, etc.

Just how did the Honda/Toyota employees get the benefits they have up to now.......corporate generosity.....or market force? http://i.word.com/idictionary/whinge"Ed-u-macation", its a hell of a thing. Maybe shouldn't have skipped 1st year English in that Econ diploma. Again a paragraph of documenting the negatives of the current system, but no suggestion to balance. Got it.

You believe there is no employer contributed pension plan in Toyota/Honda? So you are saying be grateful for whatever the taxpayer deems you worthy of and separate your asscheeks for the "third rail"ing? Maybe you are saying all public services need to be privatized to introduce competition? Sorry I didn't see a suggestion, just whinging, was there one?

What do you mean by integrated? You are aware that the CPP benefit is just stretched out now.....so its not really double-dipping more like 120% dipping.

So which is it? Are you a wall street whiz or will you be living off cat food? Story changes suddenly on circumstance, you fit in well here. ....and yes Finance 101 is what you need. You do insider trading do you? And I told you what really kills them, companies that don't live up to obligations during good times, thinking there will be time later to make it up. Then the bottom drops out and those obligations compound the problem they're in and the unions now don't trust them and only look out for themselves unfortunately. That's why current adversarial negotiations only exacerbate the problem as it increases distrust. How do you propose they be "fairly" bargained for, if that does not occur now?

Pensions are acknowledging this and are raising their eligibility requirements to Age+Service to 90 rather than 80. What happened was people retiring before 60, if they had enough service in, as the bridge would artificially get you along. You can't double dip. To me it that should've been eliminated immediately however the raise in eligibility should correct that soon perhaps except for those who started working <= 19.

You i) aren't contributing enough, ii) making bad investments, or iii) registered with a firm with high fees. You should find a pooled plan.....they have their own investors on salary, lower than transaction fees, and they care about returns. I would suggest in this free market you negotiate such an arrangement with your employer....what, you don't have that power....hmmm. I wonder what sort of leverage you could obtain to negotiate with your employer.......hmmmm?

When you mean No Communism, did you mean No "Stalinism". I do believe communism would've continued, which most likely caused a little hawkishism abroad.

It's not a ponzi scheme its called shared collective risk.......the group rides the highs/lows together.......flattening the both out.......you know that pesky commun-ity aspect to society.

No I wouldn't. I also wouldn't high speed lane weave on a motorcycle with a rider which if you've ever driven in urban/suburban Quebec occurs right regular. I drive the 401/400 in TO alot and I hate driving with the SOBs on the 40/20 in Montreal.

It's just what it did, it leveraged on their contributions to play the market/fund a capitalization. The same thing the Big 3 would do with their workers and what debted their fund to result in the rhetoric that Moonbox speaks of.

Sorry please explain to me how your pension fund is different from their pension fund? Yes its a defined benefit plan but only so long as there are sufficient employees to make it solvent. Same funding formula you put in X, employer puts in X, the market investment grows it/shrinks it, and there is enough dough for solvency or there isn't. The difference is having the employer borrow against your fund, not make up negative cashflows on their part or other chicanery that robs the fund. These employees have decided to pool their risk, you wish to rise and fall on the market wave by yourself......good luck with that.

You can't then assign his portion of blame to her b/c he isn't around to be charged.

I'm not a tinfoil hat type but I'm thinking the same......this buffoonery is covering something else possibly just as benign maybe like "how" they gathered info on teapartiers.