Hjalmar

Does the word "enough" exist in your vocabulary? It is one thing for a person to strive to better themself and quite another when people are demanding more than they are worth. That is why people are clamoring against labour unions -- they seem to be the only ones that manage to extract more for themselves than they are worth. That is not right, and you know that. I believe the minimum wage should be scrapped. It is not fair at all and all it accomplishes is that it sets young people up for union employment. A 16 year old living at home with parents does not need a liveable wage. You start young people up with too high a wage and it spoils them because it comes too easily. Allow the marketplace the freedom to set wage rates. I agree with strict provincial labour laws but governments should not be dictating rates of pay.

Are corporations manufacturing in low wage jurisdictions the largest cheerleaders for union labour here in Canada? Let's check that out. When the same product is being manufactured by union labour here in Canada the standard markup is used and this becomes the market price.. So, in effect, labour unions in Canada enhance the profits of these large corporations that have their products manufactured in low-wage countries... Here's the scenario: .. If all these corporations that are manufacturing these products here in Canada with union labour were to shut down, or move out to low wage jurisdictions, the high benchmark price would be lost and the law of supply and demand would take over and all manufacturers utilizing lower cost labour would have no choice but to compete with one another which could conceivable reduce all prices. The disappearance of union labour here in Canada would likely become a huge boon to all consumers here in this country. So my question is: Do you think these large corporations, that you condemn, really want to see the death of labour unions in Canada when they are manufacturing the same products in lower wage jurisdictions?

Not a question in my mind -- The welfare state, as we have come to know it, is all but dead. Check back with me in 10 years and I'll be able to tell you "I told you so". Governments today are faced with competition for the first time in history. Society today is very mobile. Countries with taxes that are too high will lose their most desired citizens to more tax-friendly jurisdictions, leaving no one to fund the welfare state other than the welfare recipients themselves. Most countries today recognize this and are striving for competitive tax rates. Many of the predictions I quoted have, or are coming true. The fall of communism. The devolution and downsizing of corporations. The supplanting of Marxism by Islam as the main ideology of confrontation.

A must read The following is a post in a thread I had in another Canada-wide forum that came from a young 23 year old gentleman.. One story alone does not convince me, but when I have witnessed the same things here first hand so many times and friends have related comparable stories to me, it really becomes irrefutable.. This story should amplify the damaging effects of labour unions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps my recent experience in Detroit, MI will illustrate the adverse effect the powerful union community in “Motown” has had on service levels... Our company designs and manufactures industrial equipment; and a large part of our sales and marketing efforts involve exhibiting at major worldwide equipment trade shows... The difference in the service levels and professionalism of local tradeshow labor in unionized areas vs. “right –to – work” states is remarkable... The service we receive from unionized work forces is appalling. ..Detroit happens to be the worst and therefore is the city I should use as an example. When we describe the events that occur during tradeshow setup in Detroit, people think we are joking... Our tradeshow booth is comprised of 2 components, our equipment, and a large display board featuring pictures of our product... First lets start with the display board; the display, which normally takes me a ½ hour to setup on my own costs me 8 man hours of union labor billed at over $80.00 per hour... First I need 2 carpenters to erect the structure (should take 3 minutes, takes them 1 hour), and then I need 2 theatre & stage workers to erect the panels (should take 2 minutes, takes them 1 hour) then I need 2 A/V workers to ensure that my two little spotlights are pointed in the right direction… but wait, they can’t actually plug in the spotlights, they will get fined, I need to hire two electricians to plug my spotlights into a power bar (I pay two guys $80 bucks each to plug a light bulb into a socket!)... In the meantime there are several thugs (they call them shop stewards) hanging around my booth watching every move ensuring that we don’t perform any “union” labor.... Last year an employee almost got kicked of the show floor for plugging his mouse into his computer! .. That’s just the display board! You should see what we have to go through just to get our equipment hooked up! We have complained to show management about the union, and they have informed us that it is the number one complaint of exhibitors, and it has gotten to the point where they are thinking of moving the entire show to another state, one that has enacted “Right to Work” legislation. That is unbelievable; the City of Detroit is about to lose a major tradeshow and all the associated economic benefit BECAUSE of the union! This is just one example of many! Upon my return to Canada, feeling very frustrated with union labor, I found that while I was away the unionized workers of the international airport at which I had landed had gone on strike.... In this case they were on strike because the guy who gets paid $26.00 an hour to keep birds off the runway wanted a “Job for Life” clause in his contract…. I say, GET A LIFE

Not too likely-- provided we can tame down labour unions. Failing that, you have what's called "nail on the head".

The one who stood out above all the rest in my view was Peter Lougheed, premier of Alberta. The worst prime minister of all was Pierre Trudeau who virtually destroyed Canada -- Canada will never be the same again because of him. In the USA we had Kennedy standing up to the communists offensive arms buildup in Cuba when he placed a quarantine on Russian vessels entering that country in an effort to keep communism from our doorstep. Not too long after that, we see a picture of Trudeau hugging Castro in the newspapers. Shame!!!

Here are some of the past predictions of Lord William Rees Mogg and James Dale Davidson. For example in 1987, in Blood in the Streets they predicted: [1] The fall of Communism [2] The bankruptcy of the S&L on a massive scale [3] The real estate crash [4] The sweeping military disarmament, foretold at the height of the Reagan arms buildup [5] The falling standard of living of blue-collar workers and middle managers [6] The devolution and downsizing of corporations in the 1990's In early 1991 in The Great Reckoning they predicted: [1] The supplanting of Marxism by Islam as the main ideology of confrontation [2] The racking secession and civil war in Yugoslavia [3] That the breakdown of the Soviet Union central command structure would expose the world to unprecedented dangers of weapons proliferation and nuclear accidents [4] What life would be like after the Cold War [5] The real estate bust in Tokyo [6] Widespread layoffs in Fortune 500 companies [7] The dangers of rioting in big cities due to growing racial antagonisms In 1997 in The Sovereign Individual they predicted [1] The collapse of the welfare state [2] The overhaul of the US tax system, which will in the future be based on consumption rather than on earnings [3] That the map of the world, including the United States and Canada will look dramatically different [4] That governments will lose their capacity to arbitrarily regulate economies [5] That banks will suffer through an ever larger crisis than that of the 1980's [6] That the US government will diminish to the size it was in the nineteenth century [7] That the US government - primarily the IRS, CIA and NSA, will declare war on groups that try to circumvent the income tax through cyberspace [8] That organized crime will grow in scope as central economies break down [9] That central banks will lose the power to inflate and control the money supply as paper money is supplanted by cybercash [10] That individuals will gain more autonomy and financial capability than ever before as markets deepen around the world [11] That morality will make a comeback

The organized labour movement represents a monopoly in this country in many labour markets.... Like any monopoly, there is no incentive for the union leadership to encourage better training, greater productivity, or any other quality that would translate to greater productivity by union members in their jobs. And, like any monopoly, the unions hold a gun to the head of employers in making wage & benefit demands. As a result employers are finding ways to exclude union labour from the work the companies have... For example, contracting out some tasks and closing down and moving the plant to a labour market where the product can be produced and sold at a profit are two of the ways that companies are learning to work around union labour monopolies. In those areas of Canada where unions are strong, there is a pattern in the last 20 years of companies choosing other places to build a new plant or to relocate because union labour has come to mean low productivity and low quality work... Instead of supporting training programs to upgrade their members' skills, the union leaders focus on asking higher and higher salary and benefit packages for union members...with no additional productivity required from the union labour. Such monopolistic behaviour by the union leaders and their membership reflects the sorry state of labour unions today.....rapidly declining membership that no longer reflects the views of Canadian labour. Most Canadians who work know that the union labourer is the guy who produces the least and is proud of it... The unions have put themselves out of business.... In short, Canadian workers have enjoyed unions all they can stand.

Too much redistribution undermines stability The biggest cause of the current increase in inequality in North America, and in some other advanced countries as well, is the slow speed at which poorly educated segments of society have adjusted to the dramatic fall-off in jobs that require a strong back rather than a brain.... In the 1950s, in both America and Western Europe, 70 percent of people were employed in jobs where they used their hands.... Just 30 percent were "use-of-brain" workers.... Now the ratio has almost reversed.... In 1973 college graduates made only 15 percent more than mere high school graduates.... By 1982 the differential was 49 percent.... Narrowing the income gap requires narrowing the gap in education and skills between the poor and rich. Unhappily, however, this has been very slow to happen... Part of the reason is that there is too much income redistribution.... Too many programs and unachievable political promises have not only slowed the speed of adjustment to the new realities, they have subsidized the growth of a counterproductive slum culture.. Another part of the gap in income is due to overindulgence in current consumption, another facet of life in the 1980s that could not be redressed by more income redistribution.... Part of the reason many people save so little is the assurance that they will be protected from many of the high-cost contingencies, like retirement security and medical care in old age, that induce savings in the first place.... Too much income redistribution and too much income equality can actually undermine stability. The poor and even much of the middle class, unlike the thrifty pioneers who laid the foundation of North American prosperity, spend every penny that comes into their hands.... This is not a life-style that will stand the test of time. In most cases, even today's poor enjoy a standard of real consumption many times higher than that of the rich of a few centuries ago.... And the poorer they are, the worse they tend to do.... The poorest people in Western societies indulge in crime, drug abuse, and alcoholism more than productive citizens. The most urgent need in the 2000s is to increase the payoff from accomplishment and law-abiding behaviour.... The countries that will best adapt to this new Revolution of the 2000s are those with the highest incomes and most productive citizens ... like Switzerland and Japan.... Rather than penalizing the successful, and making it more difficult to become and remain affluent, a rational policy for North America would aim for the opposite result..... It would reduce taxes.... And reduce the unsustainable burdens of transfer payments, income redistribution, and guarantees against failure that are the essence of the welfare state..... When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.

The Future for Labour Unions Here is my prediction: Over the past 30 years or so, almost every new labour contract contained a wage and/or benefit pkg increase... You will not see that much longer... At long last, you are going to start to see some form of concessions, such as a 5% per year pay reduction.. Not only that, but employers will start removing some of the rigid work rules that have been imposed on them in the past.. Furthermore, employers are going to insist on the flexibility they need in order to survive so they will no longer be prepared to lock into long term contracts that tie them down. . Labour contracts will become shorter, perhaps 6 months or 1 year at the most.. Contracts will eventually become a thing of the past as employers find themselves unable to make any commitments at all.. Union workers will be working without a contract just like non-union workers.... It's called "progress". Survival means we must compete.

The successes in jurisdictions that presently have "right to work" laws speak for themselves.... In Canada, Saskatchewan and Alberta had the lowest rates of unemployment in March 1997, at 6.2 and 6.9 percent respectively.... Compare that with neighboring states in the USA such as North and South Dakota, and Utah, where unemployment stood at 2.8 percent... RTW jurisdictions offer firms a business environment free of many union imposed regulations that raise costs and become impediments to employment..

The following are the states in the USA that have a "right to work" law -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. Note how many of these States are right at, or near, Canada's border. In 1994, the argument for voluntary unionism was summed up rather nicely.... All 50 states were evaluated on the following criteria: --Employment growth rates --Income growth rates --New business growth rates --Building permit growth rates --Home price growth rates --Retail sales growth rates Idaho, the newest voluntary unionism state ranked first... Seven of the top ten states were voluntary unionism states.... The bottom 13 were all forced unionism states

One of the states that has "right to work" laws is the state of Georgia... The signs of prosperity are everywhere... The visionaries that were involved in this planning that took place years ago included former president Jimmy Carter who was then state governor, and Andrew Young, former congressman and mayor of Atlanta... The highest marginal state tax for personal income is 6 percent and the highest federal tax is 35 percent for a total of 41 percent... Bringing business to Georgia is taken seriously and it is working... The Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce lists more than 1,000 corporate headquarters in the metropolitan area, an increase of 75 percent since 1991... The state economy is growing at 7 percent, more than twice the US average rate... The unemployment rate is 3 percent which is effectively full employment... The rate of unionization is near the average for "right to work" law states, mostly in the public sectors and within the large manufacturing companies... The biggest employment problem is finding enough qualified people to fill available jobs and employers are actually bidding up wages to attract employees.

Union membership in the USA by state Alabama -- 9.5% Alaska -- 22% Arizona -- 5.9% Arkansas -- 6.3% California -- 16.4% Colorado -- 8.7% Connecticut -- 15.8% Delaware -- 12.2% D.C. -- 16.8% Florida -- 6.5% Georgia -- 7.2% Hawaii -- 23.9% Idaho -- 7.6% Illinois -- 18.3% Indiana -- 14.3% Iowa -- 12.8% Kansas -- 9.3% Kentucky -- 11.4% Louisiana -- 7.7% Maine -- 12.9% Maryland -- 14.1% Massachusetts -- 14.8% Michigan -- 21.8% Minnesota -- 17.6% Mississippi -- 5.6% Missouri -- 14.2% Montana -- 13.2% Nebraska -- 7.6% Nevada -- 17% New Hampshire -- 10.1% New Jersey -- 19.6% New Mexico -- 8% New York -- 26.7% North Carolina -- 3.7% North Dakota -- 7.5% Ohio -- 17.7% Oklahoma -- 8.5% Oregon -- 15.8% Pennsylvania -- 17% Rhode Island -- 17.9% South Carolina -- 4.5% South Dakota -- 5.9% Tennessee -- 7.6% Texas -- 5.6% Utah -- 6.8% Vermont -- 10.8% Virginia -- 5% Washington -- 18.6% West Virginia -- 14.6% Wisconsin -- 16.2% Wyoming -- 9% Average -- 13.5%

eureka I sure do -- and you have it bas-ackwards. The ant is the forward thinker who plans for the future and exercises personal responsibility. The grasshopper is the opposite -- a typical "left winger", irresponsible, lazy and relies on others to feed, shelter and take care of him.

I think I'll address this one to eureka Old Fable with a Canadian Twist CLASSIC VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. THE END THE CANADIAN VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. So far, so good, eh? The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like him, are cold and starving. The CBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food. Canadians are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty. The NDP, the CAW and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in front of the ant's house. The CBC, interrupting an Inuit cultural festival special from Nunavut with breaking news, broadcasts them singing "We Shall Overcome." Sven Robinson rants in an interview with Pamela Wallin that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share". In response to polls, the Liberal Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant's taxes are reassessed, and he is also fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as helpers. Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. The ant moves to the US, and starts a successful agribiz company. The CBC later shows the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant's food, though Spring is still months away, while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain it. Inadequate government funding is blamed, Roy Romanow is appointed to head a commission of enquiry that will cost $10,000,000. The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, the Toronto Star blames it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity. The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders, praised by the government for enriching Canada's multicultural diversity, who promptly terrorize the community. THE END

According to "Places Related Almanac" the typical family income for states with "Right to Work" laws is $46,883..... Typical family income in states without RTW laws is $53,630.... However, on average, residents living in states without Right-to-Work laws pay 24.5 percent more for food, housing, health care, transportation, utilities, property taxes, and college tuition than in "Right-to-Work" states.... In states without RTW laws high taxes and the high cost of living erode the purchasing power of income so much that families in states with RTW laws are, on average, actually better off..... Stated another way, low taxes and low or moderate living costs can easily offset lower hourly rates of pay... So, it seems possible that compulsive unionism brings a lower standard of living even for the union workers and furthermore, it is the non unionized and the majority who truly foot the bill for closed shop compulsive unionism..

If you pit yourself against the best and succeed you will never be expendable -- some company will always want the elite worker... . Very few unionized people will ever be in top management positions. My concern with unions, as they exist today, is that they protect, encourage and coddle the mediocre and the slackers while not encouraging initiative and excellence..... Unions are now big business, they have a vested interest in the status quo and are the least likely to promote innovation....... Which is a darn shame because it is innovation that will ensure the success of the company and therefore the job the union claims to want to protect.

Today, politicians bent on optimizing votes have little incentive to analyze problems coherently... It is hardly surprising therefore that their records in actually solving problems are so pathetic as compared to entrepreneurs, business executives, and coaches of sports teams, who are rewarded according to performance. The same applies to labor union workers..... The only criteria that counts now, is seniority.... In fact they are actually discouraged from overperforming in order to increase the number employed..... This will all come to an end when the full impact of the global economy is upon us...... Eventually all wage structures will be incentive driven and tied to performance and productivity..... Labor union people who are prepared to accept the inevitability of this now, will have a much easier time than those who choose to shut their eyes to this reality. In the future, when information will be freely tradeable anywhere on the globe, the power of governments to insulate local businesses from global competitive pressures will be minimal

A scenario to consider Canada relies heavily on exports... We happen to have been reasonably competitive over the past because of an anemic dollar that has reached lows of 62 cents... Lets be optimistic for a minute and assume our dollar jumps to par overnight. We are no more competitive today than we were in the late 60's and early 70's when our dollar was near par and at one time went to $1.03... My question would be:..... Will union workers be prepared to eat the difference to allow our country the same competitive advantage we had when the dollar was low? The gist of my message is that while our dollar has been sliding from par to 62 cents, union workers have managed to eat the difference... Are they prepared to relinquish that and allow our country the same competitive advantage? I thought not!!!! There are many places for businesses to function successfully and investment dollars are very mobile today... The time has come for Canada to take a hard look at our labor laws... We are out of touch with reality..... I say "half a loaf is better than no bread"

So, you're suggesting that we're all birds of a feather?

Have you ever noticed when a person, who has been living in Canada for perhaps 50 years, is asked what nationality they are, the answer is usually -- I am French, German, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Irish, Ukranian, English or whatever. You ask a person that has been living in the USA for perhaps 5 years the same question and the answer is usually " I'm American". Why do you think that is? I suggest that Americans are perhaps more proud of their country than Canadians are of theirs. Doesn't that logic hold?

How can anyone in their right mind defend a system that gives so much power to a group where people are denied the right to decide, as individuals, whether or not they wish to belong to a labour union? And these people even have the audacity to try to take credit for having advanced the cause of the non-union worker!!! Give me a break!!! The non-union worker has been going downhill vis-a-vis the union worker for the past 30 years. How fitting for a fat-cat union worker to then refer to non-union workers as misers!!! Perhaps the labor union movement has had a lot to do with forcing many of them to penny pinch..... Think about that very carefully before responding. The non-union worker is clamoring for revenge...revenge against a very unfair system...a system that is hurting them big time. We need Voluntary Unionism in the country.... Everyone should have the right to decide whether to opt in or out of a labor union..... It's called "right to work" laws.

Is greed still good today? ... Labour union greed over the past 30 years is the engine that has driven inflation. ... This same greed has driven down the standard of living for all non-union workers plus all the people that don't work such as retirees etc. I doubt there are many employers in business for the sole purpose of providing employment for others... And the employer knows what the bottom line is and what he can afford to pay employees.... If they accept employment at the quoted rate that should be it.... Employees have the freedom to ask for an increase and the employer should have the freedom to deny it without the threat of unions holding the employer to ransom. ... "You want more than you have, become more than you are" [Jim Rhone.. 1980]

Ok, now square that with the mentality of forcing people to join unions? I thought monopolies were illegal in the corporate world and labour unions today fall into the same category. I see -- So you're saying that money is better left in government coffers rather than in peoples pockets? I see it the other way around.