Hjalmar

It's a good thing you left some doubt there by inserting the word "probably". Do you honestly think the 22 states in the USA that now have these "right to work" laws, would have enacted them, one by one, if that were the case? The last state that brought in these laws was Oklahoma and that was only about 2 years ago. To the best of my recollection every election in Canada, over the past 10 or more years, be it Federal or Provincial, has been won with the promise of some tax relief of one sort or another in their election platform with the exception of one, that being the last Federal election. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Governments in this day and age are becoming more fiscally responsible and I would go so far as to suggest that the welfare state, as we have come to know it, is on it's death bed. More emphasis is being placed on security for the citizens of a country and less on social spending. At the same time, and for the first time in history, all governments today are faced with competition from a tax standpoint.

A socialist minded government has little interest in people who have ambition, drive, and are go-getters..... Rather they recruit their followers from among the losers in our society -- people that may NEED THEM..... This is how they get their votes -- by promising to give people everything imaginable. And in the past, before we heard the words deficit and debt, people bought into this.... But why would anyone today, vote for a party that has nothing to offer but give-aways, when everyone knows that the cupboard is bare?

Countries and groups that achieve successful development do so partly because they have an ethic that encourages the economic virtues of self-reliance, hard work, family and social responsibility, high savings and honesty..... For example, the Germans are still a capable and efficient people, but they are not working anything as hard as they did when they were rebuilding their country after the ruin of defeat in 1945.... In two generations they have gone from working long hours, almost with their bare hands, in conditions of acute poverty, to working short hours for the highest pay and the most expensive welfare on earth. Such cycles of prosperity undoubtedly undermine virtues of hard work and modest expectations which exist at the early stages of industrial development...... Nations are not able to retain their early virtues, just as individuals can become greedy and less productive with success that comes too easily. And Germany today has become the largest exporter of jobs in the world.

"Right to work" laws was never part of the Conservative platform. Quite frankly, I wish it would have been. A lot of people would have supported it. I believe legislation like that would have to take place at the provincial level since labour laws fall within their jurisdiction. Can you imagine, if as much as one province opted for such laws, the impact it would have.. That province would become a magnet and people from all walks of life would be flooding their borders... other provinces would likely have to follow suit. A level playing field for all workers MS? I would support that.

The most urgent need in the new millenium will be to increase the payoff from accomplishment. The countries that will best adapt to this new revolution are those with the most productive citizens -- Switzerland, and some Asian countries come to mind. Rather than penalize the successful, and making it more difficult to become and remain affluent, a rational government policy would aim for the opposite result. It would reduce taxes, income re-distribution, and guarantees against failure that are the essence of the welfare state. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both. Education today needs to focus on training people to produce income rather than to re-distribute it.

In a global economy everyone must compete and this includes governments as well when it comes to taxation. Our society today is very mobile and the ambitious, the educated, the go-getters, the people with a strong work ethic and our most productive people will simply make their exit. They will flee to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. In other words our most desired citizens will not be around to fund governments who's taxes are not competitive. There-in lies the death of the welfare state as we have come to know it. The province of Alberta will always have a good fiscally responsible government because their government policies have attracted this type of voter to the province

I believe the will of the majority counts in this country -- be it right or wrong.

An old Chinese folk wisdom holds, "Of all the thirty-six ways to get out of trouble, the best way is -- leave." In the Information Age, that Oriental wisdom will be easily applied. If operations become uncomfortable due to excessive demands in one location, it will be far easier to move. Indeed, it will be possible in the Information Age to create virtual corporations whose domicile in any jurisdiction will be entirely contingent on the spot market. An overnight increase in the degree of attempted extortion, either by labour unions or governments, could lead to the activities and assets of the virtual corporation fleeing the jurisdiction at the speed of light. The growing integration of microtechnology into industrial processes means that even those firms that still deal in manufactured products with great economies of scale are no longer as vulnerable to the leverage of violence as they once were. An example illustrating this point is the collapse of the United Auto Workers union's lengthy strike against Caterpillar, which was called off in the waning days of 1995 after almost two years. Unlike the assembly lines of the 1930's, today's Caterpillar plant employs far more skilled workers. Pressed by foreign competition, Caterpillar farmed out much of the low-skill work, closed inefficient plants, and spent almost $2 billion computerizing machine tools and installing assembly robots. Even the strike itself helped spur labor-saving efficiencies. The company now claims to need two thousand fewer employees than when the walkout began.

eureka No, that is not what I said. But you have managed to twist that around somewhat so as to make it look ridiculous. Here is what I said "There is work for anyone who wants to work. If you cannot find employment you create your own. If you are unable to do that then you raise and grow your own food." The wording may not be exact but the meaning is similar. To say that I said "There is work for all seasonal workers" as compared to " There is work for anyone who wants to work" is a bit of a stretch. By the way, your postings remind me of another poster that frequented another forum of mine a few years ago -- did you change your nic?

In 1991, after they had already largely abandoned the classic Swedish model of the postwar years, the social democrats were voted out of office. The new conservative government appointed a commission of seven non-socialist economists "to analyze the economic crisis in Sweden and to suggest ways to solve it." Turning Sweden Around" documents the revenge of the iron law of wages. It finds an unemployment rate of 14%, public sector spending running at an unsustainable rate of 70% of Gross Domestic Product, a fall from arguably first among industrialized nations in GDP per capita to 14th, a strong inflation bias, recurrent budget deficits, and severe financial and building crises. In its six sophisticated, well-written, and mathematically accurate chapters "Turning Sweden Around" repeats again and again one central and pervasive theme: Swedish wages are too high ! To compete in international markets, Sweden must produce goods at competitive prices, which means paying less to workers (either directly or indirectly, through taxes). The main theme of "Turning Sweden Around" is not a surprise. it is common sense...it is the teaching of plain old fashioned classical micro-economics...it is a conclusion mandated by the constitutive rules of modern society. That historical experience revealed the limitations of the Swedish model is not a surprise. What is surprising is that in the 1950s and 1960s so many people believed that the Swedish model was sustainable and generalizable to the rest of the world. What needs to be explained is the specious credibility of the illusions it engendered. Common sense says that as a general rule, with limited exceptions, high wages cannot be sustained in an open economy because global competition will require producers to cut costs, and therefore wages.

Why should a persons opinion have to stand up to scrutiny? And why would a persons opinion damage ones credibility? Your credibility with me hasn't been damaged, but following your argument, it would have been. I think the time has come for union supporters like yourself to come to grips with the real world today. I don't think you have any idea how many people are putting down labour unions today. And you should hear what they are saying about them. And I agree with them and I publicize it. In other words I'm speaking out for the silent majority. I do it on a voluntary basis. Data that I post comes from reliable sources. If you don't want to believe it that is your choice. Have you heard of Lord William Rees Mogg and James Dale Davidson? Most of my information comes from their writings in "Blood in the Streets", "The Great Reckoning" and their latest book "The Sovereign Individual".

BD My claims are self evident. No hard data required for that. Hard data comes from surveys and other peoples opinions. A lot of what I post is my opinion. You and I agree to disagree. Can you not accept that? You are free to attack my postings and I am free to attack yours. You have been screaming for hard data here since day one. It likely will never be forthcoming. But you're free to voice your opinions.

There was a program on TV a few years ago. They interviewed two young men in Iceland who had recently returned there after attending university in Canada. These men were fishermen which is the primary occupation in their country. They were asked the question "what will you do now that the fishing season is over?" Their reply went something like this: " I don't know how you people in Canada expect anyone to work when you pay them for doing nothing". "Why would anyone want to bother with finding work?" They further went on to say that they would carry on with some other form of work until the next season opened. When you start paying people simply because they are poor this creates a disincentive to prosper and fend for oneself. What is fair about a system where a responsible hard working person who has managed to set aside sufficient funds for a comfortable retirement and then finds the person living around the corner who exercised no such responsibility and drank up most of his spare money now has the same standard of living? This sets a bad example for others to follow suit. When you reward counterproductive behaviour you end up getting more of the same. There is work for anyone who wants to work. If a person is unemployed it's of his/her own choosing. If you can't find a job, you create your own. If you can't do that then you raise and grow your own food. The governments in this country have created this dependency in our society. And Canada has now become the country of choice for the less ambitious and freeloaders throughout the world. At the same time the ambitious and go-getters are shunning this country because of our high taxes. As a result the country is becoming innundated with the less desireable citizens .... a bleak picture for the future.

You are suggesting that labour unions always bargain fairly? How can you bargain fairly with a militant gang like a labour union? And who decides what is fair? What would be fair to you? The law of supply and demand dictates. It is never fair to a labour union unless their demands are met to a T. Use of the private sector that is not in any way influenced by unions, nor the public sector, would be a fair model to follow. That's an old one that has been overplayed to the hilt. What year was that eureka? Do you actually think this still applies in todays world? Not really fair when it only applies to a select few that happen to be union workers. Time to get up to speed. Could you elaborate please? How so? Why has Germany, with one of the most "pro-labour" laws in the world, now become the largest exporter of jobs? Other countries in Western Europe aren't far behind. Is this the model you would like us to follow? To me, that is a feeble explanation for a party that has been so closely aligned with labour unions. They severed these ties because public perception of labour unions is rapidly changing and they wanted to align themselves with the mainstream. I wish you luck. I prefer to accept the real world as it exists today. By the way, would you mind explaining how this inevitable occurance will come about? I believe most people are adjusting to the new realities of today.

MS There was a time when labour unions served a useful purpose. They started to destroy themselves around the 1970's and have been doing that ever since. Today they have become an albatross around our neck -- their way or the highway. We have a typical example here in Canada today with the Parks dep't workers inconveniencing everybody. Approximately 4500 workers holding people to ransom. They are costing the government, and by extension taxpayers, $75,000 per day. Why would any government allow this? Take the dockworkers for instance when they shut down the docks on an almost annual basis through their own selfish greed. Have you any idea what that costs the government and economy of our country? Think about the farmers who are struggling to make ends meet and then find themselves unable to ship their grain. Think about all the business that is being lost every year in BC when people switch over to a more reliable server such as the docks in Seattle. These two examples barely touch the surface -- this goes on year round here in Canada. On to another example of labour union mentality -- Two years ago the nurses in BC were negotiating a new contract. There are ocassions where they must use their own vehicle and I know what the going rate is because my daughter works for a large company and gets 32 cents per km. The nurses at that time were getting 38 cents per km and they were asking for an increase to $1.25 per kilometer. How can anyone take these people seriously? Does anyone wonder why costs [and taxes] are going through the roof. Why has the USA smartened up from a unionization rate of 53% in the 50's to a mere 13% today? They have smartened up and Canada has not. Are you aware that over 50% of corporations wishing to expand or relocate will not consider a state that does not have "right to work" laws? Does it not enter your mind that Canada is losing out big time because we don't have one province in Canada that has the foresight to recognize the advantages of these RTW laws? Do you know how much lower the unemployment rate is in the USA in states that have RTW laws as compared to those that do not? I'll tell you why the USA has smartened up -- they recognize the enormity of the damage done to the economy by a high rate of unionization. Why is the USA considered one of the most successful countries in the world today leaving Western Europe and Canada far behind. Why do you think Tony Blair of the Labour Party in Britain has severed all ties to the labour union movement? I believe he recognized that an affiliation with labour unions in this day and age is more of a liability than an asset. Labour rates in union work places is only part of the problem. Labour unions over the years have managed to make their workplaces so secure that it is virtually impossible to fire them. Therein lies the reason for poor performance and low productivity from union workers. Comparing $20/hr to $10/hr [for non union workers] is only half the problem. Low productivity from union workplaces is the other. I left a union job because I discovered I could do much better on my own.

eureka Will respond to you further -- In the Information Age earning capacity for persons of similar skills will become much more equal, no matter in what jurisdiction they live....and this has already begun to happen. At the same time, income inequality within jurisdictions will rise. Global competition will also tend to increase the income earned by the most talented individuals in each field, wherever they live.....much as it does now with professional athletes. The marginal value generated by superior performance in a global market will be huge. The old labour union mentality that every worker deserves the same pay and seniority is the only criteria for advancement will soon be history. Jurisdictional advantages that led to widening inequality between rich and poor economies during the industrial period will change dramatically.

eureka You have obviously read some of the writings of Lord William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson as you cited "Blood in the Streets" in a previous post. Here are some more of their writings -- And some more -- And my 2 cents worth -- It is well understood that resistance to change caused by the predominance of special interest groups like labor unions in stable societies is a major contributing factor to economic malfunction. The very thought of an automatic pay increase every year can no longer be sustained in a weakened economy. Who can argue that organized labor still needs to improve their standard of living? A strong government would not allow one group in our society to further erode the nations ability to prosper just because of their selfish greed. Concessions will be the by-word for organized labor for a number of years to come.

Would you mind telling me how it would normally play out? That's a laugh -- a union supporter talking about the conciliatory approach!!!! Get used to it. Jobs for life with benefits and pension plan has indeed become a thing of the past. In the years ahead, jobs, as we have come to know them, will become mere tasks. There will be no locked in contracts as people adjust to our changing world of today. As a matter of fact, it has been predicted that by the year 2025 blue collar jobs will have virtually disappeared altogether -- down to about 2%. That is absolutely true with the exception of union workers. All the rest of society has been going downhill. Sort of sad in a way that this one group in our society has been vested with such powers as to diminish the standard of living for everyone in the country except themselves. Union employees have of course shielded themselves from their own wage driven inflation through their own inflationary pay and benefit increases.

In the early twentieth century, American workers began to develop the reputation for superior quality work that had previously been associated with the English. Observers in London cast an envious eye toward the United States, where workers were credited with "superior technical education", and greater flexibility than their British counterparts. Meanwhile, Americans widely believed that the British decline was directly connected to the introduction of the dole, which created perverse incentives to shirk work. Britain seemed to display a lack of vigor when compared to the USA., a condition which was worsened, as many North Americans believed, by national welfare policies. U.S. newspapers reported the despair of unemployed British families existing on dole payments and contrasted their lot with American citizens who had no such public benefits to erode their initiative

Here's one for you to digest .... sort of par for the course with labour unions here in Canada. A ship has just arrived and the port needs 10 additional workers. This of course is the Longshoremans Union and the employer must hire through the union hiring hall. They send 10 workers immediately but one of them is stone drunk and hardly able to stand on his feet. They carried on until noon, then paid the drunk who had done absolutely no work, and told him to leave. The other 9 union workers down tools and leave with him. The employer phones back to the union hall, explains the situation, and requests another 10 workers. Within half an hour 10 men were there.... the same 10 that were there before, including the drunk. Not hard to read the message there.... When you have union workers you must hire and pay 10 to get 9.

I lived quite comfortably on $1.63/hr as a city transit bus driver for 5 1/2 years -- bought a new house and raised a family of 3 children. I took out a loan at the transit credit union, bought a new truck complete with Brantford box and hoist and hired a driver for 25% of the take and I drove it myself on my days off. Of course that was before labour unions raised the cost of everything twenty - fold. Oh, by the way, that was a union job. Pay was $1.63/hr when I started and was still $1.63/hr. when I left 5 1/2 years later. Labour unions were tame then. Today they try to run our country

The minimum wage in BC remains the same as it was under the previous NDP government [$8.00/hr] -- the only thing that was changed, as Willy correctly stated, was that employers are now allowed to hire trainees at $6.50/hr for the first 200 hours. If you want to state facts then try to get them straight please. So Gordo is going to be turfed soon??? If memory serves me correctly you predicted that the NDP and your pal, Jack Layton, were going to win the last Federal election. You later started to amend that to approx 50 seats. What was the final result MS? The NDP gained a mere 6 seats over what they had before. They remain a rump party.

So, you're admitting that you are unable to fend for yourself and need a crutch! You sound like a person who would take out a million dollar insurance policy in the event an eagle should bite you while playing polo.

Outsourcing -- doesn't that explain it all? Why are corporations fleeing to lower wage jurisdictions? Very self evident -- they have become uncompetitive from a price standpoint because of high union wages and benefits.

I hardly think that unionists can laud the safety issue. What about the mine in Yellowknife a few years ago where union workers on strike set a bomb inside the mine killing a number of people. Of course, like the mafia, they cover their tracks quite well. However one man took the fall and is serving a life sentence. Now, would you like to make a comparison of this incident with labour union safety issues that you continue to laud? One is wilful [murder in other words] while the other is accidental. Safety is not an issue in the workplace any more. Non-union work is every bit as safe today. You sound like you're running out of ammunition.