Hjalmar

RB That's a good one. But who would monitor the number of times they have sex per week? Or would they rely on peoples honesty? Would you report that accurately? Just wondering!!!!

o.i.c The employee has total freedom to seek work elsewhere if dissatisfied with the wages.. A union employee is one that wants to be paid more than he's worth. I agree with this quote: (You want more than you have; Become more than you are! - Jim Rhone 1980)

Premium for Power The strong work ethic, so ingrained in many people that came here and built this country, is being totally destroyed by the labor union movement - so much so that the very survival of the nation is at stake... This has to be turned around. "Right to work" laws is not a total solution but it is a start... We need to go much further than that in order to save our country from the ravages of the labor union movement. In addition to "right to work" laws I would add the following: [1] Disallow the strike weapon altogether...it is far too onerous. [2] Disallow union dues as a legitimate tax deduction. This is not a government program such as CPP. This is akin to allowing the deduction of your car and house payments and is ridiculous. [3] Amend the income tax structure whereby union workers pay a higher rate than others. Why should some people have so much power that others do not have simply because they belong to a labor union? Shouldn't there be a price tag attached to this? Premium for power is what I would call it.

Labor unions, like any monolithic process, are slow to respond to the reality of the markets.... We no longer need the union structure to achieve protections for the worker; and we no longer can rely on the union to provide trained capable workers for the market. Instead, the union continues to bring to the labor market union members who have been brainwashed to believe that the best way to achieve job security is to do the least.... It's called "featherbedding." Historically, featherbedding was an effective way to force companies to hire more people than the jobs required. By contrast, we have people in the armed forces who work for much less pay than union members; and who realize that the job is done when the job is done....not when the bell rings. These people learn the benefits of working together with their peers to achieve a goal; and doing what it takes to get the job done.... These people proudly serve our country and learn skills that translate to productivity in the free market when they leave the military. What distinguishes the workers in these 2 groups? ..The words "selfishness and greed" seem to separate the 2 types of workers.... The public admires those in our military and respects them for the work they do under difficult circumstances. By comparison, the public knows selfishness and greed when we see union workers constantly complaining and whining.

o.i.c We are having problems today with outsourcing of jobs because we are finding ourselves unable to compete in a global market. Considering that, which makes more sense - having non-union workers [75% of the workforce] unionize in order to catch up or having 25% of the workforce pull out of their union and come down to earth where they will be earning comparable wages to the rest of us? I can tell you right now that the latter would improve the living standards of the majority.

o.i.c. Why should people put up with all the inconveniences created by strikes by union workers? Are you saying it's ok for perhaps 5000 workers to create these ongoing inconveniences just to satisfy their own greed and selfishness even though it might be inconveniencing 5 million people? We as a country have matured and it's time to start using more mature tools. Union or non-union, they will be laid off if the company is losing money.. The probability of operating at a loss increases tenfold if the company is unionized. Not much question about that. The atmosphere between employee and employer is far more harmonious in non-union workplaces. You have a very unhealthy relationship between employee/employer in most union workplaces. Are you able to answer why that is? Good idea... let the unions run the show. They're virtually doing that now.

August It should be our constitutional right to belong, or not belong to a union. . No employee should be forced to join a union. I don't care if they have 55% or even 90% vote for, the ones that don't want a union should not be forced to join. I think I'm safe in saying that if this thing goes ahead all those employees will find themselves out of a job... watch for it. WalMart is not going to allow a precedent such as this take place. To the best of my recollection there has been one other attempt at unionizing a WalMart [in Canada] which was successful and the store promptly shut down. WalMart in Canada is the best thing that happened for thousands of non-union workers who can now afford to buy at realistic prices. The same applies to seniors and low income people. I think the time has come for people here in Canada to start speaking out against these selfish and greedy unions.

Polls show support for Right to Work laws For the past two Labor Days a radio station in Pittsburgh (KQV) has conducted a poll asking whether or not the caller supports the Right to Work. This year, 77% of respondents said yes, and last year 84% supported a Right to Work law. Although this tracks with the support of Right to Work across the state, it is a remarkable percentage for Pittsburgh, long considered to be union-controlled. The results of a number of current polls taken in the Commonwealth confirm the overwhelming support for Right to Work laws and opposition to forced union dues laws shown in national polls over the past two decades.

A 2001 study of 38 unionized auto parts plants in Ontario and Quebec found that companies offering their workers gain-sharing plans not only enjoyed higher productivity than those that didn't, they also enjoyed better relations with their employees.... Gain-sharing plans are group pay-for-performance arrangements under which employees work to beat past performance goals over short-term periods. Production gains are given a dollar value and is shared with workers in the form of bonuses. The article states that companies like the plan because gain-sharing bonuses must be constantly re-earned and employees don't view them as entitlements. I have been advocating pay plans tied to productivity since day one.

Michael Hardner Let me try a different way .. How high is up? It is one thing to constantly try to improve ones standard of living by increasing wages every year. In your opinion is that the only way to improve ones standard of living .. In other words, can a persons standard of living improve only with additional money? In my view, progress in Canada can only come about through reduced union wages so that more people can remain employed. I call that progress. Agree agree and disagree. Not necessarily more wealth for producers because of labour union powers. As soon as they hear their employer had a good year they say "Let's go get our share" and they go on strike, sometimes bankrupting the employer. Would this result in everyones standard of living dropping, including the employers?

All the credit goes to Paul Martin as finance minister in my view.

Michael Hardner Other than assistance for the aged, sick and handicapped, I disagree with all of them. No give-aways to healthy people under age 65. Progress comes in many forms and in many cases results in improved living standards but not necessarily so. A country could conceivably progress while at the same time peoples standard of living can diminish.

RB Outsourcing is the answer.. Bring down the unionization rate to a manageable 10% to 12% Will also enable governments to lower taxes.

Michael Hardner I agree with that.. But farming is a little different because almost every farmer is in the same boat. And as you know farming is heavily subsidized. So what should be done? .. let all the farms die? How would that affect the country? And what about all the employees in related industries such as meat packing plants etc? I would support a system whereby all subsidies end and all employees in related industries share in losses with the farmers. Are you aware of the spread in prices the farmer gets at the gate and the price paid by the end user? It would absolutely shock you. Feature this-- A meat cutter earning over $20/hr with a locked in contract and nothing to lose because he/she has nothing invested. Then a small farmer with perhaps half a million invested [his lifes savings in most cases] and living from year to year on his annual profit which turns out to be a loss so often. Why wouldn't you support such a system too? If the farmer must bleed, so should everybody in any related industry... My opinion.

Let's look at a typical hog farmer in todays market..... Each hog would stand him approximately $110 for feed, shelter, insurance etc..... Let's say he marketed perhaps 35 or 40 hogs per week at a loss of $52.00 each..... That amounts to a loss of approximately $2,000 per week. Now let's look at the union worker in an affiliated industry such as a meat packing plant..... What would that same worker do if at the end of every day as he left the premises, he was met at the door by a burly man who demanded from him $150 for the day? Not really a valid comparison is it?... No it isn't, because the meat plant worker hasn't invested a penny..... The farmer by contrast has thousands invested in his land, buildings, farm machinery etc. Should the government, and taxpayers, be subsidizing the hog farmer?... Should workers in the same industry such as meat plants etc. be sharing some of these losses? Has the time come to 'link' industries and all people connected, share in the losses accordingly?... Should future labor contracts be drawn up whereby wages are tied to the market? For example If the market is down in the auto industry and inventory starts to build up, should that trigger a lower wage scale?

RB That is why Canada is lagging so far behind the USA when it comes to productivity. Unionization rate in the USA is down to 13% [from 53% in the mid 50"s] and Canada's unionization rate today is double that of the USA.

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?

Michael Hardner We're talking about two different things. I'm referring to progress for the country as a whole. You're tieing progress to living standards for the people. Our country can very well progress even though living standards for the people don't improve.

playfullfellow My point exactly.

Michael Hardner And who is going to pay for these benefits? I believe in a system whereby people get to keep more of what they earn and take responsibility for their own livelihood as long as they are well and healthy. If you're unemployed you look for a job.. failing that you create your own employment... failing that you raise and grow your own food. I doubt a depression in this day and age would ever come close to the severity of the last one in the 30's. Our country needs to constantly keep up to date with our changing world.... It's called progress. Living standards is an entirely different thing and are not really lagging here in Canada, the USA or Western Europe.

August Yes I am a Lutheran.. how did you guess? I have a question for you .. when is enough? Our standard of living is reasonably good .. many throughout the world are worse off... I don't think we should expect living standards to increase perpetually. We would be further ahead had Trudeau never entered the scene. I had good parents.. taught me to work on the farm at age 5... best education a person can get. My mother taught by example .. she was a school teacher. I would choose anywhere in Canada but Moose Jaw.. Why? Because it's NDP territory. I believe Alberta is perhaps the best run province in Canada today and the reason being that Alberta has always had good governments... free enterprise as it was meant to be. Why is Alberta in the forefront of all other provinces? Because it has the kind of government that attracts the kind of voter that will ensure that the status quo continues.

History books will show him as the worst prime minister ever... after Trudeau, that is. His alliance [along with Trudeau] with Castro was probably the biggest embarrasment of all. But then again, Chretien was a dictator too, wasn't he? The USA has kept communism from our doorstep ever since the Cuban crisis when Kennedy was forced to place a quarantine on incoming offensive missiles from the USSR. Does anyone wonder why our relations with our good neighbor to the south has deteriorated so badly ever since 1968. 9/11/01 .. His insensitivity to this crisis was embarrasing to all of Canada.

Another Depression? What will happen to Canada if a depression were to occur again? .. I feel convinced that a depression would not lead to a return to socialism as a popular solution... The weaker the balance sheet of the country when the slump begins, the more the reaction is likely to carry politics to the right... The left wing in Canada has become a museum of old rhetoric and worn out ideas.... The NDP in Canada has become yesterday's men/women... They continue to push solutions that were tried, with very little success, in most cases... There is a lack of connection between their arguments and the needs of the time that is quite striking... An economic crisis will hardly make their mummified arguments live again. And who is it that weakens the balance sheets of our country if it isn't the socialist mindset in the first place?

Not going to happen Michael.. To stay competitive today we must become more productive and do it with a smaller paycheck. At last we agree!!!

Michael Hardner I don't think personal responsibility is on the wane today as it has over the past 35 years. As union strength tapers of so also will personal responsibility resurface again. I have nothing to say about decreasing wages. It's the way of the future and is bound to happen. And it will happen in lock step with diminishing unionization.