Hjalmar

The trend Unionization rate in the USA in the mid 50's was 53% and has steadily dropped to a level of 13% last year and still going down. What does that tell you about the value of labour unions in this day and age? Germany, for example, has now become the largest exporter of jobs in the world. We all know about labour union strength in countries like Germany and Sweden. Clearly, the writing is on the wall for labour unions worldwide. And that will benefit everybody except union members themselves. A win, win situation for the majority.

Any suggestions what those positive means should be? Not at all. But by offering total protection from cradle to grave for everybody, that in itself creates a disincentive for people to take more responsibility for themselves. What I said is true .. a lot of people would save more towards their retirement if it were not for retirement security etc. but that's not saying that these protections for retired people are bad. There are a lot of people that save towards retirement in order to improve their living standards after retirement. And a lot of people that don't because they know they will be taken care of financially. By stating a fact regarding incentives etc does not mean that I am against these protections.

Michael Hardner I am referring to the welfare state Canada has become ever since Trudeau came to power. The list is endless but for starters think back to the early 70's when Trudeau quadrupled UI [now EI] payments overnight. There are no contradictions in what I have said. I support help for people that really need it such as the ill, the aged and handicapped. I don't think any other benefits should be available here in Canada. Compare Canada today with some of the Oriental countries where welfare is virtually unheard of and children are taught personal responsibility at an early age. I think it's a darn shame the way Canada has gone downhill ever since 1968. As the student from Iceland who had been in Canada for 2 years going to university and was now back home working during the fishing season said to an interviewer on television a few years ago - quote "I don't know how you people in Canada expect anyone to work when you pay them for doing nothing"

"The right of the strikers to their jobs is not valid against other workers who are in grave need.... For example, if the latter can not without great difficulty find employment elsewhere, they will offend neither against charity nor justice when they take the places of the former; for they, no less than the strikers, have a right to seek and obtain a livelihood on reasonable terms... Both classes of workers are contending for advantages that both have a right to pursue, and their respective rights must be interpreted and determined by reference to their respective conditions and needs." "While the unions are a necessity of our present industrial system, they are nevertheless, both in spirit and in many of their methods, a necessary evil.... They are too often established and maintained on the theory or conviction that the competition between employer and employee is a veritable warfare, in which each is at liberty to strive for all that he can possibly secure, and in which the victory is always to the stronger force." Geez!!!!!! The employer has invested perhaps $10 million while the union workers have invested zilch..... And they're striving to become the stronger force!!!!!!! Go figure!!!!!!!! Something very wrong with our labor laws.

Some predictions by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg They are far-sighted and many of their long range predictions have come true... 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

Citizenship is obsolete So say James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg in their book "The Sovereign Individual"... To optimize your lifetime earnings and become a Sovereign Individual you will need to become a customer of a government or protection service rather than a citizen.. Instead of paying whatever tax burden is imposed upon you by grasping politicians, you must place yourself in a position to negotiate a private tax treaty that obliges you to pay no more for services of government than they are actually worth to you

Let's look at it this way ... You find 19 men willing to give up their lives in unison for a cause. The cause would have to be fairly deep rooted don't you think? In the Muslim world the teachings of Allah totally control these people. Think about this .. Here in Canada one person would think for a long time before agreeing to sacrifice his life for a cause ... but for 19 men to agree to this in unison in the case of 9/11/01 ??? Truly the Muslim religion is controling their lives.

Michael Hardner I fully support the social safety net for 3 groups in our society. They are [1] The aged] [2] The sick [3] the handicapped amongst us. It ends there. Have you noticed that social programs, once introduced, are virtually impossible to rescind or scale back? I think leaders of this country are offering too much social spending, all in the interest of electoral gains. I find it very irresponsible. Furthermore I do not agree with paying healthy people for doing nothing. It has already created a dependency in this country.

Michael Hardner That will be a fact of life in the years ahead as wages will become far more attuned to the value of the work being performed than it has in the past. This is guaranteed to widen the gap between rich and poor. I see that a much fairer system when workers rewards are more related to the value of the work they do rather than the present where [in union lingo] a body is a body and everyone deserves the same rate of pay. Certainly more fair to the employer as well. You don't agree with #4? Our living standards are quite good in this country. Why would you be against improving the living standards of others that may not fare as well? And how about #1 and #5? Sorry M H, I could have done all of this in one posting but when the quotes are on the previous page you can only copy and paste one at a time. You lose the posting box when you go back to the previous page.

Michael Hardner Not really when you consider that by decreasing union wages prices for most products would drop somewhat thereby increasing the buying power of all the people that are not affiliated with labour unions. The effect would more likely be positive than negative when you consider the numbers involved. Glad to hear that you're following this thread.

Michael Hardner They are using offshore labour which dramatically reduces their costs, and then selling in Canada. If no Canadian corporation utilizing unionized labour were manufacturing these same products here in Canada, which establishes the market price, then these market prices would drop dramatically. These same large corporations are the cheerleaders for labour unions here in Canada -- that's what I meant.

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 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.

Some of the positives about a global economy [1] It will force labour unions to work for wages that are competitive worldwide. [2] It will force a lowering of prices for most products that we in Canada, the USA and Western Europe require for basic survival. [3] It will, over time, tend to improve living standards in many of the poorer regions of the world as wages gravitate upward to lessen the spread between wealthy countries and Third World countries. [4] It will not lower living standards for people living in Canada, the USA and Western Europe except for people that rely on income derived from union employment.. This is a positive and will help more people than it harms. [5] It will, for the first time in history, force governments to compete with one another from a tax standpoint. Any country that fails to do so will lose their most talented and desireable citizens.

Goes without saying if there were no unions. But unions won't be disappearing. We need to find a way to eliminate, or at least reduce, the disparity between union and non union workers. Not fair at all that they should be earning twice as much as the non union worker and the non union worker has to pay the inflated prices for most goods and services [private sector] and taxes [public sector] which is a direct result of exorbitant wages and benefits for unionized workers. Is it fair that 25% of the workforce should have the power to harm society to this extent? We need to reduce the power and leverage of labour unions plain and simple. Because of the militancy of labour unions here in Canada we need to reduce their numbers to a manageable 10 to 12% of the workforce. Right to work laws would bring this about over a period of time and would be much fairer for everybody. You have that backwards. The most successful countries in the future will have low taxation, low wages and high education. I don't agree with your vision that union wage rates should be higher. You make reference to consumer spending. Isn't it far better that wage rates throughout the country be more equalized so that 100% of the population become consumers rather than increasing union wage rates further in order that 25% of the population can continue to be consumers? If union wages were brought down to the level of non union wages then it goes without saying that all prices and taxes would drop accordingly. I'll address this further -- A lot of the products we purchase today are now manufactured in lower wage jurisdictions. If Canada is producing the same product paying union wages and sells the product at a modest profit this then becomes the market price for the product. This is what enables these corporations to max out their profit when the manufacturing takes place in lower wage jurisdictions. As you can see, if Canada discontinued the manufacture of these same products utilizing unionized labour, then the higher market price would disappear and that would benefit everybody in the country. I challenge anyone to refute this. In essence, corporations manufacturing offshore utilizing lower labour costs have become the biggest cheerleaders for organized labour in our country. I challenge anyone to refute that as well.

Would you mind itemizing them for me please? Not at all. I am saying that there wouldn't be the disparity in wages that exist today between union and non-union workers. This would benefit all non-union workers [approx 75% of the workforce] plus all the people that don't work such as retirees etc. which would bring the total close to 85%. Not disputing that at all.. that was yesterday. Let's talk about today. Labour unions have outlived their usefulness and today are creating more harm than good. They have become an albatross in our midst. On the one hand you admit that we are losing jobs through outsourcing because of the competitive forces of globalization. And then you suggest that wages be increased???? That's not going to happen. Labour unions will have no choice but to accept wage concessions for years to come or face unemployment. That's the way of the future. Not necessarily a university degree but pay in the future will be far more attuned to performance, productivity and value of the contribution to the employer than it has in the past where a body was a body [in union lingo] and everyone deserved the same rate of pay.

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, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. One state has recently been added and I believe it is Oklahoma. Note how many of these States are right at, or near, Canada's border.

That has become a huge issue here in Canada pertaining to health care. Everyone stands four-square in support of health care. But how do you change it to make it affordable? Politicians are afraid to suggest any changes for fear of the electoral fallout. But changes are required which is obvious and the premiers all seemed to agree on this at their last meeting. I doubt any federal leader will come out advocating any changes on the eve of an election call. Here's something that might help: A number of years ago Ian Smith, the leader of Rhodesia, suggested changes to the voting system whereby votes could count anywhere from one to five points based on the intelligence of the voter. I think this system would be good for Canada ... would wipe out the NDP in this country foreeeeeeeeeeever

The Information Age will leave individuals far more responsible for themselves than what they had become accustomed to during the industrial period just past. It will reduce the unearned advantage in living standards that has been enjoyed by residents of advanced societies throughout the twentieth century... The capacity of countries to redistribute income on a large scale will collapse... Information technology will facilitate increased competition between jurisdictions... Governments will no longer be able to charge more for their services than they are worth to the people that pay for them... This means that you will no longer be obliged to live in a high-tax jurisdiction in order to earn high income... In the future, when most wealth can be earned anywhere, governments that attempt to charge too much as the price of domicile will merely drive away their best customers... Therefore these countries will not survive in their present form... They will quite simply lose their taxing powers as they will increasingly be forced to compete.

cgarrett Your points are well taken and I agree with a lot of what you had to say. I myself am not speaking from the corporate level but rather that of the underdog non-union worker. Let me clarify some of my points: I know, and so do others, that the non-union workers today have a lower standard of living than they did 30 or 40 years ago -- a direct result of labour unions powers. Without question, as you state, non-union workers wages today are higher than they would have been without the presence of labour unions. Now let me give you an example of what I'm saying.. Over a 10 year period union workers have had their pay increase from perhaps $10/hr to $15/hr. Over that same period non union workers have had their pay increase from $10/hr to $10.75/hr. So I cannot dispute what you say when you imply that non union workers have witnessed pay increases because of the presence of labour unions. Therein lies the reason for the ongoing lowered standard of living for approximately 75% of the workforce. Now let's move to another area -- outsourcing of jobs because of uncompetitive wages in Canada, the USA and Western Europe. How do you propose to deal with that when labour unions have their blinders on and continue to demand higher wages and increased benefits? Labour unions in these high wage jurisdictions have no choice but to start lowering their wages. Concessions will be the by-word for all organized labour in the years ahead. You raise the point about workers sharing in the profit. If they are prepared to invest some of their hard earned dollars in the company, then of course they will if the company is profitable. But when an owner invests perhaps a million dollars in a business venture why should anyone else share in the profit of that business if they have invested nothing and have nothing to lose? Are you aware how many small business ventures never get off the ground here in Canada because of the possible threat of unionization if the venture were labour intensive? I believe the main beef against labour unions today is their insatiable greed and selfishness. If governments are unwilling to curb their powers then corporations themselves will find a way to deal with that. The problems today are mostly with the public sector unions and our governments seem unwilling to address this issue for fear of the electoral damage. The non-union workers in the country would not be paying the massive taxes they do if it weren't for labour union greed when you consider that 70% of provincial government expenditures go toward wages. This is the most urgent area to address. Non union workers want to get back the standard of living they had 35 years ago. They fared better then than they do today. Everything is relevant .. you live in a high wage jurisdiction and your cost of living will be high.

Other than terrorist attacks, the biggest threat to Canada would be Jack Layton.. 11 seats max in the next election with no official party status. Why would Harper stoop to that level and debate a nobody like Jack Layton? Can't you just visualize a minority government with Jack Layton as the official opposition!!! Perish the thought!!

When governments start competing with one another from a tax standpoint, as is inevitable in a global economy, what will happen to the welfare state as we know it today? It has been rare in history to find governments truly constrained by competition. This new economic dynamic directly contradicts the desire of governments left over from the industrial era to impose monopoly pricing for their services. But, like it or not, the old system will be non-viable in the new competitive environment of the Information Age. Any government that insists upon encumbering its citizens with heavy taxes that competitors do not pay will merely assure that profits and wealth gravitate someplace else. Therefore, the failure of the mature welfare states to curtail taxes over the long term will be self-correcting. Governments that tax too much will simply make residence anywhere within their power a bankrupting liability.

Years ago the saying was "Look what labour unions are doing for us" Today that saying is "Look what labour unions are doing to us" Labour unions, with approximately 25% of the nations workforce, are taking more than their share of the economic pie. Consider what labour unions are doing to our country: [1] They have effectively killed the strong work ethic that was so prevelant amongst the people that built this country. [2] They have created perpetual inflation with their ongoing annual wage increase demands. [3] They have created a culture of workers that want to continually do less while at the same time demanding higher wages. [4] They are directly responsible for our productivity in Canada dropping by almost 25% below that of the USA. [5] They are directly responsible for creating massive inconveniences to all Canadians with their strikes. "our way or the highway". We read news about this almost daily. [6] They are directly responsible for thousands of jobs that are never created because of the known threat of possible unionization if the venture were labour intensive. [7] They are directly responsible for Canada having become a "high tax" jurisdiction because of their outlandish wage demands in the public sector which accounts for over 70% of government expenditures. [8] They have over the years almost succeeded in making their jobs so secure that many union workers do virtually nothing knowing full well that it is almost impossible to fire them. [9] They have created mass inefficiencies in the workplace with their "that's not my job" attitude. [10] They have created a workplace that has become more of a war zone with their belligerent attitude towards their employer ... the employer has in effect become the enemy. [11] They are directly responsible for non-union workers becoming poorer and poorer because of unavoidable price increases for almost all products required for basic survival. [12] They treat non-union workers as second-class citizens and their own in a class by themselves. [13] They insist on running their own show even though they haven't invested a penny. The "boss" in many cases has become virtually redundant due to bullying tactics of shop stewards. Oops... ran out of space!!!!!!!

Is Jack Layton yesterdays man???

Consider some facts: [1] In today's global economy all nations will be forced to compete. [2] For the first time in history governments will have no choice but to also compete when it comes to taxation. [3] Society today is very mobile. Governments that charge more for their services than they are worth to the citizens of the country will lose their most productive, highly educated and desired citizens who will simply flee to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. [4] This will leave no one left in the country to fund the welfare state but the welfare recipients themselves. [5] Back in the 50's and 60's Sweden saw no end in sight for their generous social programs. Today for the first time they are taking a very different view and as of about 10 years ago have started a massive scaling back of their social welfare spending and privatizing many former government functions.

maplesyrup I don't buy your logic.. If labour unions are so great then why isn't 100% of the workforce unionized? You have a huge selling job ahead !!! The labour union movement today, for all intents and purposes, is dead.