Shwa

Best line ever: "Ayn Rand's corpse would have a dusty orgasm;" LOFL!!!!

I think what Black Dog is looking for is some sort of proof or evidence of this particular statement here. There appears to be an assumption - on your part - about the way in which the funding for Pride works and how the cash, goods and services provided by the City could be removed and not affect the resulting windfall that the City receives from Pride. Well Shady, come now - how "intellectually" honest is a statement like this? Actually, this is what you would say to someone who disagrees with Pride getting funding from the City since Pride will be getting funding this year. Kind of like this: Pride is getting funding from the City of Toronto this year, but you just don't want it to. Tough shit. That sort of thing.

Good gawd, you are much further along than I imagined. Eh, it was only a matter of time I guess. And, of course, you are that much more full of shit, commensurate with the high degree of development with your full-of-shit bigotry.

Agreed. But it is no fault of the union nor the employer that you can't negotiate individual compensation. I don't subscribe to collective bargaining as a be-all and end-all, but you have to admit, 40 employees versus hundreds, even thousands, and the singular compensation negotiation looks costly. Then again, middle management was never one to sacrifice itself for austerity. Economies of scale. I wouldn't expect the mom and pop corner store to deal with unions either. Unless they were the Mom & Pop chain. Which supports the idea that should unions go, so shall the benefits of one including wages and working conditions. And health care plans, dental plans, legal plans, health and safety, community services, substance abuse programs, financial aid, education aid programs... no, nothing socially progressive at all. It's all about the money with those darned unions.

It used to be 'Stairway to Heaven.' Maybe it still is. Since BitTorrent, I don't FM much. I used to be every 5th song was 'Stairway to Heaven.' It got played at the prom (paired with 'Come Sail Away' no less!); it got played - usually badly - by bands at parties or thrown on the turntable in the smoke-filled dark as everyone had their backs against the basement wall. And you couldn't walk into a music shop without some hack replaying the first 8 opening bars over and over and over. Then there is this: "And sheeee's buuuy-ing-ga a sta-air way-eh to... heah-ehhh-ven." Piss off Robert Plant. But that has seemed to fade away. It went from 'Stairway to Heaven' being overplayed to Led Zeppelin songs being overplayed. Some radio stations had Led Zeppelin 'days' and they would play right through the bands entire discography. Even the crappy outtakes and such. Which pissed me off because I really like the Mighty Zeppelin. But privately, like a dream sequence in a movie... Now it seems Zep has been regulated to only one or two tunes per hour. Whew. Or that is what it was like before BitTorrent came along. Most Underplayed Songs: Anything by Television off of 'Marquee Moon.'

And the problem with your argument is that you are using a fantasy argument. Seriously, noahbody, stick to reality will you please? Good. So our police officers should be paid the same as security guards. That's what I thought. Well, I mean, the managers in the police services should be paid more, but that is about it right? I mean, security guards police museum exhibitions, some of them with priceless artefacts. No. The RCM workers deserve to be paid higher because they have more responsibility than the Franklin Mint worker. More responsibility means higher wages and benefits. More responsibility = more wages and benefits. That is "free market" thinking, especially when you observe the usual compensation of management in a given organization as you clearly point out above. It only stands to reason then, that this responsibility "with taxpayer dollars" should count in the overall increased compensation package. Unless, of course, you want cops paid the same rate as security guards at, say, Walmart. But only one of them has a Constitutional responsibility to deliver mails and only one of them has this responsibility in a legal context. So they are legally responsible to deliver the mail. More responsibility = higher wages and benefits. Riiiiight. Hence the increased responsiblity towards taxpayers and legal obligations. Now minimize all that for me please. Reduce the responsibility towards taxpayers and legal obligations to nothing so you can equalize with the private sector workers with similar skills. That is a silly argument and completely out to lunch since you have pointed out that some workers - managers - should be paid more since they have more responsibility. But when more responsibility is applied to public sector workers, this added responsibility somehow doesn't count as meaningful. So you contradict yourself.

If you entered into a unionized workplace, then you have made the choice to do so. If there is a unionized workplace then it was allowed by the employer as their choice. And, quite frankly, it is likely easier - and much more cost effective - for the employer to negotiate wages and benefits for a whole group than it is individually. Even if you went into a workplace without a union, there is no guarantee that you would be able to negotiate your own wages and benefits as an individual - and it is highly unlikely you would be able to if the worker population was large enough. Like a factory for example where wages and benefits were arbitrarily given and taken away at the whim of the employer prior to worker unions. Why do you think we have unions in the first place?

You maintain that there is a 'secret law.' You go as far to point out a story in the Globe and Mail. So I supplied you links, including a story from the Star last year. So now, after reviewing the information contained in those links, what "secret law" are you referring to? No sarcasm intended. But the question remains: do you still think there was some "secret law" or can you see the phrase being used as a media construct?

Petro Canada gas jockeys were paid comensurate with their responsibilities. Now how about those Royal Canadian Mint employees... Dodge. No I am saying that government union members are paid accordingly. The question on hand was why should the unions operating in private companies be used to determine fair wage for government unions? A question that you have completely avoided once we established that your original response was silly. No, I am saying because they have legal responsibilities which is more responsibility than an employee at DHL or whatnot. Usually more responsibility means more remuneration. But I have given you one reason why. You have given none, but the continual run-around, likely because you made a statement without any rational thought. Because you pulled it out of your ass. Now if you can give one good reason why a public sector union should have it's wages determined by those negotiated by a union in the private sector, without resorting to silliness, please do.

You are also not responsible for a million jobs. Once you are, I am betting you would get the kid glove treatment too. Work harder GhostHacked!

Crown Corporations ARE responsible to the taxpayer. Legally. Through laws and such. For example: through constitutional responsibilities. DHL has no legal obligation towards the taxpayers now do they? So... should workers at the Royal Canadian Mint putting out our coinage be paid the same as Franklin Mint employees putting out non-legal tender Elvis commemorative coins? Go ahead, make the comparison. Because contracts are usually negotiated on an increase basis which, over time, has the cummulative affect of being more than the negotiated contracts of relative newcomers to any particular industry. It seems to me that you believe Canada Post ought to be beholden through some twist of logic, to relative newcomers on the parcel delivery scene. Why should they? The only answer you have give is "because." As if "because" exists as a self-evident truth merely because you said so. Why shouldn't they? They are making a profit, therefore being responsible to the taxpayers.

... that you are still full of shit. And you know it. You got caught with your little bigoted bullshit head games and you are trying to split hairs to try and weasle out of it. Nuh-uh. Why not admit you are an ordinary fallible little bigot and quit putting yourself and Mr. Canada on a pedestal?

If it were only mere terms; but you are ignoring the forest for the trees. What sort of perceptions are attached when the extreme right wing uses terms like "equality" or even "socialist?" As you have no doubt discovered, there is the potential for doublespeak to be used by anyone, of any ideology. I find it somewhat dubious that you can make pronouncements about how the left understands all the while standing outside the castle walls. Heck, even Mussolini had more direct insight than that. Don't disparage democracy like that or the status quo might fall on your head. Politics is a social phenomenon as is propaganda. I doubt limiting the government is going to limit the use of propaganda one bit. From any particular ideology. There will always be a movement that is not in power, trying to obtain it somehow. The Tea party is right wing. No doubt about that. Every movement gets swallowed up by the establishment sooner or later, in one way or another. The Tea Party is no exempt through some fluke of history. Currency as an example social engineering away the achievements of the previous social engineers? I don't know about that. I think the Chomsky article shows that Fox is indeed a part of the MSM, no way of really escaping that, especially since they belong to News Corp and that is as mainstream as you can get. You are familiar with News Corp are you not? Ruper Murdoch and all that rot? "Creating and distributing top-quality news, sports and entertainment around the world." Sounds like all the rest in the competitive world of big mainstream media.

You're still full of shit. I proved you completely wrong - and full of shit - and you wanted to modify your statement: So we go from "non-natives" to "white man" and somehow this involves a cure for cancer. But no, that isn't strange enough, now it is up to me to show an equivalent to the "Lasagna" character at Oka. LOFL! You have been proven wrong, you prove yourself to be a plain old bigot full of shit and you are not self-aware enough to do anything about it. All from the nice safe comfy confines of your computer chair. A real piece of work. And a bit of a fraidy cat to boot.

I am just trying to source out these "free-market-only" theoreticians who claim to have some objective method of determining fair wage when they always - and I mean always -forget to factor in how ubiquitous unions are - and always have been - especially in the "free" Western world. AS IF unions, negotiating in good faith, are somehow outside of the pristine "free-market-supply-and-demand" constructs they continualy fantasize about. Their theories are about 900 years too late if we start with the guilds and likely never existed except in fantasies when we consider the group affect on economies as a whole. Because, you know, group effect on supply-and-demand has never existed.

No what I am saying is that comparing Crown corporation pay scales with those of a similar private enterprise is dumb on many levels. One of which is the Constitutional mandate which Crown corporations are responsible for; the other is the length of time the union has been in operation. Etc. All you can say is "because" which is a slick dodge off the cliff. Is it? I am telling you that the Federal Government has a Constitutional obligation toward the mails. Private couriers do not. Coins minted at the Franklin Mint are not legal tender.

So you dodge the question about Constitutional responsibility and resort to clumsy posturing instead. Uh-huh. Oh well, I guess "people like you" are prone to avoiding complexities right? Let's take it in another direction: do you believe that the workers at the Canadian Royal Mint should be paid the same amount of money as similar workers at, say, the Franklin Mint?

Walmart doesn't count since many of the truckers that deliver the goods are Teamsters. Thus, using Walmart as an example involves unions and no doubt factors into their processes and costs.

Halifax Riot - 1945 Winnipeg General Strike - 1910 KKK in Canada in the 1920's - not a riot per se, but further commentary on the glories of past ages and likely morally relevant. I am of the opinion that conditions can arise where people will not resist peer pressure, sometimes for the purpose of self-preservation.

Really? Then tell me what Constitutional obligation DHL has, say, as opposed to postal workers.

So in other words, you are unable to determine a fair wage that doesn't involve unions in one way, shape or form. Is that what you are admitting too? Because so far, all you have done is waffled on my challenge with alot of empty hot air. If you are unable to come up with some way to determine a fair wage that doesn't involve unions, just say so...

No, this is Loonbox's version of "logic" which, according to his signature, ought not be considered schizophenic and thus ought to be considered "just." In other words, he ridiculed himself.

Isn't it? Do you have a better way or determining a fair wage that doesn't involve unions in any way, shape or form? If you do, why not put that on the table so we can all examine it.