Bryan

137 page document where the other outlets refer to THEMSELVES as the Consortium, and go into detail confirming almost everything the Sun had been saying all along.

The numbers are easy to find. When federal conservative parties have been swept from power, the votes went to the liberals and to other conservative parties. In 1993 for instance, when the PCs totally collapsed, the NDP had LESS voters than in the previous election and LOST 35 seats.

Provincially, yes, federally, no.

It was widely reported at the time. http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/19/media-consortium-takes-on-tories

If police are really going to interpret "causing a disturbance" that literally, they'll have to cancel all public sporting events and concerts in perpetuity. Lots of yelling, singing, etc going on at this events, much of it quite loud.

Meanwhile, in the real world: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tories-deny-plan-to-use-hate-crime-laws-against-israel-boycotters-1.3069723

The phrase. The people shouting it and interrupting an interview are doing it wrong though. You're supposed to slip it in when asked a question on live TV. This is how it's done (language warning):

It absolutely IS the norm for most jobs that you actually want to keep. They're not cliche's at all. My personal experience with unions is THE reason why I'm against them. I've seen them in action up close, and I'm disgusted with what I saw. This was one MGEU site and one CUPE site. If you haven't experienced it, then you're probably one of the dead weights that the other guys were protecting.

And that attitude is why unions need to be broken. Eventually they will be. Right to work is coming.

So there's no reason to oppose letting people negotiate their own terms then?

That was one of the things that really turned me off of unions: I was cornered once and told in no uncertain terms to slow down. I was getting done by tuesday what was supposed to take at least the whole week, if not longer. And I was NOT trying to work quickly by any stretch. The one that really turned me off of them forever though, was when I was reprimanded for cleaning up my own mess when I spilled a coffee. Not for spilling it, for CLEANING IT UP. That, you see, was another union member's job, and I was "stealing" work from him.

I'm in publishing now, but I'm talking about ANY job. Even my 21 yr old kid negotiated his salary and compensation for his current job. It's the norm, not the exception. Unions steal that opportunity from you, and it absolutely should not be legal for them to do so.

A good example would be garbage collection here in Winnipeg. There absolutely were growing pains when it was first contracted out. A private company doing a job that had always been public, it's to be expected that they might not be able to hit the ground running. But the contract reflected that probability, and included penalties for late or missed pickups. That meant that as the private company was ramping up to be able to do the job effectively, the cost to the city got less and less. So much so that, at one point private company was paying the city rather than the city paying it. That gave the private contractor some serious motivation to get more efficient and fix the problems so that they could actually get paid for the job. Now, the collection is like clockwork. It's far more reliable than the city collection ever was. The real bonus is, if the private company balks at what they're offered when the contract is up in 5 years, the city is allowed to see if anyone else will do it for that price.

That isn't true at all. Every non-unionized job I've ever had I was asked how much I wanted, and we negotiated from there. It was only in the union jobs where the salary was non-negotiable.

CBC is like the Onion, only less funny. You can't quote them and expect anyone to take you seriously.

And it absolutely should. This country desperately needs right to work legislation. It's ridiculous that I "have to" join a union if I want to accept a job that someone who is NOT in the union is offering me. Those two should have no connection whatsoever.

You should.

I don't even think that whether the workers want an alternative or not is the issue. More important is do the taxpayers, the ones who have to pay for it, want an alternative? The public sector is simply not the same as the private sector, the same union rules and/or laws should not apply. Maybe if the two sides are at an impasse, instead of arbitration, it could go to a referendum.

Those same businesses that are really picky about the appearance of their staff are often also picky about the appearance of their clientelle. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is just a starting point, some are even pickier than that. And it's perfectly fine for them to do so.

Obviously not. If you had, you'd have a list. If you really "went back through the whole thread" you know that other people raised that point, not me. But since you're actually talking about something specific this time, I'll address it: You can "denounce" the gender discrimination all you want, it still completely voids your entire argument because it's true whether you like it or not. If you really read the thread, you'd also know that I did comment on the attempts to dismiss the point by trying to claim that gyms aren't open to the public. Like I said, it's a distinction without a difference. They absolutely are open to the public, anyone can walk in and pay to use the treadmill without buying a membership. Pay for a wedding, pay for a workout, it's all serving the public.

Their website very clearly spelled out that substantial tax increases are the primary plan. But oh, look, they've pulled the whole platform from their website: http://www.albertandp.ca/platform Isn't that convenient.

Slow down. They're not anywhere near that bad.

I really feel bad for Alberta. They have no idea what a huge mistake they've just made.

It might be what matters to you, but a 13% increase in the amount I have to pay matters more to me. Matters to a lot of other people too.

I wasn't, but I hadn't thought of it that way until Argus pointed it out. Now that I see his logic, I most certainly will be calling out any change in tax rates in that manner from now on.