pinko

A read of Naomi Klein's book the Shock Doctrine reveals just how accurate she was in her predictions of the corporatist model being promoted by the conservative shills on this site. Corporate welfare is alive and well and once again the working class is paying the price.

Spoken like a true republican. By the way have you ever been a scab?

What you have down in the USA is a police state not much different than those tinpot dictatorships you support through the barell of a gun. Hypocrites is what you are chump.

"including the choice of doctors to just say no." Yes and that is done by a doctor not seeking hospital privileges if the doctor doesn't wish to exercize his/her specialist skills.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't mind having the state intervene to crush the demands of working class people. A lesson in labour history would serve you well as your reference to the 80s shows a shallow undertstanding of the subject matter on your part.

Whether in a union or not employees are entirely disadvantaged in this selective process. You seem to overlook the fact that it is the labour provided by the employees that produce the product that is the focus of the enterprise.

For the process to be entirely fair there ought to be anti-scab legislation in place. That way the economic consequences are equally shared.

Yes. Those laws allow employers such as GM to escape financial obligations as contracted in keeping with the rules of the corporate state. Of course as creditors employees are well down the list.

If you are suggesting we have not found common ground then I will agree with you. She seem unable or unwilling to get past the stereotypes you have developed. Are you married, Betsy? Do you have any children, Betsy?

And obligations taken on by GM and then reneged on by GM. A perfect example is the pension plan agreed to by the employer (GM) and then reneged on(with the approval of government) thus creating unfunded liabilities. Of course those working at GM pay taxes, consume products and provide spin off employment thus contributing at the macroeconomic level.

I don't recall you mentioning you were an immigrant and at no time have I threatened you as you seem to imply. If you are able to converse in more than one language good for you. You or your parents must have known when you came here that English was the predominant language and if you lived here as a child you would/should have learned the language. That you became a computer programmer does not, in any way, make your co-workers within union ranks any less a success than you regardless of your attitude of superiority. I have no reason to apologize to you.

Just attempting another approach to you as you seem to have taken exception to the manner in which I present my position on these topics. I have already made my point and see no reason at this time to repeat it.

Betsy: Do you have any children?

I have edited the post and no I don't agree with you.

You portray yourself as the white knight and the union and its members as the antithesis of that fantasy world you have constructed for yourself. That you went out of your way to antagonize union members at a plant you worked at suggests to me an element of bad faith on your part which had nothing to do with your supposed purity and everything to do with your own personal ambition and an apparent dislike for unions. You haven't indicated what your specific capacity was at the plant you worked at nor have you described in any detail what gave rise to the threats and damage to your property and what role you played in provoking such circumstances. That nice middle class wage you likely earned came in no small part through gains made by unions notwithstanding your perceived worth in management. As others have noted places of employment without union representation provide an environment where an employee is at the workplace at the will and pleasure of the employer or person designated to act on behalf of the employer. In each jurisdiction in Canada there are very elaborate procedures unions must follow in seeking to represent employees in a given workplace. These laws give recognition to democracy in the workplace and the wishes of the employees and also, in the formulation of a collective agreement, the countervailing power of collective action not otherwise available without a union. You may not like this in that smug complacency that you offer but this is the way it is.

Betsy: Based upon what you have posted it appears you must understand that a woman's right to choose has been confirmed in law here in Canada. I live in Winnipeg and well remember Joe Borowski's crusade as well as that of Dr. Morgentaler and the clinic he established here in Winnipeg. It is unclear to me what you are wanting to accomplish in referring to Duhaime as that article clearly establishes abortion is not a crime in Canada.

I have never met the man. He may have some redeeming qualities but if he does he certainly doesn't show them here. Just because he shows up for work and is a company man does not, in and of itself, make him a decent person.

233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed. R.S., c. C-34, s. 216. Abortion Procuring miscarriage 287. (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. Woman procuring her own miscarriage (2) Every female person who, being pregnant, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, uses any means or permits any means to be used for the purpose of carrying out her intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Definition of “means” (3) In this section, “means” includes (a) the administration of a drug or other noxious thing; ( the use of an instrument; and © manipulation of any kind. Exceptions (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to (a) a qualified medical practitioner, other than a member of a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital, who in good faith uses in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person, or ( a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical practitioner to use in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage, if, before the use of those means, the therapeutic abortion committee for that accredited or approved hospital, by a majority of the members of the committee and at a meeting of the committee at which the case of the female person has been reviewed, © has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of the female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health, and (d) has caused a copy of that certificate to be given to the qualified medical practitioner. Information requirement (5) The Minister of Health of a province may by order (a) require a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital in that province, or any member thereof, to furnish him with a copy of any certificate described in paragraph (4)© issued by that committee, together with such other information relating to the circumstances surrounding the issue of that certificate as he may require; or ( require a medical practitioner who, in that province, has procured the miscarriage of any female person named in a certificate described in paragraph (4)©, to furnish him with a copy of that certificate, together with such other information relating to the procuring of the miscarriage as he may require. Definitions (6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) and this subsection, “accredited hospital” « hôpital accrédité » “accredited hospital” means a hospital accredited by the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation in which diagnostic services and medical, surgical and obstetrical treatment are provided; “approved hospital” « hôpital approuvé » “approved hospital” means a hospital in a province approved for the purposes of this section by the Minister of Health of that province; “board” « conseil » “board” means the board of governors, management or directors, or the trustees, commission or other person or group of persons having the control and management of an accredited or approved hospital; “Minister of Health” « ministre de la Santé » “Minister of Health” means (a) in the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Newfoundland, the Minister of Health, ( in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, the Minister of Public Health, and © in the Province of British Columbia, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, (d) in the Province of Alberta, the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, (e) in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the Minister of Health; “qualified medical practitioner” « médecin qualifié » “qualified medical practitioner” means a person entitled to engage in the practice of medicine under the laws of the province in which the hospital referred to in subsection (4) is situated; “therapeutic abortion committee” « comité de l’avortement thérapeutique » “therapeutic abortion committee” for any hospital means a committee, comprised of not less than three members each of whom is a qualified medical practitioner, appointed by the board of that hospital for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital. Requirement of consent not affected (7) Nothing in subsection (4) shall be construed as making unnecessary the obtaining of any authorization or consent that is or may be required, otherwise than under this Act, before any means are used for the purpose of carrying out an intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 287; 1993, c. 28, s. 78; 1996, c. 8, s. 32; 2002, c. 7, s. 141.

Betsy: You continue to make a fool yourself. I invite you to read the actual text of the Criminal Code of Canada. Read Section 233 and then 287. Once you have done that I will post those sections and we can proceed with the meaning of these two sections.

No doubt. Maybe some cockroach spray properly applied might have been applicable. You never know when your behaviour as a scab will come back to haunt you. I would take pleasure in giving you an attitude adjustment myself if that were a suitable option. By the way my health isn't failing.

As a union rep I dealt with many a scumbag like you. With your attitude it is a wonder you weren't given an attitude adjustment. I think you know what I mean.

Don't give up your day job. Your stupidity shines through.

As a scab you demonstrated that you are a low life. Maybe you should crawl back under that rock from which you came. It is unfortunate your parents spawned such a creature. You were just one of a long line of management lackeys.

Are you currently in a unionized work environment and covered by the terms of a collective agreement?

Have you worked in a unionized workplace, Mr. Canada?