pinko

CN ands CP are similar as far as the work environment goes. Old habits die hard.

There is data about compliance levels.

A better work environment is strictly a matter of perception. If an employer has the resources to move to a new location and hire new employees (something missing in your first scenario) that is quite another matter.

That is the cross we old farts have to bear...bare

You might ask yourself why a union and it's members would want a new organization. If there is an agreement in place there would be no incentive for the union to open up the contract. The managment rights you describe are always qualified by the specific terms of the collective agreement.

Here is what you said previously: "Another idea might be to set up a new organization within the organization that has a mandate to improve efficiency. Put those who want real change into that group, and seed it with new hires from the union/non union world." Apparently you haven't fully understood the successor rights and common employer concept. Where do you live? If you live here in Canada there should be literature available through a google search. Get back to me when you have figured this part of the equation out and then we will get into obligations created upon union certification.

I am in agreement with you that outsourcing and contracting out may be used interchangeably. I am quite familiar with the supermarket example and even recall being part of an arbitration panel where that was an issue.

I am not here to educate you. What I will say though is that once a collective agreement is in place both parties recognize that during the term of that agreement it remains in full force and effect. Prior to the nominal expiry date either party may give notice to commence collective bargaining with proposals being exchanged with respect to the terms and conditions of a prospective collective agreement. Under such circumstances there would be nothing preventing an employer from attempting to introduce a different method of compensation. If the union negotiating committee had a mandate to consider such a plan and provided it met the needs of the union membership at large and was ratified then certainly that may transpire. If, however, it was perceived to be not in the best interests of the union or its's memebership then obviously it wouldn't fly.

I take it you mean moving the jobs offshore when you refer to outsourcing.

Tim: It looks like Molly provided a link for you.

Perhaps you will provide some examples. There are certainly many, especially in the public sector, that would suggest something contrary to what you suggest.

I don't know what universe you live in but what appears evident from your posts is that you aren't familiar with legal obligations in a unionized workplace.

That's nice but globalization and outsourcing are two different themes.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with successor rights and common employer provisions in most labour codes.

Not at all. I am stating, as a matter of fact, that nurses and other healthcare practitioners are in high demand in British Columbia and that the business wants to retain a stable and well qualified workforce. As a former union representative I am well aware of the consequences of outsourcing. Outsourcing is quite often not cost effective should a business decide to go in such a direction. There are many examples of this should you decide to explore it further.

"Court time and enforcement time costs taxpayers money at an alarming rate. If the issue is a very big deal (a big enough deal for the state to consider stripping one or the other parent of parental rights) then it is worth that investment to get the situation settled. If it's not- if it's just a matter of convenience and or pettiness, with the arrangement otherwise endorsed by all parties, then why the heck should the state be involved? |Why should the state be mediating personal squabbles between people don't appear to particularly want it settled and who 'game the system'?" The logic in your comments escapes me. The court system is in place to address disputes with respect to the law. In this case we are speaking about the interpretation and adminstration of family law and although far from perfect it provides an orderly process upon which to adjudicate (not to be confused with mediate) disputes.

"And the rights of both need to be protected unless that wrong is a criminal wrong. Not to mention that the child themselves would almost always benefit from having significant involvement in their lives from two (non-criminal) parents." Throughout your posts you seem to be implying a systemic imbalance in custodial arrangements. Why have you brought the element of criminality into the equation?

I would imagine my son and his partners are interested in areas of cost savings in running their business. In addressing the issue of technology my intent was to place the focus on the healthcare field. I am not in a position to say with or not the equipment required for the clinic results in a cost saving or not. The individuals employed in this enterprise are in high demand so, on the labour cost side of the ledger, it is essential to provide competitive wages and benefits to attract and retain employees. In such a business I don't see outsourcing as a viable option.

I actively opposed the FTA from the outset. It was a great deal for corporations and a lousy deal for many others.

"At some point the decision was made that the "market place" should be a global in scope instead of national. Business leaders wanted it because they could increase profits... consumers wanted it because they could have cheaper goods and services. I was and still am very suspicious about the whole idea to be honest." I don't recall anyone seeking my input on globalization. Those decisions were made by the political and business elite. For the most part consumers were sold a bill of goods by those implementing these so called trade agreements ceding sovereignty and allowing large corporations extensive rights to the exclusion of the ordinary citizen.

jbg: The games people play aren't confined to females when matters of custody are involved. As you must know from your experiences as a lawyer the main problem in many of these cases is one of communication. If the adults involved in these disputes would only focus on what is in the best interests of the child the situation you describe above would happen with less frequency. That adults will spend thousands of dollars on lawyers rather than attempt to find mutually suitable solutions which recognize the needs of all concerned is a sad commentary on human nature. I think Molly has, in her tongue in cheek retort, summed things up quite well.

"Pinko was asking for examples of goods going down over times. Technology and machinery goes down in costs over time, and outsourcing is only part of that." I was however the observation advanced suggests that the technological change you refer wouldn't necessarily result in lower costs over time.

You seem like a good story teller. Don't let me interfere with your fantasy.

You are mistaken if you think that is the only remedy available.

Your anger is showing through, sir. The process available provides redress whether you acknowledge that or not. Certainly there are ways to frustrate the process but that does not mean what you present is valid.