[NDP Saves Northern Community]

Oh MY! Thank the Lord for the NDP. Oops most NDP being anti-God, that would be contradictory!!

The world is a better place because of 2 NDP MP's! LOL

You show your lack of intelligence. We should be thankful that there are people looking out for the public welfare. These guys are heros.... And your party.... doesn't have any at the moment.....

[the conservative cult]

It's not surprising at all.  If you weren't dumb enough to fall for the "I'm going to make it..." dream, you'd see that Conservative policies hurt the masses (including you), and help a very limited few... They're easy to spot... they're the ones who don't need any help.... 

I'm one of those who doesn't need help. That doesn't mean I'm rich. It means I'm okay. I manage to support myself. That, no doubt, is your idea of "the affluent few". I'm white, straight and middle class.

Affluence has to do with finance... not your sexual status, skin colour, or religion. I understand English... I guess that's another difference between us...

The NDP despises me and all the others like me. Given the chance they'd take the money I work so hard for and distribute it to the lazy bums on welfare who dropped out of school to do drugs, and to every ethnic, racial, sexual, feminist and left wing wacko lobby group that holds out its hands.

Maybe you should seek help.... professional help.... for that persecution complex...

The party that seems to fit the "hate" bill best is the homophobe party who wants to discriminate against people based on sexual preference, and take away what little support ther is for "welfare bums"...

[the conservative cult]

The big catch in all of this, is that the existing right-wing policies of the Conservatives will help to prevent you from ever getting to the space where Conservative policies will help you.

This, of course, is nonsense. What have the Liberals brought us? Cutbacks in health care at the federal level, massive tax increases at the provincial level. No improvement in services of any kind. Bigger government, bigger bureacracy, corruption, dishonesty and lies - less services. It wasn't the tories who made it almost impossible to collect UIC even while increasing UIC payments to the point it became a major tax grab. Now I have to pay a special "health premium" at the provincial level for the same lousy health care services, even as the provincial Liberals drastically increase spending in every conceivable area.

Ontario... I know about that... Mike Harris, our last Tory premiere

1. Mike Harris cut taxes ...big time... by $14 billion dollars.

- They cut hospital services to pay for it

- They made other medical services "pay for", to pay for their tax cut.

- They cut education funding to pay for it

- They cut welfare to pay for it.

- They cut enviromental protection to pay for it.

- They moved social services to the municipal budgets so there was more for their tax cut.

2. Mike Harris's "tax break" (for the wealthy only, as it turned out) was still $6 Billion greater than their cuts.... - They left a deficit of $6 Billion because of their tax cuts.

4. Ontario gives Harris the boot ... But the damage was not all done yet folks.....

5. We got a Liberal Conservative government in Ontario... Well... a Liberal one that refused to roll back the tax breaks for the wealthy, because apparently they are Conservatives in sheep's clothing.

- They found that they could apply a "health premium", that would be paid for mostly by the poor and middle classes.

- The cost of basic necessities like electricity have gone way up because the Conservatives sold off most of our electricity generation capabilities to cover some of the deficit they created.

- Our property taxes have gone way up to cover the cost of social services, moved out of the provincial budget's jurisdition and into the municipal budget....

So the Tory Tax cuts have actually raised taxes for the poor and middle classes, and dropped them for the affluent... True to Tory policy.

[Kashechewan]

The Layton-NDP-Left still believes that having more government bureaucrats will solve the world's problems.  And on paper, it may look good.  But in practice, Kashechewan is what happens.

The Layton-NDP believes that the government's responsibility is to put the priorities of the people first, not just their corporate friends.

Helping these "indians" isn't going to buy them votes, or get them on a corporate board of directors when they are done their term in office, so why would they help them... Except that they've been publicly exposed... and now McGuinty can put on the tears of sorrow for what's happened to these nice "indians".

This is a classic example of government failure.

It is, and for the reasons that I have outlined, rather than those you have supposed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

err, you still don't get it.

What corporations influenced the bureaucrats in Indian and Northern Affairs to forget about the priorities of ordinary people?

I fear the day that I "get" your ideas, August....

My point was that the native Canadians are not a high priority with our govenment (until this recent exposure), and have not been. I was not pointing at the department of Indian and Northern Affairs... I was pointing at the leadership. Our government officials are steered by big business... their policies, spending, etc..

You can argue that I am paranoid about the intentions of our leaders. Then, take a look at our past leaders and see how many boards of directors the now sit on... They are influenced by business, and you'd have to be really really ignorant to think otherwise....

Indian and Northern Affairs has an annual budget of almost $10 billion or about almost $8000 for each registered Indian.  Surely not all of that money goes to corporations.

I never did suggest that this money is going to corporate interests, and it is your deceptive nature to try to pin this position on me.

Your use of statistics to deceive is also well known (like trying to state that California has less murders than Ontario, when actually it has 250% more murders than Ontario). So what percentage of natives that are supported by these programs are "registered".... and what are the real numbers...

And then we must (if we are responsible) ask ... how much is needed ??

Where exactly is this money being spent ??? (at least 15% on lawyers re. land claims)

And then why don't we compare these numbers to how much is spent on us white folk....

err, you seem to have the belief that if we change the politicians, we'll solve the problem.  Layton is honest and cares about people whereas Martin or McGuinty are greedy and dishonest and in the pockets of corporations.

In fact, Layton - despite any good intentions he may have - won't make a difference.  To use a word that you might understand, the problem is systemic.

... The Cult of Impotence.... You are obviously a defeatest, or at least are promoting a defeatist attitude because you don't want to see another approach tried...

If the public believes that all parties are impotent to effect necessary change, then they don't have to do it... However, if the public demands change, it can get it...

err, the Left always has solutions - on paper.  And when the solutions don't work in practice, the Left always has X, Y, Z reason to explain the failure.  On paper, it looks great and equitable to let competent government bureaucrats make decisions in the interest of all.  In practice, you get Kashechewan.

And how is this any different than the Right ????

The Left in other countries has understood this basic lesson, and so the Left elsewhere refers to making government smaller but better, lowering taxes and so on.  Layton and the NDP appear to be old-style, "tax and spend", big government Leftists.

If you are referring to England, Tony Blair's government is not the "left"....

If you endorse the defeatist attitude espoused by the Conservative party, the Fraser Institute, et al, that helping the poor doesn't help the poor (and so on), then you accept the failure of government to represent its people. ...

So lets not vote for the kind of government that will fail us....

[Harper=Problem, Not Solution]

Unfortuneately for the conservatives under Harper, that is not the case. He caters to the small conservative ideologue section of the party. Most conservatives themselves would consider themselves to be progressive. Makes one yearn for the old PC party..but thats another thread!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem for the Cons under Harper is that the Liberals have inaccurately, and unfairly painted him as beholden to the social conservative side of the party.

The biggest barrier to his being re-elected is that people see him as a right-wing Alliance Party redneck Conservative. (which is what he is, and an image that he's trying to shed) ... anti-gay, homophobic, let-the-rich-rule politics. They can modify their "official platform" to try to appeal to a more moderate public, but thankfully, Harper can't pull it off....

The big bad wolf is trying to dress up in grandma's clothing now, but we've watched him getting dressed, and we know that it is still the big bad wolf.... Little Red (Liberal) Riding Hood isn't going to be fooled this time.

[the conservative cult]

Back to the original post:

i have been asking myself this question for some time. why do 'conservatives' who are not part of the aristocracy (ie. rich and/or powerful) follow without reasoning on their own behalf?

Why has it not occurred to you to also question why wealthy individuals from privileged backgrounds should want support socialist causes? Is this not also inherently illogical?

Speaking for myself (and having little or no money, in terms of accumulated wealth) I support "conservative" causes because I believe in every man's right (wealthy or otherwise) to make a life for himself without worry that some cadre of mindless do-gooders will take it all away in the name of "progress" or "justice".

I know a lot of people with just this sentiment... They live in semi-affluent neighbourhoods, wear nice-looking suits, and always have big blue signs on their lawns come election time. I think their, (and your) sentiments extend a little further than what is audibly uttered. The big underlying theme appears to be "When I make it big, Conservative policies are going to be the ones that will really benefit me..."

The big catch in all of this, is that the existing right-wing policies of the Conservatives will help to prevent you from ever getting to the space where Conservative policies will help you.

In all of the major Conservative governments that we (Ontarians) have had to suffer over the past decade or two, they all promised "lower taxes" so we'd have a "few extra bucks in our pockets", etc... However, when they implemented their policies, things turned out that way for the affluent... and the majority of the population..... ended up with less services and less money in their pockets.... (because they were actually paying more taxes to offset the tax savings of the affluent). With Brian Mulroney, that was certainly the case. With Mike Harris, that was unquestionably the case...

It's interesting that those on the left would slander me as "selfish" for this belief, especially when the typical leftist view (like yours) is that someone in my position should support leftist causes because they tend to promote my own individual increase.

It's not surprising at all. If you weren't dumb enough to fall for the "I'm going to make it..." dream, you'd see that Conservative policies hurt the masses (including you), and help a very limited few... They're easy to spot... they're the ones who don't need any help....

You might as well say "I support the Conservatives, because when I win the lottery, their policies will really help me".....

[Harper=Problem, Not Solution]

And i think the biggest thing that stops the conservative party from attaining anythign is the perception, right or wrong, that Harper is a moralist leader and he will pass moral based laws. If people want advice on morality, they will go to their teacher, parents, pastor, reverend or what not. They most certainly do not look to political leaders for moral guidance.

George Bush won as a moralist leader, who would pass moral based laws. Both Bush and Harper seem to be on the same page on a lot of issues, including gay marriage and abortions...

Except that Bush's "morals" see no problems with killing tens of thousands of Muslims for oil... Maybe Muslims don't count because they aren't as moral as Christians... I don't know, but those kinds of morals aren't my kinds of morals.... Nor Ontario's kinds of morals... I don't trust the "high moral postion"... and neither do a lot of people...

[Canadians fighting in Iraq...]

Not a single one of those nations can provide the US with wood in a significant way, of them only Russia has a significant supply of lumber and they are literally surrounding with growing economies on all sides who will demand it including the worlds largest economy, the EU.

It's WOOD. It grows everywhere. The only reason more isn't being farmed elsewhere is because there isn't a market for more. Have us stop exporirting to the US and suddenly there's a massive market, and the world will respond. Meanwhile, we'll be coping with forty percent unemployment.

Your head must be full of wood, Argus. Read your post again. There isn't a market for it ??? ... the world will respond....

[Canadians fighting in Iraq...]

As to my desire to "free Canada from economic dependence" its practical rather then ideological. The US star is setting, this is obvious to every non-US, non-sycophantic observer. When the US ship starts to sink it will have a very significant drag on other economies in direct proportion to the level of integration. Therefore why exactly would any sane person not argue for increasing separation between us and them?

The US does not need water, has enormous reserves of natural gas, and can buy wood from any number of our competitors, including Brazil and Argentina, Russia, the nordic countries, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. Canada is the largest producer of uranium, about 1/3rd, but there are other suppliers, including the Australians and Russians.

The US does need water, and will increasingly need water in the future. Which is why they have been working so hard to secure rights to Canadian water for the last 10 years. The issue is not that the US can't simply clean there water, its that this will have rapidly increasing price issues and the fact that there are some contaminants which are virtually impossible to remove fully. Drinking water is a strategic concern for the US.

Canada supplies 95% of their natural gas.

[NDP Saves Northern Community]

Again, Howard Hampton is more ignorant, opportunistic and selfish than every conservative in the Province combined.

The only rednecks I see are the uneducated, selfish yokels voting "me first!" when they vote NDP. The entire province would be like that hellhole reserve if we put Howard and his merry band of self-centred, deluded fools in charge.

The more you talk, the more of a moron you show yourself to be.

How is helping a community from being poisoned being "opportunistic and selfish". I understand that it is not in the nature of people who vote Conservative to want to help people, other than themselves, so maybe that explains your stance....

[Kashechewan]

Why should good decent Conservative Canadians want to give them money for booze... they don't contribute to OUR society, don't build factories and roads... A good Conservative government should not have the public looking at these poeple's condition in case some riduculous "lefties" would want to give them handouts...

err, you completely miss the point.

My point is this this is what happens in practice when people depend on far-away government bureaucrats to make critical decisions.

It appears that it is you who completely miss the point August.

Did their being a long distance away make it take two years to penetrate the Liberals' brains when they were informed of it.... When they were informed over and over again... Distance wasn't the issue at all.

The Layton-NDP-Left still believes that having more government bureaucrats will solve the world's problems.  And on paper, it may look good.  But in practice, Kashechewan is what happens.

The Layton-NDP believes that the government's responsibility is to put the priorities of the people first, not just their corporate friends.

Helping these "indians" isn't going to buy them votes, or get them on a corporate board of directors when they are done their term in office, so why would they help them... Except that they've been publicly exposed... and now McGuinty can put on the tears of sorrow for what's happened to these nice "indians".

This is a classic example of government failure.

It is, and for the reasons that I have outlined, rather than those you have supposed.

[Kashechewan]

You are correct in that, BHS. I believe, though, that it was the only deliberate incident. Also, it was a "military" affair. It was given to a tribe allied to the French.

Eureka,

You seem like you might be the sort to enjoy this book. It was my original introduction to the biological warfare on the North American natives, although it was not the topic of the book, and only mentioned in the book in a few places...

Note that the date of publication is 1791. (It is a searchable PDF book)

It is an absolutely fascinating read... Published in 1791, entitled "Voyages and Travels of an Indian Interpreter and Trader"

Voyages and Travels of an Indian Interpreter and Trader (1791)

[Kashechewan]

I think this is the case on many reserves in Canada. There still exists a dictatorship on many of these reserves. The chief and his cohorts have the cash, while the rest tend to suffer. Corruption on reserves is nothing new. As far as this reserve, they seemed to have screwed the pooch on their outdated water & sewage systems, but whose fault is it? Did they have no government cash? Or did  the chief have the cash, but not care??

Ignorance abounds.....

Dictatorship... you mean "Chief", they way it always was with the natives...

It's awful how they "screwed the pooch"... and didn't take the thinly spread handful of dollars they were given to turn the toxic waste dumps they were given to live on into fertile farm land....

They have somewhat of a distinct society on reserves today and the only time they look to the government of Canada is when they need a hand out. Noone from the Liberal government has ever cared to do anything about any of this.

True... They're almost as bad as the Conservatives.

In the interest of human rights, I guess we should keep feeding them money and not expect them to be accountable for the way they spend the money!! (I am thinking from the left side now!)

Why not truly help them, whatever that entails, rather than just say... "I threw money at them"...

[The Lively Seven fight the Steelworkers Union]

The only thing I get from err is that people are complete idiots and need to be told what to do by either the government or a union.

Maybe cybercoma has trouble understanding if there aren't nice colour pictures accompanying the text.

Oh and btw, the Bay/Zellers is unionized and they're not treated any better now that the CAW is representing them.  They didn't get a pay increase, they still work sundays and holidays, etc...

Unions have nothing to offer retail.

They do, and you'd be a fool not to think so... but then again...

In the retail sector, the trend has been to keep employees as "temps", so they can keep their wages down. This also allows the companies to undermine the solidarity between the full-time and temps. The CAW is trying to make changes in this area, to bring up the wages of the temps, extend benefits to temps, and also to have the companies recognize senority rights of employees when it comes to scheduling....

Unions definitely have something to offer employees of retail companies. They have an uphill battle, but somebody has to represent them...

[NDP Saves Northern Community]

Since when is the welfare of a community living on an Indian reserve the responsibility of the Provincial government? Can you point out the Ontario Government website where this responsibility is pointed out, because I sure as hell can't find it. Everything I read points back to the Feds. Thanks in advance.

PS - Howard Hampton doesn't know his ass from a fishing hole full of tainted water.

I think that Howard Hampton is the only decent, honest political leader in Ontario. His statements from the above quote say it all. I have re-quoted him, and put the "really important parts" in bold letters:

Mr. Hampton cut deep. Don't tell me about the Constitution, the former NDP attorney-general said. 'Yes, there is a constitutional responsibility, but there's also something called the ethical responsibility of government,' he said. Mr. McGuinty hung his head, looking almost as uncomfortable as he does whenever he is reminded of his pre-election promise to extend support for children with autism.

If you and your Conservative party think that we should just ignore the plight of our neighbours because it isn't "our responsibility", remind me not to vote for the party comprised of, and for selfish, ignorant rednecks.

[Kashechewan]

Why did these people have to relocate?  Why do we now hear about this place?  Why are they dependant on a government announcement?

These people are the decendants of the once proud people who ruled this land. Their forefathers were mostly killed off with some of the earliest cases biological warfare that were not taught about in our grade schools. The "white man" brough presents of small-pox infected blankets (whose previous owners were deceased) to the natives. This was a regular practice, and the illness could not be attributed to the white man. The majority of North American natives died from this.

What was left of these once proud people were corralled into "reserves" that the new white rulers were nice enough to give them, and get them out of sight (and mind) of good decent white folk. They weren't allowed to live their old lives of hunting and fishing, as that wasn't going to go on in white man territory, especially as the white man got to pick the "prime land" that they were allowed to live on... Not being able to go back in time, they became dependant on the white man...

Canadians are rich but some Canadians live in the Third World. Why? This disaster is entirely of government making.

Why should good decent Conservative Canadians want to give them money for booze... they don't contribute to OUR society, don't build factories and roads... A good Conservative government should not have the public looking at these poeple's condition in case some riduculous "lefties" would want to give them handouts...

McGuinty tried to ignore them (The Kashechewan band), when it was brought to their attention thrice over the past two years... (documented well in the Toronto Star). It was the NDP that brought their plight to light, so that something could be done about it. The Toronto Star

(See thread I started yesterday on the same topic http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...ndpost&p=74159)

[Canadians fighting in Iraq...]

Drivel. Sellers always need buyers more than the reverse. The US can buy whatever it buys from us on the world market. We cannot find other buyers for our goods so easily, except, of course, for the oil and gas.

Really?

So they can get:

a) oil

water

c) gas

d) wood

e) uranium

and 95% of their supply of natural gas ....

[NDP Saves Northern Community]

This week, the Liberals can hang their heads in shame. They had been warned repeatedly over the past few years that something was horribly wrong with the water on the Kashechewan First Nations reserve on James Bay. They just kept ignoring it. Thanks to NDP MPP Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay) and NDP MP Charlie Angus, the plight of the First Nations people has finally gotten public attention... And something has been done...

"Mr. Hampton cut deep. Don't tell me about the Constitution, the former NDP attorney-general said. 'Yes, there is a constitutional responsibility, but there's also something called the ethical responsibility of government,' he said. Mr. McGuinty hung his head, looking almost as uncomfortable as he does whenever he is reminded of his pre-election promise to extend support for children with autism.

Thankfully, there's someone looking out for the people of the province...

[Mike Harris did nothing wrong.]

GST is a bad choice... because only citizens pay GST... Companies effectively do not pay a cent of GST.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Theoretically, taxing corporations makes no sense. If they turn a profit, that profit will either go to the investors - who should be taxed - or is put back into the enterprise to expand it and thus create more jobs for more citizens.

Perhaps we should only tax the money if it leaves Canada in the form of return on investment to foreign owners, or investments in foreign enterprises.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like the Tobin Tax ??? Taxing monies that leave the country could be a good idea... The NDP thinks so...

The investor class largely escapes taxation on their profits. They have so many tax shelters, that our tax system is not really progressive, as it would appear if you were to read the tax schedules. For example, you can say that the rich spend more, so they pay more GST... However, when they spend, they do through their businesses, and hence, pay no GST...

In the '50s, Corp. Canada paid 50% of taxes in Canada... Now they pay less than 20%.... I think it shouldn't be too big a problem to raise the corp tax rate to that of the USA, and we'd have billions more in revenue....

[Mike Harris did nothing wrong.]

It's amazing how some of you only look to one source of funding.. How about reducint our country's corporat tax cuts so that Canadian companies pay the same taxes as American companies... And take your surplus funding from there.....

If Canadians really want public money to support the third world then it should come from taxes paid by everyone like the GST. But we both know 90%+ Canadians would tell you to screw the 0.7% target if that require raising the GST to 9%.

GST is a bad choice... because only citizens pay GST... Companies effectively do not pay a cent of GST.

[The Lively Seven fight the Steelworkers Union]

....They all got jobs in a non-union "shop", ie; the bank branch in which they are currently employed.

When they were looking for employment, did they only look in "non-union" shops, or were they happy to be gainfully employed....

It seems that they were happy to be gainfully employed in a non-union environment.

But when looking for employment, would they have been happy to accept employment in a unionized "shop"... (I know you cannot possibly answer for them, but it does bring up a question) Most people are reluctant to have any kind of change forced upon them, myself included...

Their "shop", as you call it, voted AGAINST inclusion in the union. 100% against.

There is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide, so why should all branches in a particular region be forcibly included???

I think you said that you were from Sudbury... Maybe it wasn't you, but anyways, Sudbury voted NDP in the provincial election. They voted differently than the majority of the province.... Why then must they have to endure a Liberal government in Queen's park..... You said that there is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide... so why should all branches be forcibly included.... Maybe it is unionized "region-wide"...

Yes, I'm from Sudbury.

Well, I didn't vote NDP. Not really a good analogy. I've never read or heard where a vote for unionization was either a provincial or a national election or again, that Quebec Wal-Mart could have claimed their results dictated that Wal-Mart should be unionized Canada-wide.

Did the bank "offer" to unionize nation-wide. I would hardly think so.... so I would imagine that there was a great deal more pressure on the company that a few nickel-belt branches.... The documentation that spawned this thread was clearly one-sided, and most of the people participating in the thread, the same.

Oh, I'm no Wal-Mart fan. Believe me, I avoid the place like the plague. Rather pay slightly higher prices elsewhere and support local business. Whenever possible, I buy Canadian-made.

But for purposes of this thread, establishment of the union did the EMPLOYEES no favour.

I would argue that unionization of Wal-Mart nation-wide would be an excellent thing for the nation... in many ways. The first, and most obvious, is that their employees would have to be paid reasonable wages (and maybe get to shed those God-awful vests)... However, it would force a price adjustment, which would allow Canadian, local businesses to thrive in the same community. Instead, now when Wal-mart moves into your town, tons of jobs are lost at other stores, businesses close down, and lots of people get minimum wage jobs at Wal-mart... But do the N minimum wage jobs at Walmart fully replace the income to the community of the M jobs that were lost....

And if unionization nation-wide made them pull out of Canada completely, that in itself would be a positive thing for Canadian businesses...

Unions are not "Bad" in and of themselves. I agree that IN THE PAST unions did much to improve working conditions, protect workers, etc.

But today, in a lot of cases (not all), unions have simply become huge political machines which often bargain from an unrealistic standpoint.

Air Canada workers, demanding more when their employer is on the verge of bankruptcy.

Auto Workers doing the same when the Big 3 are on the ropes financially.

And one of my favorites involves the Steelworkers here in Sudbury....

Several years back (late 80's??? early 90's???) they went on strike against INCO.

They were screaming that because INCO was making record profits, they should be sharing more of the booty.

Then, late 90's, when INCO was in HUGE financial trouble because of their investment in Voisey's Bay, and the lack of return on that investment due to roadblocks with NFLD, same union went on strike, again demanding big pay raises, job security, etc.

Now keep in mind that INCO workers are generally straight out of high-school into a $60k/yr job for doing very little work other than avoiding the shift boss.

In fact, INCO employees have a joke that their job is "A grand a week for hide and seek".

One fellow I know boasted about how he liked the graveyard shift because he'd get a solid 6 hours of sleep on that shift, more than he'd get at home.

Unions, when doing their jobs, are a good thing, but when playing politics, which seems to happen most of the time, are not good at all.

I agree in principle with much that you say here. There is good and bad with every organization. Without the unions, however, there would be more of the bad than the good for Canadian workers.

When you listen to the news, how many of the stories that you hear are good, heartwarming stoies... Maybe one story at the end of the newscast about saving a kitten stuck in a tree, but overwhelmily, news is "bad news". When you hear stories about Microsoft, Exxon, or General Motors, they are usually "bad news" stories. Similarly, when you hear stories of unions, you only hear the bad stories. The noise about the good stories should be deafening, but we don't hear it... It is the nature of humans... Then, when you get a few extreme-right-wing wing-nuts latching onto these few negative stories, they paint the whole lot (everything about unions and what they do) as bad, bad, bad... When absolutely no balance can be found in their arguments, you have to question their motive, sources, intent, and quantity of brain cells...

Overall, I support unions, but not blindly. I think if you are to balance the good and bad, the good is overwhelming...

[The Lively Seven fight the Steelworkers Union]

The union (UFCW) attempted to put a union into place to serve the empoyees.... who are paid slave labour rates...  Actually, it did the town a favour... If you'll hunt through previous Wal-mart threads, you'll see how the community subsidizes Wal-mart and their slave-labour practices

Err,

Would you actually address the arguments Rocket raised. There are thousands of TD Canada Trust branches in Canada. The UFCM arbitrarily decided that the Lively branch should be included in the union against the wishes of its employees at that branch! How is that fair or reasonable? It is as logical as the UFCW saying that the TD Canada Trust head office in Toronto is now unionised because a few branches in Sudbury signed union cards.

I think the "Lively 7" article stated "The majority of employees in the company voted to join the union". It seems surprising to me that "a few branches in Sudbury" constitutes the "majority of employees" outlined in the "Lively 7" article. Your blatant alteration of the facts does not make your point credible... au contraire ....

I do believe that I addressed PocketRocket's arguments. Perhaps my response wasn't exactly what you wanted to hear....

Furthermore, let's assume that the union actually negotiates an increase in wages that is large enough to replace the cost of union dues and, as a result of the higher costs,  the bank decides to reduce hours or close the Lively branch altogether?  How is the union doing the town or the current employees a favour? 

Are they under-paid... over worked... treated unfairly... Is there some reason that the union had no trouble getting "the majority" of employees to endorse the union.... Maybe there are problems in this workplace that inspired the majority of employees to vote as they did. Maybe there is no problem with wages, but rather with something else... You have jumped the gun and assumed that the union is after raises.... are they ??? Do you know, or are you just shooting your mouth off .... "

You are living in fantasy land if you believe that the union could get a wage increase AND have no reductions in staff or hours.

And again, do you know that the union is asking for a wage hike, or are you just shooting your mouth off because you can....

[Mike Harris did nothing wrong.]

Dear err,

Thankfully, we have our social safety net, or this could easily describe Canada as well.

I'll agree with you on this, but some have turned the 'social safety net' into a hammock.

I'm impressed that you have chosen to quote me on this matter. If you'll look at the posts that this wording came from, you'll see that I said something like... "We shouldn't take down the social safety nets that are there for the millions because of the small percentage that choose to use it as a hammock"

Canada has avoided the dire poverty of other countries, mainly because we are 'resource rich', but also because of good work ethic (or the resources would lie fallow).

And without the social safety net, you'd see a heck of a lot more slums in Canada... higher crime, etc...

Even though I am a 'leftist', I have to agree with Renegade...

I would certainly advocate reforming the welfare system, however increased funding is not a position I would advocate.

and, cybercoma....

When did having money become a right? Cash is earned, through hard work.

Our society chooses to have compassion for those who have been unfortunate. There is a small percentage of "leeches" to use one of Cybercoma's terms, that throw a negative light on a small section of the programs. However, it should be difficult not to see that these programs are overwhelmingly good programs that most Canadians support. I would rather see the programs continue with a minor parasite problem than to remove the program for all that need it.

I do not object to reforms that will prevent some parasite problems, as long as they do not hurt those who really need the system.

I work in one of the worst neighbourhoods in Calgary, and I see what welfare 'with no strings attached' does. It is appalling. I also advocate a reform (not abolishment) of our 'social safety net', WITH strings attached, (work for welfare eg.).

And if you go to ANY city in the USA, you will see appalling living conditions in slums that should break your heart.... Given the choices between the two, I would prefer see what you see in Calgary...

[Mike Harris did nothing wrong.]

I also agree with Jack Layton that upping our foriegn aid to the levels recommended by prior Canadian prime ministers would be a good idea.

So you support increasing the GST to 9%? That is what it would cost to donate 0.7% of our GDP to foriegn aid.

It's amazing how some of you only look to one source of funding.. How about reducint our country's corporat tax cuts so that Canadian companies pay the same taxes as American companies... And take your surplus funding from there.....

[The Lively Seven fight the Steelworkers Union]

Good morning, ERR.

With all due respects, there is much I must address in your post.....

Free the Lively Seven

Their unanimous opposition didn’t matter to the Union or the CIRB. There was no vote. There was no hearing – just the way unions like things to go.

The CIRB forced unionization on these women in their workplace because over 50% of employees in eight branches in and around Sudbury signed union cards.

They aught to check the definition of UNANIMOUS!!! If the MAJORITY of employees wanted to join the union, it is a bit of a stretch to say that seven (out of hundreds) constitutes a MAJORITY. It is a bastardization of the truth.... no... it's an outright LIE.

This argument does not hold water. Consider the recent attempts to unionize a branch of Wal-Mart in Quebec (I forget the name of the town).

Notice I said "A branch".

If a single branch of a large corporate business can unionize, then by the same logic, a single branch can choose to NOT unionize, unless the employer itself has determined that ALL her "shops" are to be union-run.

In this particular bank branch, 100% of the employees were AGAINST unionization.

It's awful how slave labour hates unions, isn't it....

These courageous women want the law to protect their Charter Right to Freedom of Association, which includes the right to freely choose to associate with a union -- or NOT!

They can look for a job at a non-union shop if they don't want the rights and benefits that the union will guarantee them.....

Which is exactly what they did. They all got jobs in a non-union "shop", ie; the bank branch in which they are currently employed.

When they were looking for employment, did they only look in "non-union" shops, or were they happy to be gainfully employed....

Their "shop", as you call it, voted AGAINST inclusion in the union. 100% against.

There is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide, so why should all branches in a particular region be forcibly included???

I think you said that you were from Sudbury... Maybe it wasn't you, but anyways, Sudbury voted NDP in the provincial election. They voted differently than the majority of the province.... Why then must they have to endure a Liberal government in Queen's park..... You said that there is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide... so why should all branches be forcibly included.... Maybe it is unionized "region-wide"...

Consider the aforementioned Wal-Mart branch in Quebec. The workers unionized. Wal-Mart immediately closed the branch down, throwing ALL the workers "out on the street". Please explain to me exactly how the union protected these employees???

The union (UFCW) attempted to put a union into place to serve the empoyees.... who are paid slave labour rates... Actually, it did the town a favour... If you'll hunt through previous Wal-mart threads, you'll see how the community subsidizes Wal-mart and their slave-labour practices.

PocketRocket,

I can empathize with your tales of woe. Just because the unions were unsuccessful in the cases that you have described does not make unions "bad" or "wrong". The number of cases where the unions have improved working conditions, protected workers in various ways far exceeds the few negative stories that are sure to exist.

err.