bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 None to YOU, you lost the jobs either way... NO wait, there is, you used to be able to get the HELP you were seeking in a language you could understand... Indian-English and Irish-English (et al) not so much... I can understand them just fine....better than some Canadians! Works for me as long as it's a two way street... Wait? Let me think? That's RIGHT! YOU guys were COMPLAINING about that very thing about China! Whatta ya know... It came back to bite Americans in the ass... Again...I helped to do that with technology transfers to China back in the 1990's. Shanghai was an air polluted pit, but they were eager to learn and make BIG MONEY. I'm just saying there ain't nothing special about keeping jobs in Canada or the USA over Mexico. Remember Mexico....yea...they are part of NAFTA too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I guess you can make up whatever you want...it's your class warfare game. It's not class warfare. I have nothing against the rich - or the poor. But I do have a sensitivity to fairness and bullying, and don't like the idea of greed to the extent already wealthy people will do anything they can, screw over as many people as they can in hopes of squeezing a few extra pennies into their already bulging coin purse. But I don't classify the serfs and the kings. What do you think "rich people" do in Canada? Should I be "offended"? That your value system does not embrace fairness to the same extent mine does is not an issue which needs discussing. It doesn't really matter in the end....the Americans will decide what is to be. You seem to have a problem with that. Why? I've noticed this patented response before. You spend more time on this site than anyone else, offering up your opinions, often unflattering, about Canadian political and social issues, then get indignant and defensive whenever people comment on American issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I'll agree with you as long as you agree that your doctor should have the right not to be a member of the A.M.A., and your lawyer has a right not to belong to the Bar Association.....let them have free choice too! Are you suggesting that the free marketeers don't follow the "What's good for the goose,is good for the gander" approach to collectivism??? Are you suggesting that the NAM is an organization with like minded people,with it's members paying fees (lets call them "dues")...And those "dues" go to fund PAC's to bend the ears (see financially incentivise) sympathetic politicians (like,for example,Scott Walker AND the governor of Ohio) to enact legislation groups like the NAM would be amenable to??? Would'nt this cozying up by groups,like the NAM,to certain politicians be described as ...What's the phrase???? Symbiotically incestuous...Would it??? I forgot...It's all about the "freedom"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) It's not class warfare. I have nothing against the rich - or the poor. But I do have a sensitivity to fairness and bullying, and don't like the idea of greed to the extent already wealthy people will do anything they can, screw over as many people as they can in hopes of squeezing a few extra pennies into their already bulging coin purse. That your value system does not embrace fairness to the same extent mine does is not an issue which needs discussing. I've noticed this patented response before. You spend more time on this site than anyone else, offering up your opinions, often unflattering, about Canadian political and social issues, then get indignant and defensive whenever people comment on American issues. I love it when the free marketeers...The useful idiots of the global elite...play the "class warfare" card... Classic... "Let "freedom" reign!!!" Edited February 23, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 It's not class warfare. I have nothing against the rich - or the poor. But I do have a sensitivity to fairness and bullying, and don't like the idea of greed to the extent already wealthy people will do anything they can, screw over as many people as they can in hopes of squeezing a few extra pennies into their already bulging coin purse. So you are Robin Hood...from across the border? The same xenophobe who would do exactly that to "poor immigrants"? You are not being very consistent. That your value system does not embrace fairness to the same extent mine does is not an issue which needs discussing. When "fairness" means you not only want to disenfranchise people of their earnings (rich or poor), but to do so with no respect for another nations democratic processes is worth discussing. I've noticed this patented response before. You spend more time on this site than anyone else, offering up your opinions, often unflattering, about Canadian political and social issues, then get indignant and defensive whenever people comment on American issues. It's a tough job, but somebody has to keep the smug Canadians in line. Plus it is such great fun. The difference is, I don't really give a damn what you do in Canada, but you and your ilk go bug-f**k over what happens in America. I wouldn't be here if you didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures, states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises. They tend to have workplaces where personnel decisions are made on the basis of seniority, not merit. There is little relationship between excellence and reward, which leads to resentment among taxpayers who don’t have that luxury. [/indent][/indent] These truths must be addressed. What truths? i didn't read any above. Parhaps you'd be willing to point out any I missed? you can start with any evidence "that states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises.". Unless, of course, you'd like to admit that ALL states have run into fiscal crises, and those crises rarely have much to do with them having unions for their public servants. Certainly Wisconsin's doesn't. Then you can show me where its the fault of unions for asking for benefits or raises above the norm - and getting them, and not the fault of incompetent, spineless governments - you know, the ones those taxpayers elect to look after their interests. Remember that every one of those states has always had the ability to say NO if the demands are unreasonable, and then to legislate strikers back to work. If you have a weak, spineless government (See Dalton Mcguinty) then yes, the unions are going to get just about whatever they want, so the answer is for people to stop electing incompetents to office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 So you are Robin Hood...from across the border? The same xenophobe who would do exactly that to "poor immigrants"? You are not being very consistent. First, I'm not phobic of anything or anyone and I'll thank you to keep your personal sneers and innuendo to yourself. My wanting to cut back on immigration has absolutely nothing to do and no comparison with my belief that rich people in a society ought not to be preying on poorer people. When "fairness" means you not only want to disenfranchise people of their earnings (rich or poor), but to do so with no respect for another nations democratic processes is worth discussing. This web site is for discussing a variety of political and social issues, be they immigration in Canada, revolutions in Egypt, earthquakes in New Zealand, or corruption and greed in the United States. I don't feel the need to answer to you because you don't like commentary on one or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) First, I'm not phobic of anything or anyone and I'll thank you to keep your personal sneers and innuendo to yourself. My wanting to cut back on immigration has absolutely nothing to do and no comparison with my belief that rich people in a society ought not to be preying on poorer people. You are what you post...and if I am an American prick...you are a Canadian xenophobe. You just said that opinions are to be welcomed...why so defensive all of the sudden? This web site is for discussing a variety of political and social issues, be they immigration in Canada, revolutions in Egypt, earthquakes in New Zealand, or corruption and greed in the United States. I don't feel the need to answer to you because you don't like commentary on one or the other. Then don't answer....but if you pitch such opinions based on class warfare and anti-American sentiment, don't be surprised if it gets blown back in your face. Americans of all stripes know who and what they are, and don't need Robin Hood of the North to protect them from "rich people". Edited February 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Right to Work!!!! FOR LESS!!!! http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/stateissues/work I suspect the usual free marketeers will say this is"biased and unbalanced" because it comes from the AFL/CIO website,however,2 of the 3 citations come from the US Dept.of Labour... How 'bout that "freedom" to be poorer,have less coverage,AND,be more likely to be dismembered and/or killed on the job?? Gotta love that type of "freedom"... Edited February 23, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Are you suggesting that the free marketeers don't follow the "What's good for the goose,is good for the gander" approach to collectivism??? Are you suggesting that the NAM is an organization with like minded people,with it's members paying fees (lets call them "dues")...And those "dues" go to fund PAC's to bend the ears (see financially incentivise) sympathetic politicians (like,for example,Scott Walker AND the governor of Ohio) to enact legislation groups like the NAM would be amenable to??? Yes, and I could add Chartered Accountants to that list of professional guilds that work similar to closed union workshops...where the union has the control over hiring. A lot of chartered accountants have an army of C.G.A.'s who have to do most of the actual work....just like a lawyer can have legal assistants doing his work for him. But CEO's need these union members, so they never extend that concept of "free choice" to the union members that they depend on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Perhaps you should get acquainted with modern history prior to the era when collective bargaining and the right to form unions were legalized. It hasn't always been the case, and your laissez-faire "let the market decide" ideology was the way things were done throughout the Industrial Revolution until 100 years ago. Right, a period of unprecedented growth, wealth-creation, and technological innovation. If it was such a good system, why didn't it bring a share of the profits to the workers in those factories? A share of the profits? How about keeping everything you earn, as well as holding dollars with much higher purchasing power? Now that we are in a situation again where trade unions have lost members and lost power, and the rich have been the only ones who have increased income over the last 20 years, A consequence of increased government bureaucracy, not the opposite. a lot of people are finally waking up to the fact that they allowed themselves to become too complacent now that "free enterprize" has taken us back to the income disparity of the Guilded Age. We are nowhere near an economy that adheres to the idea of "free enterprise"...we live in one of the most controlled economies in history. You want to talk about income disparity? The rich getting richer? You need only look at the size of the public sector, and the revolving door that is the corporate world, and the legislators who sit in Ottawa and Washington, D.C.. It might be convenient for you to blame our current economic troubles on "free market" ideology, but it only serves to show how clueless you are. Government subsidies and regulation have taken risk out of the market place, and allowed a wealthy few to exploit a much poorer many. You want equality? Sure, we all do...and greater equality is achieved through freedom. Greater government control means less freedom and leads to the kind of extortion we see going on with public sector unions, i.e. the teachers in Wisconsin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 "Greater government control means less freedom and leads to the kind of extortion we see going on with public sector unions, i.e. the teachers in Wisconsin." A lot of hyperbole but no facts to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Right, a period of unprecedented growth, wealth-creation, and technological innovation. A share of the profits? How about keeping everything you earn, as well as holding dollars with much higher purchasing power? A consequence of increased government bureaucracy, not the opposite. We are nowhere near an economy that adheres to the idea of "free enterprise"...we live in one of the most controlled economies in history. You want to talk about income disparity? The rich getting richer? You need only look at the size of the public sector, and the revolving door that is the corporate world, and the legislators who sit in Ottawa and Washington, D.C.. It might be convenient for you to blame our current economic troubles on "free market" ideology, but it only serves to show how clueless you are. Government subsidies and regulation have taken risk out of the market place, and allowed a wealthy few to exploit a much poorer many. You want equality? Sure, we all do...and greater equality is achieved through freedom. Greater government control means less freedom and leads to the kind of extortion we see going on with public sector unions, i.e. the teachers in Wisconsin. You're not a WRAP lovin' Albertan,are you??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I am wondering if you could identify the "we" you speak for. Your post seems to infer you are not only speaking for yourself but others. It might also be helpful and a benefit to others for you to indicate your background. I do think your faith in the so called free market is misplaced. I take the position there is no such thing as a free market. "We" as in Canadians. No such thing as a free market? You're right, there is no such thing in Canada...at the moment. That will change... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) "We" as in Canadians. No such thing as a free market? You're right, there is no such thing in Canada...at the moment. That will change... Your pro-corporate blathering does'nt speak for this guy,chief... Your version of "freedom" does'nt jive with mine... Edited February 23, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Thank you,Mr.Right To Work for less!!!! Just because your union fights for you to make $15/hour (for example), does not mean the labour you provide, the skills (or possible lack thereof) you possess, are worth that amount. Unions over-value inferior workers, and under-value superior ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Just because your union fights for you to make $15/hour (for example), does not mean the labour you provide, the skills (or possible lack thereof) you possess, are worth that amount. Unions over-value inferior workers, and under-value superior ones. I don't share your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 ....Unions over-value inferior workers, and under-value superior ones. Agreed....unions and closed shops inflate their undeserved wages right out of the market, to the point where they have the right to sit home without any job at all. Right to work, even for less, is better than no work at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Agreed....unions and closed shops inflate their undeserved wages right out of the market, to the point where they have the right to sit home without any job at all. Right to work, even for less, is better than no work at all. There are very few so called closed shops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 There are very few so called closed shops. Why are there any at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Just because your union fights for you to make $15/hour (for example), does not mean the labour you provide, the skills (or possible lack thereof) you possess, are worth that amount. Unions over-value inferior workers, and under-value superior ones. Bullshite... And I suppose you think management would be fair...Just out of the goodness of their compassionate heart... Who would choose to live in an RTW "paradise" if one knew the facts about that "freedom"? And as far as my skills go...I'm vastly underpaid in my union shop... We could,quite rightfully,demand more!!!! We choose to take a little less to assist the company get contracts..Yeah...We're anti company.... Edited February 23, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 There are very few so called closed shops. True!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Why are there any at all? If you follow the history of unions and their origins in Britain you will be better able to address the issue. The majority of collective agreements don't require memberhsip as a condition of employment. Some here have conflated the payment of dues with the closed shop concept. Edited February 23, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 If you don't need a union, then don't join one. Many have determined that they do need them, and this unfair action is proof of that. Many people wind up working in unionized positions because it comes part and parcel with the job they've applied for. The public sector does not need a union...nor should it be allowed one. These powerful unions that "protect" civil servants are the same ones that help get the legislators they "bargain" with elected...it's a huge conflict of interest. Unfair? It's unfair that the WI governor stop the practice of public sector unions extorting taxpayers for higher pay? If things were fair education would be entirely private, and the taxpayers would be left out of this mess. Unions are legally entitled to bargain for their members so your opinion here - while valid - doesn't really add anything to the topic at hand. The governor is working to take that legal entitlement away...so my endorsement of that action is entirely valid. And given that it appears most of the voices here are in favour of the union, my dissenting voice adds plenty. Unions aren't going to be outlawed, so as long as we have them they are entitled to the rights granted to them under the law. Private sector unions won't be outlawed...nor should they be. Public sector unions will be outlawed eventually as our debt crises worsen. You can't get blood from a stone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 "Many people wind up working in unionized positions because it comes part and parcel with the job they've applied for." Exactly and when one accepts employment is such an enterprise one must accept this as a condition of employment. Your comments about public sector unions is patently absurd and lacks a factual basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.