punked Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) That's what I said... Please try and keep up... No you said he wanted to do what the Indiana AG called for which was to remove the protesters from the capital by force and open fire on those who wouldn't leave. Edited March 1, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 No you said he wanted to do what the Indiana AG called for which was to remove the protesters from the capital by force and open fire on those who wouldn't leave. AND this - - "Keep your boots polished, Jack. I heard a union leader calling for some blood in the streets the other day." - - is what Jack said "same as" to... AND what my post referred to... Caught up now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 That is the fallacy of RTW... 1.That workers are forced to join any union...They are not! 2.That RTW is about "individual freedom"...It is not!! It's about a divide and conquer method used by employers to maintain,(or regain) the power and control dynamic in the workplace... There is a power and control dynamic in the workplace, is there Jack? The workers want power and the capitalist owners want power. So that is what capitalism is all about maintaining power and control in tthe workplace and all that labour wants is some of that power and control. But it isn't about the money...just a fair share of the profit and the shareholder value. And,of course,it's about money...And in the private sector,that means profit and shareholder value... The point about the scheme of RTW is to break the financial backs of individual union locals through legislated forced representation of non dues paying members... Oohhh.....and not about having a choice to join or not join a union? In otherwords,"Free Ride" employees benefitting from representation,but never paying for it.. "Free ride" employees.....but they do have the choice to not join, right? Didn't you just say that no one is forced to join a Union? What's a closed shop? I think if you want to be an actor in order to work you have to join ACTRA. RTW in order to be right has to be about the collective good; not individuals, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Looks like the party is over in the USA. It happened with manufacturing with too high of wages due to economic conditions before the recession partly caused by union influence. Now with states in financial difficulty costs need to be cut and this is a step in doing so. The working class in the USA took too much and now the gap between the US and china has resulted in outsourcing. Its just simple economics at work. What I find amusing is that 2 dictators fell in the middle east by just using facebook and 0 dollars, yet unions and their cohorts feel they need to soak taxpayers, customers and shareholders in order to run their organizations and feel they must force workers to join them or it goes to pot. What's even more funny is unions complaining about their constititional rights, yet they won't respect the right of people who might not want to join them at the workplace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Looks like the party is over in the USA. It happened with manufacturing with too high of wages due to economic conditions before the recession partly caused by union influence. Now with states in financial difficulty costs need to be cut and this is a step in doing so. The working class in the USA took too much and now the gap between the US and china has resulted in outsourcing. Its just simple economics at work. What I find amusing is that 2 dictators fell in the middle east by just using facebook and 0 dollars, yet unions and their cohorts feel they need to soak taxpayers, customers and shareholders in order to run their organizations and feel they must force workers to join them or it goes to pot. What's even more funny is unions complaining about their constititional rights, yet they won't respect the right of people who might not want to join them at the workplace. Tell me more about how the working class "took too much". Wow seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Tell me more about how the working class "took too much". Wow seriously? Compared to their counterparts in emerging markets, the working class in USA became entitled and too expensive. Same goes with Europe. At the end of the day, simple economics is saying that work can be done cheaper elsewhere and the american economy is adjusting to that reality. In canada we can get away with it because we produce commodities that are in high demand from those places with cheap labor. However, canada does imort overseas workers that work cheaper than canadians. This isn't the 1950s anymore, the rest of the world wants our way of life and are sacrificing in order to get it The question in manufacturing is how bad do you want a job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Compared to their counterparts in emerging markets, the working class in USA became entitled and too expensive. Same goes with Europe. At the end of the day, simple economics is saying that work can be done cheaper elsewhere and the american economy is adjusting to that reality. In canada we can get away with it because we produce commodities that are in high demand from those places with cheap labor. However, canada does imort overseas workers that work cheaper than canadians. This isn't the 1950s anymore, the rest of the world wants our way of life and are sacrificing in order to get it The question in manufacturing is how bad do you want a job? Thank you for admitting that free market economics IS nothing more than a race to the economic bottom for most of us while a few at the top do very well,thank you... Because all I get out of your lengthy diatribe is that we need to live more like the..What/who is it?? Vietnamese??? Burmese? Bangladeshi?? Where should we approximate our standard of living in the West to satisfy this spectacular vision of free market shareholder value??? Up or... Down? 'Cause it's all about the "comptetition" and "productivity",right?? Edited March 2, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Thank you for admitting that free market economics IS nothing more than a race to the economic bottom for most of us while a few at the top do very well,thank you... Because all I get out of your lengthy diatribe is that we need to live more like the..What/who is it?? Vietnamese??? Burmese? Bangladeshi?? Where should we approximate our standard of living in the West to satisfy this spectacular vision of free market shareholder value??? Up or... Down? 'Cause it's all about the "comptetition" and "productivity",right?? The world is a far richer place than it was twenty years ago. The income gap between emerging markets and the rest of the world has shrunk dramatically. Because overseas workers are willing to work, they are the new fast emerging middle class which is a large contributing factor to sky high gdp growth in bric countries. Free market economics is not a race to the bottom, its the most efficient way of getting better off. Unfortunately for north american wage earners they screwed themselves. If people in north america are too dumb to get in the commodity business or price themselves out of work, they deserve what happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 The world is a far richer place than it was twenty years ago. The income gap between emerging markets and the rest of the world has shrunk dramatically. Because overseas workers are willing to work, they are the new fast emerging middle class which is a large contributing factor to sky high gdp growth in bric countries. Free market economics is not a race to the bottom, its the most efficient way of getting better off. Unfortunately for north american wage earners they screwed themselves. If people in north america are too dumb to get in the commodity business or price themselves out of work, they deserve what happens You keep telling yourself that... One of the best moments on TV last year was watching our heor,Kevin O'Leary,get absolutely owned by Leo Gerrard on the Lang and O'Leary Exchange... It had to do with the ridiculous demands of Brazilian mining company Vale on the workers on strike in Sudbury... O'leary,being a clueless Free Marketeer,basically used the rationale you've just used.. Gerrard calmly struck back and asked O'Leary if he knew what Vale wrokers in Brazil recieved as a wage and benefit package... O'leary,being a Vulture Capitalist,knew absolutely nothing about it at all.. Gerrard said,the Vale workers in Brazil,doing the same job as the workers in Sudbury,get the equivalent of $250 a week and a food voucher for a local grocery store... He then asked O'Leary if that was what he felt Canadian workers should do to "compete" with Brazillian workers.. All your hereo could do was offer up a feeble grin on an otherwise dopey look on his face..Because he had obviously been had!!! And the answer O'Leary did'nt have the guts to say...And the one you have skirted around (not shockingly) this ,as well is that... This is EXACLTY what the free marketeers think!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) There is a power and control dynamic in the workplace, is there Jack? The workers want power and the capitalist owners want power. So that is what capitalism is all about maintaining power and control in tthe workplace and all that labour wants is some of that power and control. But it isn't about the money...just a fair share of the profit and the shareholder value. Oohhh.....and not about having a choice to join or not join a union? "Free ride" employees.....but they do have the choice to not join, right? Didn't you just say that no one is forced to join a Union? What's a closed shop? I think if you want to be an actor in order to work you have to join ACTRA. RTW in order to be right has to be about the collective good; not individuals, right? Absolutely... Capitalism is about the consolidation of economic power... The Labour Movement stands as a (correct) check on that power...It's supposed to! And if it's not about money being the physical manifestation of that power and control dynamic,please look up wage and benefit disparities in RTW states as opposed to Free Collective Bargaining states... Then check out the liklihood of severe injury and death in the workplace in those RTW states as opposed to Free Collective Bargaining states... Your last statement proves you have little,to no grasp at all,as it relates to labour legislation.. My suggestion is that you look up the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 as it relates to the legality of Closed Shop... Then look up "Union Shop" provisions... Then look up "Agency Shop" provisions... Then look up "Open Shop" and "Right to Work" legislation... The "Free Ride" label applies to RTW legislation where a non dues paying employee is still legally entitled to representation...So much so that that non dues paying employee can legally sue the union local for lack of representation!! Seeing as you know about these things,could you elucidate for us all the cost of one (1) Grievance Hearing?? (By the way,that would be the 3rd step if the 3 step dispute resolution process...But you knew this,right?) How much does a Binding Arbitration hearing cost??? (Here's a hint...It's pretty pricey!!!) In Ontario,we have a quasi "Union Shop" provision that allows members to have their dues go to charity if they have an objection to representation.However,this is done under the understanding that if they require representation against the employer,they are on their own! The union local is not on the hook for it at all!!! That's the essential difference between RTW and "Union Shop/Agency Shop" provisions...RTW is designed to break the financial backs of individual union locals through allowing "Free Ride" members... "Union Shop" and "Agency Shop",which we find in Free Collective Bargaining states and most provinces in Canada,allows for an individual to "opt out" and designate his/her dues to the charity of their choice,but they are not entitled to representation... Edited March 2, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Absolutely... Capitalism is about the consolidation of economic power... The Labour Movement stands as a (correct) check on that power...It's supposed to! And if it's not about money being the physical manifestation of that power and control dynamic,please look up wage and benefit disparities in RTW states as opposed to Free Collective Bargaining states... Then check out the liklihood of severe injury and death in the workplace in those RTW states as opposed to Free Collective Bargaining states... Your last statement proves you have little,to no grasp at all,as it relates to labour legislation.. My suggestion is that you look up the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 as it relates to the legality of Closed Shop... Then look up "Union Shop" provisions... Then look up "Agency Shop" provisions... Then look up "Open Shop" and "Right to Work" legislation... The "Free Ride" label applies to RTW legislation where a non dues paying employee is still legally entitled to representation...So much so that that non dues paying employee can legally sue the union local for lack of representation!! Seeing as you know about these things,could you elucidate for us all the cost of one (1) Grievance Hearing?? (By the way,that would be the 3rd step if the 3 step dispute resolution process...But you knew this,right?) How much does a Binding Arbitration hearing cost??? (Here's a hint...It's pretty pricey!!!) In Ontario,we have a quasi "Union Shop" provision that allows members to have their dues go to charity if they have an objection to representation.However,this is done under the understanding that if they require representation against the employer,they are on their own! The union local is not on the hook for it at all!!! That's the essential difference between RTW and "Union Shop/Agency Shop" provisions...RTW is designed to break the financial backs of individual union locals through allowing "Free Ride" members... "Union Shop" and "Agency Shop",which we find in Free Collective Bargaining states and most provinces in Canada,allows for an individual to "opt out" and designate his/her dues to the charity of their choice,but they are not entitled to representation... An extremely well articulated position. This Pliny fellow should be grateful that you are providing him with the education he sorely needs. Edited March 2, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 I think if you want to be an actor in order to work you have to join ACTRA. That's not true. There are non-union production, and in fact this is what makes Toronto attractive to Hollywood for some productions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Most major advanced democratic countries honor collective bargaining rights of public employees. International law on the right to bargain collectively applies in both private and public workplaces. The United States championed the International Labor Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, under which the US pledged "to promote and to realize... fundamental rights" defined in the declaration, the first of which is "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining." The United States is also a party to and bound by its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees everyone the right to protect his or her interests through trade union activity. As the Human Rights Committee has made clear on multiple occasions, that includes collective bargaining. Denying the right to collective bargaining would violate this international treaty, Human Rights Watch said. Most major advanced democratic countries honor collective bargaining rights of public employees. For example, all EU countries allow public sector workers to bargain collectively. In a 2008 case, the European Court of Human Rights found that Turkey's restrictions on public employee bargaining rights violated the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the province of British Columbia to restore collective bargaining agreements nullified by legislation. By contrast, many undemocratic countries restrict or prohibit collective bargaining by public employees. For example, the Egyptian government has prohibited public sector collective bargaining. It allowed public employee unions to exist, but in name only, favoring government-controlled unions and quashing any attempt to bargain collectively. http://www.straightgoods.ca/2011/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=187 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 You keep telling yourself that... One of the best moments on TV last year was watching our heor,Kevin O'Leary,get absolutely owned by Leo Gerrard on the Lang and O'Leary Exchange... It had to do with the ridiculous demands of Brazilian mining company Vale on the workers on strike in Sudbury... O'leary,being a clueless Free Marketeer,basically used the rationale you've just used.. Gerrard calmly struck back and asked O'Leary if he knew what Vale wrokers in Brazil recieved as a wage and benefit package... O'leary,being a Vulture Capitalist,knew absolutely nothing about it at all.. Gerrard said,the Vale workers in Brazil,doing the same job as the workers in Sudbury,get the equivalent of $250 a week and a food voucher for a local grocery store... He then asked O'Leary if that was what he felt Canadian workers should do to "compete" with Brazillian workers.. All your hereo could do was offer up a feeble grin on an otherwise dopey look on his face..Because he had obviously been had!!! And the answer O'Leary did'nt have the guts to say...And the one you have skirted around (not shockingly) this ,as well is that... This is EXACLTY what the free marketeers think!!! How is that being had? If basically snapping and resorting to personal attacks is winning the argument, then I guess he won. O'leary made him snap and look like a fool to his audience, which is investors. That and kevin has to deal with time constraints and looking somewhat. professional. The wage and benefit package is irrelevant. In the end the brazilian workers can do the job at a lower cost to the company than in canada. As a result, they have jobs and aren't reduced to sitting around poor. I sppose leo didn't take into account that their salary has more purchasing power in brazil than it would in canada. At the end of the day the quality of life for brazilians constantly gets better while north america has flattened out. Would you rather see the chinese and brazilians poor for perpetuity? The world has become a big place and money follows the path of least resistance, someone else will always do it better for less. I will ask you to google dragons den vs. Hargrove. Cbc has conveniently removed it from youtube... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 we do not acknowledge you sham political system Is this the post you always make paired with your starting another atheism thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 You keep telling yourself that... One of the best moments on TV last year was watching our heor,Kevin O'Leary,get absolutely owned by Leo Gerrard on the Lang and O'Leary Exchange... It had to do with the ridiculous demands of Brazilian mining company Vale on the workers on strike in Sudbury... O'leary,being a clueless Free Marketeer,basically used the rationale you've just used.. Gerrard calmly struck back and asked O'Leary if he knew what Vale wrokers in Brazil recieved as a wage and benefit package... O'leary,being a Vulture Capitalist,knew absolutely nothing about it at all.. Gerrard said,the Vale workers in Brazil,doing the same job as the workers in Sudbury,get the equivalent of $250 a week and a food voucher for a local grocery store... He then asked O'Leary if that was what he felt Canadian workers should do to "compete" with Brazillian workers.. All your hereo could do was offer up a feeble grin on an otherwise dopey look on his face..Because he had obviously been had!!! And the answer O'Leary did'nt have the guts to say...And the one you have skirted around (not shockingly) this ,as well is that... This is EXACLTY what the free marketeers think!!! Equivalent of $250/wk? I have a problem with this statement. I could understand if it was $250/wk in US dollars but the equivalent of $250/wk in the US economy would work out to about $60US/wk. in the Brazilian economy or let's say $250/mo. and that is about $3000/yr. The average income in Brazil is around $2800/yr./capita. As a comparison the per capita income in Canada is $21,000/yr. So basically the equavilent wage of $250/wk or $3000/yr in Brazil is about $23,000/yr in Canada. Miners in Canada earn about $4500/mo or around $55,000/yr. (sound low?) so that's double the average per capita income. If in Brazil a miner is making double the average per capita income that would be about $6000/yr which works out to an equivalent of about $125/wk. Your quote is the equivalent of $250/wk or double what I work the equivalent out to be. You can't compare wages in one country with another unless you consider the economy. Throwing around statistics like that is hard to respond to unless you have the numbers available to you and you have already done the research. The cost of living in cities will vary and it is more costly than living in the country as well, There are numerous factors to include. But should we lower the wages to the equivalent of $250/wk in order to compete. If we want to compete then that's what we will have to do. Since we aren't going to do that we aren't going to compete. And that is the short answer. It must be noted that a Brazilian Company has bought the Canadian mining company INCO for several billion so they are doing pretty well. I don't imagine the workers in Brazil will bother working so they can stay poor. They are probably quite happy making what they do, although everyone in the world would like to make more than they currently make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 - everyone in the world would like to make more than they currently make. Not me... Speak for yourself please... "When we change the input into our minds, we change the output into our lives." - unknown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not me... Speak for yourself please... "When we change the input into our minds, we change the output into our lives." - unknown Maybe young Pliny lives in his parent's basement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not me... Speak for yourself please... I guess you're the one in a million exception. Because the vast majority of people would love to be compensated more for their labour. Which is totally understandable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Maybe young Pliny lives in his parent's basement. Anything is possible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Anything is possible... Who knows maybe mom and dad provide the beer. Edited March 2, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) I guess you're the one in a million exception. Because the vast majority of people would love to be compensated more for their labour. Which is totally understandable. Pliny wrote - "- everyone in the world would like to make more than they currently make." I disagree and said so... You are entitled to YOUR opinion but not mine... "What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Ralph Waldo Emerson Edited March 2, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Who knows maybe mom and dad provide the beer. It's also possible THAT could be called "contributing to the deliquency of a minor"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 It's also possible THAT could be called "contributing to the deliquency of a minor"... Young Pliny is fairly articulate so I have considered that he may be a young adult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 I disagree and said so... You are entitled to YOUR opinion but not mine... You can disagree, but you're wrong. You're definitely entitled to your opinion though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.