Evening Star Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 When they embrace property rights and the right to work, they may have a slim chance You're hoping for the NDP to embrace right to work legislation?? The Conservatives don't even openly advocate that yet... Quote
Jack Weber Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 When they embrace property rights and the right to work, they may have a slim chance Embrace RTW... Why would anyone embrace the Right to Work for less and the "individual freedom" to choose to be poorer??? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
eyeball Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 How are the "conservatives off their leash"? The leash is still there, it's just utterly and completely in conservative hands now. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bloodyminded Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 I get a chuckle over the whole thing, my advice to the NDP, be prepared to be painted with a hidden (socialist) agenda and <insert country’s name> style polices.. And that would be different from what folks have been saying about them for decades...how? Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
eyeball Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 I'm reminded of how the Tories reformed themselves back into Tories. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 Embrace RTW... Why would anyone embrace the Right to Work for less and the "individual freedom" to choose to be poorer??? Because your option is incorrect. When I worked at a union shop, the union made me poorer...although the shop stewards made more money by double dipping, I helped end that for them. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 Embrace RTW... Why would anyone embrace the Right to Work for less and the "individual freedom" to choose to be poorer??? Because your option is incorrect. When I worked at a union shop, the union made me poorer...although the shop stewards made more money by double dipping, I helped end that for them. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Evening Star Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 Because your option is incorrect. When I worked at a union shop, the union made me poorer...although the shop stewards made more money by double dipping, I helped end that for them. I don't have statistics on hand right now but I'm a little sceptical that right-to-work legislation has generally made workers better off in the jurisdictions where it was applied. (Fwiw, my experience in non-unionized vs unionized workplaces is the opposite of yours. Your experience may indeed be broader though.) Be that as it may, even if you're right, I still don't think the route to power for the NDP lies in abandoning everything they ever stood for and embracing RTW and constitutional property rights... Quote
Jack Weber Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) Because your option is incorrect. When I worked at a union shop, the union made me poorer...although the shop stewards made more money by double dipping, I helped end that for them. My experience has been the exact opposite... Non union barns,in my experience,are the lowest paying,more unsafe,and,most unfair workplaces I have had the misfortune to be employed by ... There is no evidence to support your misguided theory that RTW will make things better for working people,mainly because it's deliberately designed to produce the opposite effect under the guise of "individual freedom"... RTW is designed to financially break the backs of individual union locals through deliberately unfair represntation rules.The ultimate goal of RTW is'nt the sacrosanct nature of the individual in the workplace...It's to keep wgaes and benefit plans (and health and safety) deliberately and artificially low... Ask yourself this... Why would groups like the NAM care,or need to care,about individual worker and workplace rights if their is no mechanism to collectively fight back against it's membership? And furthermore,why do these corporate champions of "individual freedom" require the dreaded groupthink of collectivism to further their individualistic RTW cause? Edited June 18, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
cybercoma Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 That would be a great idea if individuals actually had the freedom to negotiate their contracts with their employer. Most people without a union are told what they will make with no room for negotiations whatsoever. Quote
Battletoads Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 That would be a great idea if individuals actually had the freedom to negotiate their contracts with their employer. Most people without a union are told what they will make with no room for negotiations whatsoever. Bingo. Most Cons are staunchly anti-worker, thus they push for these kinds of changes using their typical weasel language. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
CPCFTW Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 That would be a great idea if individuals actually had the freedom to negotiate their contracts with their employer. Most people without a union are told what they will make with no room for negotiations whatsoever. They do have that freedom. But if the individual is not valued or does not possess any unique knowledge or skills, the company has the freedom to hire someone who will work for the wage they have set. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 They do have that freedom. But if the individual is not valued or does not possess any unique knowledge or skills, the company has the freedom to hire someone who will work for the wage they have set. Everyone has unique knowledge or skills. Even retail, which allegedly you can pull anyone off the street to do, takes a particular kind of person to do well. You ever watch Judge Judy, Jerry Springer or Maury? The people on those shows buy stuff and they need service. I don't care what anyone says about "unskilled" labour. It takes a particular personality, in other words very particular skills, to be able to be able to do well at those jobs. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 And that would be different from what folks have been saying about them for decades...how? The difference between then and now is quite clear, then they were a fringe party (like the early Reform Party) now they’re ~60 seats from forming the government. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 I'm reminded of how the Tories reformed themselves back into Tories. My point exactly, and as "Reformed former Tory, Tory", the parrells are quite similar….my advice, follow our political playbook… Quote
Jack Weber Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) They do have that freedom. But if the individual is not valued or does not possess any unique knowledge or skills, the company has the freedom to hire someone who will work for the wage they have set. It's been my experience that the "fair" wage any company sets is far below market value for any trade... It always becomes evident during the collective bargaining process... Edited June 19, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
RNG Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 It's been my experience that the "fair" wage any company sets is far below market value for any trade... It always becomes evident during the collective bargaining process... If it's far below market value, then they won't get any employees. Unless you have redefined market value. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
CPCFTW Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) Everyone has unique knowledge or skills. Even retail, which allegedly you can pull anyone off the street to do, takes a particular kind of person to do well. You ever watch Judge Judy, Jerry Springer or Maury? The people on those shows buy stuff and they need service. I don't care what anyone says about "unskilled" labour. It takes a particular personality, in other words very particular skills, to be able to be able to do well at those jobs. How old are you? Have you worked a day in your life? This type of idealism can only come from a young sheltered kid who has never lifted a finger in his life. Yes, you can pull anyone off the street to work in retail. Almost everyone in Canada had their first job working in retail or some other unskilled labour. Everyone is unique and therefore possesses unique knowledge and skills, but not everyone's uniqueness is valued by a business. Someone might have unique skills at playing video games and a profound knowledge of movies, tv shows, actors, and other celebrities, but that doesn't mean that a company has to value those skills and knowledge when negotiating salary. FWIW, the retail associates that actually possess unique interpersonal skills and persuasion/selling ability (and that can handle those "Maury" customers) can do very well for themselves. They can move to a job that provides better sales commissions, and eventually move into management or salaried sales positions outside of retail. Edited June 19, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote
bloodyminded Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 That would be a great idea if individuals actually had the freedom to negotiate their contracts with their employer. Most people without a union are told what they will make with no room for negotiations whatsoever. Yes, and I've had just this discussion...in which I'm informed that "negotiating contracts" means you are free to take or not to take the job. This specious argument is rather in opposition to the spirit of what "negotiating contracts" really means. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bloodyminded Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 If it's far below market value, then they won't get any employees. Unless you have redefined market value. Wrong (and Jack Weber is probbaly right). If people need work, and need a paycheque so matter what it is, they aren't going to refuse low wages because of some magical "hidden hand" dictating what is "fair." Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bloodyminded Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 The difference between then and now is quite clear, then they were a fringe party (like the early Reform Party) now they’re ~60 seats from forming the government. Oh yes, I get that part. I'm just wondering how some ideologized blowhards calling them "Soviet commies," or some such eminently mock-able nonsense, is different from what these blowhards have always been doing. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Jack Weber Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) Oh yes, I get that part. I'm just wondering how some ideologized blowhards calling them "Soviet commies," or some such eminently mock-able nonsense, is different from what these blowhards have always been doing. Excellent point... Ya' gotta love the "holier than thou" self righteousness of the con advocates... Edited June 19, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Topaz Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Minister James Moore came out against the NDP about their dropping 'socialism'. I guess he forgotten the Reform party went from reform/alliance/conservative just to get votes because the reform name wouldn't never had allowed them to be in the PMO today. One thing aboutt eh Conservative of today, they always excuse the opposition of doing of what they have already done or doing themselves. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Heritage+minister+scoffs+proposal+drop+socialism/4970540/story.html Quote
Triple M Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Minister James Moore came out against the NDP about their dropping 'socialism'. I guess he forgotten the Reform party went from reform/alliance/conservative just to get votes because the reform name wouldn't never had allowed them to be in the PMO today. One thing aboutt eh Conservative of today, they always excuse the opposition of doing of what they have already done or doing themselves. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Heritage+minister+scoffs+proposal+drop+socialism/4970540/story.html Reformers couldn't win without Tories and vice versa. The Conservative party/Progressive Conservative party/New Conservative party has almost always been a coalition of Eastern Tories and Western reformers. Quote
RNG Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Wrong (and Jack Weber is probbaly right). If people need work, and need a paycheque so matter what it is, they aren't going to refuse low wages because of some magical "hidden hand" dictating what is "fair." You just made my point. What the market will pay, what they are being offered, is the market value. What is "fair" is just the opinion of each of us. My opinion is that the market value is the fair value. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
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.