Pros and cons on 'increased' immigration.

[Canuckistani]

It's not clear to me how any of these specific points are related to immigration policies.

In fact, I would suggest to you that most of the people who despise unions are the same people who oppose increased immigration (yourself excluded, yes), through some fluke of ideological positioning.

The other points don't seem to obviously correlate, either.

I'm pro union. You probably think I'm some right winger, but I skew left a lot of the time. If unions were truly looking out for their members they'd be against mass immigration as well. Part of the decline of the union movement can be attributed to mass immigration.

As I asked carepov - 'better how?' Certainly the sectarian violence and terrorism from the Sikhs is a result of immigration in large numbers. We didn't have it when Sikhs were a small minority. Same with the Indo-Canadian gang problems. Certainly crowding and housing prices can be attributed to immigration - not everybody sees that as a bad thing, but I do.

[bleeding heart]

I'm pro union. You probably think I'm some right winger,

No, I don't; hence my parenthetical remark in my post.

Part of the decline of the union movement can be attributed to mass immigration.

How so?

[Canuckistani]

No, I don't; hence my parenthetical remark in my post.

How so?

An influx of people desperate to work and willing to undercut the unions. Also my experience is that Asians are not as familiar with the union movement and so don't support it in the same way. They are more willing to cross picket lines and don't support unions starting up in the first place. And, from what I've seen, many unions that have a large Asian component and thus Asian union leaders play footsie with employers where the union does't actually get the members any benefits.

[bleeding heart]

An influx of people desperate to work and willing to undercut the unions. Also my experience is that Asians are not as familiar with the union movement and so don't support it in the same way. They are more willing to cross picket lines and don't support unions starting up in the first place. And, from what I've seen, many unions that have a large Asian component and thus Asian union leaders play footsie with employers where the union does't actually get the members any benefits.

I can't speak to your second point, which at bottom is about cultural differences I know nothing about.

But your first point is 100% and unequivocally the fault of the employers, not of those desperately seeking work.

Why not kick out the employers, rather than the immigrants?

(I kid...but it is thei employers' fault. )

[Canuckistani]

I can't speak to your second point, which at bottom is about cultural differences I know nothing about.

But your first point is 100% and unequivocally the fault of the employers, not of those desperately seeking work.

Why not kick out the employers, rather than the immigrants?

(I kid...but it is thei employers' fault. )

I don't agree. Employer's job is to look out for their interests, unions is to look out for the workers. If the workers won't stand up, they can't expect anything better. And of course governments passing anti-union legislation play a role here too.

Obviously the decline of unions has a lot more factors than just immigration. I do think immigration, and importing a bunch of people that will take any job to try to get a start, no matter how poor the conditions, played a role in the decline of the middle class in in unionism.

[bleeding heart]

I don't agree. Employer's job is to look out for their interests,

Yes, but it's not as if they can make no choices.

Have we reached such a saturation point of ideologically-driven capitalism, that the single entity in the country who has "no choice" is the Employers?

Everyone else is responsible for their own actions, mind--including poverty-stricken immigrants.

But employers?

Nope. They can't help it. It's "just business," and that answers everything.

unions is to look out for the workers. If the workers won't stand up, they can't expect anything better. And of course governments passing anti-union legislation play a role here too.

Agreed, and agreed.

Obviously the decline of unions has a lot more factors than just immigration. I do think immigration, and importing a bunch of people that will take any job to try to get a start, no matter how poor the conditions, played a role in the decline of the middle class in in unionism.

That's because--by definition of what you say--too many employers couldn't give a rat's ass about the working conditions of the human beings in their employ.

That's a choice.

A sociopathic one, dressed up as "capitalism." And interestingly, no less a hallowed capitalist hero as Adam Smith warned presciently of just this sort of abuse by "the Masters of Mankind."

Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Canuckistani]

Yes, but it's not as if they can make no choices.

Have we reached such a saturation point of ideologically-driven capitalism, that the single entity in the country who has "no choice" is the Employers?

Everyone else is responsible for their own actions, mind--including poverty-stricken immigrants.

But employers?

Nope. They can't help it. It's "just business," and that answers everything.

Agreed, and agreed.

That's because--by definition of what you say--too many employers couldn't give a rat's ass about the working conditions of the human beings in their employ.

That's a choice.

A sociopathic one, dressed up as "capitalism." And interestingly, no less a hallowed capitalist hero as Adam Smith warned presciently of just this sort of abuse by "the Masters of Mankind."

I don't disagree with you about employers. But I don't expect better from them. If we want to contain their bottom line mentality, then people have to stand up, join a union and vote for govts that balance the interests of business and workers. Otherwise the greedy employers will always outperform the more generous ones. I believe Smith was also for govt regulation to prevent this. Capitalism is sociopathic - it needs to be restrained for the common good. Overdo that restraint and you inhibit productivity too much. Under do it and you get what we're dealing with right now. It takes a lot of intelligence to get it right, and unfortunately we don't seem to be all that smart.

[bleeding heart]

Overdo that restraint and you inhibit productivity too much. Under do it and you get what we're dealing with right now. It takes a lot of intelligence to get it right, and unfortunately we don't seem to be all that smart.

I can't argue with that.

[carepov]

Regarding the question of “is life better in Canada now compared to the good ole days?”

I think that on way we can measure “better” is through Life Satisfaction surveys:

I cannot find data from more than 10 years ago but it is hard to imagine that we could have been more satisfied with life than we are today.

“In 2008, 91.4% of Canadians aged 12 or older reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with life. This figure was almost unchanged from 2003.”

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2010001/article/11106-eng.htm

Also, “Canadians have a new reason to smile: Canada is the fifth-happiest country in the world, according to the first World Happiness Report.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/03/canada-fifth-happiest-country-report

Also, the claim that immigration lead to higher crime seems to be refuted by the fact that crime rates are dropping big time – including Vancouver:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523-eng.htm

I disagree with your opinions on Unions versus employers. I think that it is exactly this type of Us vs. Them mentality (from both sides) that has hindered growth and productivity gains in Canada. Management and unions need to work together to increase profits, productivity, employee involvement and satisfaction, safety, ensure fair wages, etc…

[Canuckistani]

They may be happy dispite immigration, since: http://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Immigration.jpg

Edited June 13, 2012 by Canuckistani

[dre]

Yes, but it's not as if they can make no choices.

Have we reached such a saturation point of ideologically-driven capitalism, that the single entity in the country who has "no choice" is the Employers?

Everyone else is responsible for their own actions, mind--including poverty-stricken immigrants.

But employers?

Nope. They can't help it. It's "just business," and that answers everything.

Agreed, and agreed.

That's because--by definition of what you say--too many employers couldn't give a rat's ass about the working conditions of the human beings in their employ.

That's a choice.

A sociopathic one, dressed up as "capitalism." And interestingly, no less a hallowed capitalist hero as Adam Smith warned presciently of just this sort of abuse by "the Masters of Mankind."

That's because--by definition of what you say--too many employers couldn't give a rat's ass about the working conditions of the human beings in their employ.

And vice versa. Most wage earners dont directly care about the companies profitability, and they dont trust the numbers given to them by management. So even though ownership, management, and labor has a naturally aligned vested interest in the companies success they end squabbling.

Heres a little anecdote...

http://www.pulpandpapercanada.com/news/the-little-mill-that-could/1000332365/

This is a pulp and paper mill close to where I grew up. Multinational owner Pope and Talbot wanted to shut the mill down because it wasnt profitable.

The mills labor union worked to get financing for a partial ownership bid, and fought P&T in court for the right to purchase the mill and keep it open. Once labor had an ownership share, and a couple of seats on the board of directors they got a look at the REAL books and immediately made concessions around things like pay and benefits. They now have a direct interest in the profitability of the operation even though the workers ownership group only has about a 15% share.

In less than a year the mill returned to profitability, and now the workers who take pay cuts are starting to recieve dividend checks as partial owners. And the mills creditors are not longer at risk of having to take a haircut through bankruptcy preceedings.

Narver, Harmac's No. 3 machine operator, is one of more than 200 longtime employees who invested $25,000 apiece in the operation as part of a bid to save the mill after it went into receivership last May.

In a move that raised eyebrows across the industry, the displaced workers secured backing from three B. C.-based investment partners and purchased the failed operation last summer for $13.2 million.

Under the name Nanaimo Forest Products, former employees pledged 25% of the purchase price, with matching investments from Pioneer Log Homes of Williams Lake, Totzauer Holdings, a Fraser Valley construction firm, and the Sampson Group, a large Calgary-based oil and gas firm.

Analysts scoffed at the proposal, suggesting the aging pulp factory needed $100 million in upgrades and predicting the province would get stuck with an estimated $50-million in clean-up costs in the event of a permanent closure.

Yet in less than four months -- lightning speed for receivership proceedings -- the employee group managed to convince the courts its proposal was the best available option for both Pope & Talbot's creditors and the community.

In October, just as the U. S. economy began to implode, Harmac Pacific reopened with 230 workers churning out between 700 and 800 tonnes of ready-to-ship pulp per day from one of the plant's three production lines.

Six months into the worst economic crisis in living memory, the worker-owned mill continues to defy the skeptics.

"I didn't think they'd make it, but it's not just me. Everybody's surprised," says Paul Quinn, a forestry analyst with RBC Capital Markets in Vancouver.

"People are astounded that the guys who are running it now can run it successfully in these conditions."

Food for thought. Perhaps every time an operation is going to close down in Canada this option should be looked at.

Edited June 13, 2012 by dre

[Canuckistani]

And vice versa. Most wage earners dont directly care about the companies profitability, and they dont trust the numbers given to them by management. So even though ownership, management, and labor has a naturally aligned vested interest in the companies success they end squabbling.

Heres a little anecdote...

http://www.pulpandpapercanada.com/news/the-little-mill-that-could/1000332365/

This is a pulp and paper mill close to where I grew up. Multinational owner Pope and Talbot wanted to shut the mill down because it wasnt profitable.

The mills labor union worked to get financing for a partial ownership bid, and fought P&T in court for the right to purchase the mill and keep it open. Once labor had an ownership share, and a couple of seats on the board of directors they got a look at the REAL books and immediately made concessions around things like pay and benefits. They now have a direct interest in the profitability of the operation even though the workers ownership group only has about a 15% share.

In less than a year the mill returned to profitability, and now the workers who take pay cuts are starting to recieve dividend checks as partial owners. And the mills creditors are not longer at risk of having to take a haircut through bankruptcy preceedings.

Food for thought. Perhaps every time an operation is going to close down in Canada this option should be looked at.

Not just when ops are about to close - may be too late by then. But if workers had a share in the operation I think it would be better for everybody - share the pain and share the gain.

[eyeball]

I would suggest to you that most of the people who despise unions are the same people who oppose increased immigration (yourself excluded, yes), through some fluke of ideological positioning.

The permutations can get even stranger than that - you also got your collective-hating, immigrant-denying people who wouldn't hesitate to bring in foreign-workers or employ sweatshops in communist countries.

[Canuckistani]

Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion about immigration policy in Canada without attributing various evil motivations to your opponents? Although I'm not even sure what immigrant denying means?

[eyeball]

Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion about immigration policy in Canada without attributing various evil motivations to your opponents?

These days? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Although I'm not even sure what immigrant denying means?

Denying an immigrant entry.

Edited June 14, 2012 by eyeball

[Canuckistani]

These days? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Denying an immigrant entry.

Canada does that every day. Is that bad?

[eyeball]

Canada does that every day. Is that bad?

I just think it's unconscionable to impede the movement of human beings in search of a better life around the world while corporations are free to roam it as if they owned the place, we're people too and we were also here first.

[Canuckistani]

I just think it's unconscionable to impede the movement of human beings in search of a better life around the world while corporations are free to roam it as if they owned the place, we're people too and we were also here first.

So you're a no borders advocate? Do you really think that can work? If we really opened our borders to anyone who wants a better life (and who can blame them), how long would life be better here? Personally I'd be more interested in reining in corporations than giving free rein to immigration.

[eyeball]

So you're a no borders advocate? Do you really think that can work? If we really opened our borders to anyone who wants a better life (and who can blame them), how long would life be better here? Personally I'd be more interested in reining in corporations than giving free rein to immigration.

Absolutely. I don't think we have a chance as a species unless we start acting like Earthlings and bloody soon. We're fast running out of runway on that file. And like you I don't think we have any business letting our corporations loose in the world without a very short leash attached to a corrective shock collar for good measure.

[Canuckistani]

Absolutely. I don't think we have a chance as a species unless we start acting like Earthlings and bloody soon. We're fast running out of runway on that file. And like you I don't think we have any business letting our corporations loose in the world without a very short leash attached to a corrective shock collar for good measure.

I think the prime directive for us at this time is "stop breeding."

[Fletch 27]

Your are aware that the top 20 Foreign Investement companies are also the largest employers in Canada right? And you will like this!!! Many of them have UNIONS!!!!!

Or should we rely on Nortel and RIM to sustain our growth and employment. (um yea).. Please, Name a large canadian employer OTHER than the ones listed below that employs over 4,ooo people..... Ya, thats right.. you cant...

Should we ask them to leave tomorrow and sustain ourselves on Farming? Whos going to pay your union dues? How would we cover education and health-care? Yes, lets step back hundreds of years...

Asia Pacific Marine Container Lines (Asia Pacific Group Canada), one of Canada's largest cargo transport companies owned by Leung Maritime Group, Hong Kong

General Motors Canada, Canada's largest automotive manufacturer, owned by Detroit-based, General Motors

Wal-Mart Canada, wholly owned by Wal-Mart of the US

Toyota Canada Inc. owned by Japan's Toyota

Ford Motor Company of Canada, owned by the American Ford company

Imperial Oil, controlled by ExxonMobil, which owns 69.8% of its stock.

DaimlerChrysler Canada owned by German-American giant DaimlerChrysler

Shell Canada, owned by Royal Dutch Shell.

British Petroleum Canada, owned by British Petroleum

Mitsui and Company, part of the Japanese Mitsui empire

Honda Canada Inc., owned by Honda of Japan

Ultramar fuels, owned by US-based Valero

Costco, whose Canadian operations are the 7th largest private company in Canada as of 2006, is based in Seattle

Labatt Brewing Company purchased by Belgian brewer Interbrew in 1995

Hudson's Bay Company, Canada's largest retailer, and North America's oldest corporation (est. 1670), sold to U.S. investor Jerry Zucker in 2006.

ING Bank of Canada, the largest foreign bank in Canada, formed by the purchase of several small Canadian companies, controlled by the Dutch ING Group

Sears Canada, one the largest retailers (created by buying old Simpson's stores), controlled by the US Sears Holdings Corporation

IBM Canada, owned by IBM

Safeway Canada supermarkets, owned by Safeway Inc.

Cargill Ltd. owned by Cargill of Minnesota

McDonald's Canada, owned by McDonald's

Pratt & Whitney Canada owned by US United Technologies Corporation

Nissan Canada, owned by Nissan Motors of Japan

Parmalat Canada owned by Parmalat of Italy (owns the Black Diamond brand)

Absolutely. I don't think we have a chance as a species unless we start acting like Earthlings and bloody soon. We're fast running out of runway on that file. And like you I don't think we have any business letting our corporations loose in the world without a very short leash attached to a corrective shock collar for good measure.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Fletch 27

[carepov]

Or should we rely on Nortel and RIM to sustain our growth and employment. (um yea).. Please, Name a large canadian employer OTHER than the ones listed below that employs over 4,ooo people..... Ya, thats right.. you cant...

Just off the top of my head without researching:

BCE

Telus

Loblaws

All five Banks

Power Financial

Tim Hortons

Canadian Tire

Bobmardier

Air Canada

CN

Maple Leaf

Surely some oil and mining companies

[carepov]

Absolutely. I don't think we have a chance as a species unless we start acting like Earthlings and bloody soon. We're fast running out of runway on that file. And like you I don't think we have any business letting our corporations loose in the world without a very short leash attached to a corrective shock collar for good measure.

I also hope that one day we will act like Earthlings. I am hopeful that we are progressing in that direction, especially when you think about Europe of the last 100 years. Today however, simply opening up the Canadian border would create chaos and be counterproductive.

Free trade and foreign investment is driving globalization and bringing us closer to the "one world utopia".

"I think the prime directive for us at this time is "stop breeding.""

Then a more specific prime directive should be "educate women".

[guyser]

Just off the top of my head without researching:

BCE

Telus

Loblaws

All five Banks

Power Financial

Tim Hortons

Canadian Tire

Bobmardier

Air Canada

CN

Maple Leaf

Surely some oil and mining companies

Wasn't that easy !

Not sure why people ask such dumb questions. Well maybe in this case I do.

[-TSS-]

The excuse of ageing population is used in all western countries to support the idea of mass-immigration. The reality is that the population has been rapidly ageing ever since the invention of contraceptive methods but none of would like to return to the days prior to contraception, would we?

Another thing is that often the immigrants may be very skilled persons but whose skils are not recognized in a western country and, as someone mentioned, they end up as taxi-drivers or flipping burgers, therefore totally wasted. They would have been so much more useful with their skills in their countries of origin if we're talking about so-called economic migrants who are fleeing poverty rather than war.

It is difficult to think of more immoral action than by the British NHS when they have been actively poaching Nigerian nurses because the NHS in Britain is understaffed as if the nurses in NIgeria would not be needed.