Bill C 78 - do you fear your pension fund is raped by the Conservatives?


Socrates the Greek
#1
Alibaba and the 90 thieves at work.
You tell me if all these Canadians are wrong at their litigation against the secret closet Conservatives.

Unions take EI surplus fight to Supreme Court

Association of Canadian Financial Officers, Canadian Air Traffic Control Association ( CAW Local 5454), Canadian Association of Professional Employees, Canadian Auto Workers (Local 2182), Canadian Federal Pilots Association, Canadian Merchant Service Guild, Canadian Military Colleges Faculty Association, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Federal Dockyard Chargehands Association, Federal Government Dockyard Trades and Labour Council (East), Federal Government Dockyard Trades and Labour Council (West), Federal Superannuates National Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Local 222, Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Public Service Alliance of Canada, Research Council Employees' Association, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers - Syndicat des agents correctionnels du Canada – CSN

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...insurance.html

http://www.psac.com/issues/campaigns...s/info-e.shtml
Last edited by Socrates the Greek; May 13th, 2008 at 04:44 PM..
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#2
It's about time! Good for them. It is illegal in Canada for any government service to show a profit.

This is yet another example of our "government" pandering after their corporate masters in that reducing UI benefits is an attempt at reducing labour costs.

How is it that this hasn't been an election issue? Gee, democracies dead maybe? The reduction of UI benefits was a closed door condition of NAFTA. Just like changes to health care and pharmaceuticals was promised three weeks before the last election (by the Liberals) but there wasn't a word about it from any party! During an election no less!

R.I.P. democracy.
 
Socrates the Greek
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

It's about time! Good for them. It is illegal in Canada for any government service to show a profit.

This is yet another example of our "government" pandering after their corporate masters in that reducing UI benefits is an attempt at reducing labour costs.

How is it that this hasn't been an election issue? Gee, democracies dead maybe? The reduction of UI benefits was a closed door condition of NAFTA. Just like changes to health care and pharmaceuticals was promised three weeks before the last election (by the Liberals) but there wasn't a word about it from any party! During an election no less!

R.I.P. democracy.

Alibaba and the 90 thieves is a perfect characterization for these losers. I can remember 2005-6 campaigning by Harper, “GIVE US A CHANCE TO CLEAN OTTAWA FROM THE IMMORAL LEBERALS” While behind closed doors the Conservatives had their eyes on stealing money from the pension fund of all these workers to help fulfill election promises they new unless they cheat and steal they would not be able to fulfill, as well unfairly in secrecy making voters who never voted for these pigs to pay form their election over spending. And other issues which confirm that these pigs are far from snow white. It is so pathetic to see these idiots in power even with a minority.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#4
"In this year's federal budget, Ottawa announced the creation of an independent Crown corporation to manage future surpluses in the EI account, restrict use of the fund to EI benefits and limit premiums, while creating a cushion of $2 billion in a side account in case of a sudden economic downturn."

So, how is this not what the unions were demanding? Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding what their complaint is, or what action they're demanding.
 
Socrates the Greek
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

"In this year's federal budget, Ottawa announced the creation of an independent Crown corporation to manage future surpluses in the EI account, restrict use of the fund to EI benefits and limit premiums, while creating a cushion of $2 billion in a side account in case of a sudden economic downturn."

So, how is this not what the unions were demanding? Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding what their complaint is, or what action they're demanding.


They want their hard earned cash back and that is why they are in the Supreme Court today trying to get the misappropriated funds back in the tune of $30B. This is not one union only there is many people afected by this scam.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#6
yes socrates, when I said unions, I understood that plural meant more than one.
 
Socrates the Greek
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

yes socrates, when I said unions, I understood that plural meant more than one.


Sorry Karrie didn't mean to miss quote you...
 

Similar Threads

14
Orphaned, Raped and Ignored
by Mowich | Feb 1st, 2010
8
Children raped at Abu Ghraib
by darkbeaver | Apr 2nd, 2008