The agenda that threatens Canada: Two telltale speeches by Stephen Harper

[darkbeaver]

Well i just went out to support my local economy.
Funny steaks from non union butcher.
Spuds from the local non union farmers market.
Beer from the local non union wine and beer store,
and movies from the local you quessed it non union store.
I was served by a bunch of happy helpful people though.:lol:

butchers------chicago stock yards
farmers-------near extinct
movies---------screen actors quild
beer------------lots of union made labels

Many people refuse to investigate the hard won gains to the common man and the national fabric brought about by labour organization. Doctors, engineers, architecs lawyers all have unions and all of them know why. How come you haven't figured it out?

 

[darkbeaver]

Well, It may have been untrue..........I don't know......but it was reported as fact on more than one media outlet, including CTV News. If you go back and take a look at the original thread, you will see that I was not the only one that heard it......and I simply don't doubt that Dion , seeking NOT to be the first Liberal leader in 120 years to fail to be PM, and Layton, who is a complete idiot, would agree to that.......

Do you really think Duceppe is in the Coalition (and yes, I mean IN the coalition, he signed the damned accord), for the good of Canada????????

BTW, I don't appreciate being called a liar by ssome Johnny-Come-lately. I've been around here for awhile, and yes, I'm sort of the resident right wing Conservative gun-toting looney......but much as some here disagree with me, I don't believe any of them would call me "liar".

Apologies cheerfully accepted either here in the public forum, or by PM. [/quote]

I hope he's apologized Colpy. Let's not be to hard on the man though, he's probably not a trained psycologist like me and can't understand the various symptoms of clinical insanity and has simply confused you with an ordinary (TTT) teller of tall tales.:lol:

 

[mit]

Management gets the employees it deserves. They have the sole right to establish rules, enforce discipline - reward performance and hire and fire. They even are a signatory on union contracts. Many of these so called myths of the lazy unionized workers are unfounded. It is more a supervisor or manager that sidestepped rules in meted out discipline that gets a less than desirable worker back to work (Sometimes as a hero) - Governments also have a role in unionized and non-unionized companies of encouraging mediocrity - So called progressive legislation like Ontario's 10 personal days where a worker can take time off without pay or fear of retribution to attend to an event where the employee has the right to determine if the event is sufficient enough to warrant a day off. People think that because they take a day off it does not cost the company - this is wrong - benefits are still paid - that person's output must now be done by others either through overtime or delaying delivery of product or services. There are administrative staff in many hospitals and large municipal operations whose sole duty is to call in replacement staff to cover for those off on personal or sick days.
Employment standards are now such that hiring a full time person is an expensive alternative to temporary workers and contract workers - This is wrong and is quite deep rooted in the educated managers (MBA's) minds. People are viewed as an expense not a profit center. Companies are not social agencies - they are there to make profits.

 

[Tyr]

The death of unionization

Hey Tyr, here a fresh fact for you, the entire cost of unionized labour to the big three in North America represents slightly less than 11 days production. The cost of labour is the most popular whine of the boss. If it wern't for organized labour what exactly would elevate wages and benefits? If earnings are not extracted from businesses they do not enter at the base of the economy and therefore do not flow through it, this is how to cripple an economy. If you don't pay your employees they can't buy your stuff business suffers, like now. You'd happily work for nothing wouldn't you Tyr? A more heavily organized labour force actually improves economys by ensureing currency circulation begins right at the primary industry levels where its position and flow is maximized. If money don't get to the bottom the bottom crumbles and the whole edifice falters and dies. ;-)

That my dear beaver is absolute bull. It may be the "line" that trade unions propogate, but it has absolutely no validity other than good outhouse reading.

See below (and do some research next time before you spout such drivel)

Trade unions have been accused of benefiting the insider workers, those having secure jobs, at the cost of the outsider workers, consumers of the goods or services produced, and the shareholders of the unionized business. Those who are likely to be disadvantaged most from unionization are the unemployed, those at risk of unemployment or workers who are unable to get the job they want in a particular line of work.

In the United States, the outsourcing of labor to Asia, Latin America, and Africa has been partially driven by increasing costs of union partnership, which gives other countries a comparative advantage in labor, making it more efficient to perform labor-intensive work there.

Milton Friedman, Nobel economist an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism sought to show that unionization produces higher wages (for the union members) at the expense of fewer jobs, and that, if some industries are unionized while others are not, wages will tend to decline in non-unionized industries
In some cases, unions are regarded as a form of legalized conspiracy and extortion. American racketeering statutes still include an exemption for union activity.

Unions are sometimes accused of holding society to ransom by taking strike actions that result in the disruption of public services

Union density (the percentage of workers belonging to unions) has been declining since the late 1940s, however. Almost 36% of American workers were represented by unions in 1945. Today that figure is around 12%. Significantly, the rapid growth of public employee unions since the 1960s has served to mask an even more dramatic decline in private-sector union membership.

At the apex of union density in the 1940s, only about 9.8% of public employees were represented by unions, while 33.9% of private, non-agricultural workers had such representation. In this decade, those proportions have essentially reversed, with 36% of public workers being represented by unions while private sector union density has plummeted to around 7%.

If unionization is the be-all-to-end-all, why is it such a "dying" entity... I think you know the answer

 

[Tyr]

butchers------chicago stock yards
farmers-------near extinct
movies---------screen actors quild
beer------------lots of union made labels

Many people refuse to investigate the hard won gains to the common man and the national fabric brought about by labour organization. Doctors, engineers, architecs lawyers all have unions and all of them know why. How come you haven't figured it out?

Because it was over 80 yrs ago and no longer a viable argument

 

[Tyr]

Your observations hardly matter against peer reviewed studies do they squire? You have that lower management arrogance which epitomizes the tennants of the peter principal. I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't turn those christmas bulbs in without help could you Tyr? What I find ammazeing in cases like yours is the complete lack of understanding about where wages ultimately come from. You'll like this Tyr, the curve of the union membership crash follows quite nicely the destruction of the manufacturing base in the western world which of course connects seamlessly to the thirty year crash of real income which leads us to this point in time when labour can no longer afford to buy the products offered by businesses thus precipitating the next and near depression.
Once our brilliant management class abandoned manufacturing in favour of finance we were doomed.;-)

We'll take an example (cuurent that is) quoted by the bumbling Ron Gettelfinger of the United Auto Workers in his last begging spree to Congress.

Alabama felt a need for an auto industry and were willing to give tremendous concessions (free land, free training and multi-year tax cuts and offsets) to get one. All of the big three were willing to promise a state of the art facility and many years of tax revenue and a large pool of skilled labour.

Alabama went with Mercedes-Benz. Why? The governor of Albama at the time reasoning was they wanted an auto manufacturer that was going to be in it for the long term and not be subject to the whims of union strike issues. The Mercedes factory is non-unioned

Mercedes-Benz U.S. International (MBUSI) is a Mercedes-Benz automobile manufacturing plant in Vance, Alabama. The factory was announced in 1993 and produced its first vehicle, a ML320, in February 1997.

That my friendly beaver is why unions are a dying breed. They destroy industry

 

[mit]

Even if autoassembly workers worked for free the cost of a vehicle would not decline much - perhaps 2,000 bucks - Remember during that $100 hour wage an assembly worker has done their part of 60 vehicles. The overall cost of a vehicle includes transportation costs of materials, maintenance - engineering - management - administration and marketing. Included also is government regulations, community involvements, customs and duty issues and a host of other bits that add to the cost of a vehicle. Why is it the worker that must bear the brunt of the efforts to reduce costs. Administration, marketing, governments all have roles to play in making industry more efficient.
Take beer as an example - In Ontario you can buy a 24 for 24 bucks or 38 bucks.
The 24 dollar beer has no T shirts - no marketing initiatives to bars to stock their beer - uses Radio and print ads - no slick TV commercials with the latest music and scantily clad actors. Lakeport brewing set the Ontario industry on it's ear with it's $24 beer - brewed in Hamilton by a unionized workforce making the same money as the Labatt and Molson plants an hour away. And the company made money! They made enough money that the owners of Labatt's (Ambev) bought the company. Nobody complains that Brewery workers make an equivelant salary to an automotive plant and probably with a lot less stress to their bodies. Ontario is one of the most profitable places in the world to market beer - Where do those profits go - They go to buy up other foreign breweries - (Ambev is buying the makers of Budweiser). That case of beer you bring home has about 30 cents of unionized labour in it - and about $10 of marketing if you buy the name brand. Good Deal eh folks!

 

[mit]

We'll take an example (cuurent that is) quoted by the bumbling Ron Gettelfinger of the United Auto Workers in his last begging spree to Congress.

Alabama felt a need for an auto industry and were willing to give tremendous concessions (free land, free training and multi-year tax cuts and offsets) to get one. All of the big three were willing to promise a state of the art facility and many years of tax revenue and a large pool of skilled labour.

Alabama went with Mercedes-Benz. Why? The governor of Albama at the time reasoning was they wanted an auto manufacturer that was going to be in it for the long term and not be subject to the whims of union strike issues. The Mercedes factory is non-unioned

Mercedes-Benz U.S. International (MBUSI) is a Mercedes-Benzautomobile manufacturing plant in Vance, Alabama. The factory was announced in 1993 and produced its first vehicle, a ML320, in February 1997.

That my friendly beaver is why unions are a dying breed. They destroy industry

Greed and MBA's destroy industries - Enron - Lehmans - Nortel - Hudson's Bay

 

[Tyr]

Greed and MBA's destroy industries - Enron - Lehmans - Nortel - Hudson's Bay

uh huh. Keep reading "Up Front With John Sweeney" and pretty soon you'll think grey is greeen and up is really down. That's what happens with union flunkies - easily brainwashed

 

[DurkaDurka]

If you take the time to do the research you will find that over the average course of a working life the union worker earns 35% more than the non-union worker. This is a long standing international norm. So if you feel good about your non-union career you are dumb as a post, but you'll always have a below scale job in a dirty dangerous factory to walk to.:lol:

I am quite happy with my non-union career, DB. It's great working in an environment where you are rewarded for performance and not seniority.

A couple disgruntled workers at my company attempted to bring in a union about 4 years ago, it was rejected in quick order.

 

[Mongul]

to be fair to Mr.Harper, what he says is true. Canada is a Northern European Welfare state and may be officially bilingual but realistically speaking, it is a divided nation of unilingual english and french with immigrants entering canada choosing to learn english rather than french.

 

[Mongul]

I am quite happy with my non-union career, DB. It's great working in an environment where you are rewarded for performance and not seniority.

A couple disgruntled workers at my company attempted to bring in a union about 4 years ago, it was rejected in quick order.

not to mention that Unions have outlived their purpose and exist only to extort money from companies. Because of unions, many companies now contract outside workers to do jobs previously employed by union workers, since its far more cheaper.

 

[Mongul]

Greed and MBA's destroy industries - Enron - Lehmans - Nortel - Hudson's Bay

actually ineptitude causes buisness self destruction, not greed. Legal Greed is what drives buisnesses to excel. All of those minus Enron failed because of poor buisness decisions, with Lehmans being screwed because of a misplaced optimism of the housing market boom. When house prices began to drop in 2007-2008 it spelt doom for banks who had houses as collateral. Nortel and Hudsons Bay just made terrrible products.

 

[mit]

actually ineptitude causes buisness self destruction, not greed. Legal Greed is what drives buisnesses to excel. All of those minus Enron failed because of poor buisness decisions, with Lehmans being screwed because of a misplaced optimism of the housing market boom. When house prices began to drop in 2007-2008 it spelt doom for banks who had houses as collateral. Nortel and Hudsons Bay just made terrrible products.

And these poor business decisions were made by unions? And making decisions to drive up the stock price are made by unions? And those high school educated bankers that could not figure out the escalting price of housing would burst soon just made a poor business decision that was driven by their goal of getting everyone in to a house they could not afford was a socialist experiment for the good of mankind?
Please note I said greed - not profit - They are 2 different things.

 

[VanIsle]

butchers------chicago stock yards
farmers-------near extinct
movies---------screen actors quild
beer------------lots of union made labels

Many people refuse to investigate the hard won gains to the common man and the national fabric brought about by labour organization. Doctors, engineers, architecs lawyers all have unions and all of them know why. How come you haven't figured it out?

Doctors have associations. Not sure they have actual unions. Don't think they do. I do know that on one visit to my doc. he spent my whole "visit" with him complaining about the fact that he did not have a medical plan and he did not have a pension etc. etc. so I don't see where they have a union. He knows that I am on a particularly good med. plan and he seemed to be feeling a tad bitter about it. A little organization and without the downside of having a union, they could have a pension they pay into and a medical plan. The sad part is that most intellectuals have zero common sense.The union I work for is about as helpful as the common cold.

 

[Tyr]

Doctors have associations. Not sure they have actual unions. Don't think they do. I do know that on one visit to my doc. he spent my whole "visit" with him complaining about the fact that he did not have a medical plan and he did not have a pension etc. etc. so I don't see where they have a union. He knows that I am on a particularly good med. plan and he seemed to be feeling a tad bitter about it. A little organization and without the downside of having a union, they could have a pension they pay into and a medical plan. The sad part is that most intellectuals have zero common sense.The union I work for is about as helpful as the common cold.

They sneeze and you catch pneumonia is how I've heard unions been dsecribed

 

[mit]

Walmart in Weyburn Sask has a union now - Interesting to see if the store closes.

 

[mit]

Sorry Guys​

There will be no Nativity Scene in Ottawa, Canada this year!

The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in Canada's capital this Christmas season. This isn't for any religious reason, they simply have not been able to find Three wise Men in the Nation's capitol.

P.S.
There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable

 

[Mongul]

And these poor business decisions were made by unions? And making decisions to drive up the stock price are made by unions? And those high school educated bankers that could not figure out the escalting price of housing would burst soon just made a poor business decision that was driven by their goal of getting everyone in to a house they could not afford was a socialist experiment for the good of mankind?
Please note I said greed - not profit - They are 2 different things.

you're right, these poor buisness decisions were not made by Unions, they were made by CEOs and buisness leaders. Its called corporate heirarcy, Unions have no qualifications for driving a company, nor do they own any part of the company. Workers don't own the company (Unless they own stock), they are only contracted to work there, thats why unions don't run companies. We should let these companies fail because it ran a poor buisness model and it failed.

Also driving up stock is in the self interest of all stockholders, as it increase total stock worth. Its insider trading and fudging numbers that are criminal, and rightly so. the Mortgage debacle is complex, with both government and buisness at fault

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Second, the civics, Canada's civics.

On the surface, you can make a comparison between our political system and yours. We have an executive, we have two legislative houses, and we have a Supreme Court.

However, our executive is the Queen, who doesn't live here. Her representative is the Governor General, who is an appointed buddy of the Prime Minister.

Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system.

And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process.

So if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that's described as unpaid checks and political imbalances.

What we have is the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the bastion of the Prime Minister's power, the body that selects the Prime Minister, is an elected body. I really emphasize this to you as an American group: It's not like your House of Representatives. Don't make that comparison.

What the House of Commons is really like is the United States electoral college. Imagine if the electoral college which selects your president once every four years were to continue sitting in Washington for the next four years. And imagine its having the same vote on every issue. That is how our political system operates.

In our election last Monday, the Liberal party won a majority of seats. The four opposition parties divided up the rest, with some very, very rough parity.

But the important thing to know is that this is how it will be until the Prime Minister calls the next election. The same majority vote on every issue. So if you ask me, "What's the vote going to be on gun control?'' or on the budget, we know already.

If any member of these political parties votes differently from his party on a particular issue, well, that will be national headline news. It's really hard to believe. If any one member votes differently, it will be national headline news. I voted differently at least once from my party, and it was national headline news. It's a very different system.

If you actually read the words he uses you would see that he is adjusting his speech for an American audience and that he has a very good grasp of his subject. You can choose to disagree all you want but it is not very constructive to attempt to portray him as some sort of devil.