babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Closed-shops and the Rand Formula

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Closed-shops and the Rand Formula
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 28 November 2001 06:04 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
If unions are voluntary organizations through which people pool their talents and abilities to better their group, then like any other such organization--be it a corporation, a bridge club, a hockey team or an AIDS hospice--they are by definition, desirable.

Section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of association as a "Fundamental Freedom."

With respect to the legal aspects of closed-shops and Rand formula practices, the legal contention by opposition of Rand is very specific and quite straight forward. Closed-shop provisions and the Rand formula violate the rights of employees regimented into unions against their will and "taxed" privately by these unions.

Unions today mean self-serving institutions that enjoy special legal privileges that permit them to expropriate the property of employers and violate the rights of workers and the public in order to gain by force what they cannot gain by cooperation. They are a tightly controlled, coercive, force using organization that limit the freedom of the individual worker and create market distortions by prohibiting the free exchange between employee and employer. Unions today do not represent the common worker.

In our history as a country, there was a time when the common worker needed a union. In today's working environment there is no need for union representation, especially if it forced.

Unfortunately no matter how we try, we can not enter into closed shops seeking a job without union representation because of the Rand Formula.

Fortunately, there is one way for governments to take back the power of the worker from un-elected Judges and Justices of our Superior Courts who have upheld the Rand Formula. We must force our government to implement The Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian Constitution. For if we do not, unions will continue to dictate where we work, what position we will receive and then demand a tax duty for their consideration. This type of tyranny is not a democracy it is a dictatorship. End the Rand Formula now.

John I. Fleming

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 November 2001 10:22 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If unions are voluntary organizations through which people pool their talents and abilities to better their group, then like any other such organization--be it a corporation

HA HA HA! You crack me up.
"Empty that aquifier into bottles and ship it off, James. Sure we will leave the community with a dry hole in the ground, but I will make a fortune. And you James, well, when your finished come and see me for your layoff notice. And just to ensure you are willing to work for minimum wage I spoke to both Mr. Flaherty and Martin and they both agreed to cut back any benefits you think you have coming. But, maybe I have something else for you. Are you okay with toxic sludge? Becuase I have a ton that would fit nicely into this hole ..."

And then you say you are only interested in independent information. Man you are funny.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 28 November 2001 01:06 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As a good conservative, you wouldn't want people benefiting from something they hadn't paid for, no? So when you work somewhere where your pay, benefits and working conditions are determined by a collective agreement, it's only reasonable that you pay something toward the cost of negotiating and administering that agreement.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 November 2001 01:36 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is precisely the line of argument used by the fellow named Rand who wrote the judgement - that non-dues-paying workers in a union shop still get the benefit of the labor negotiations and therefore should pay dues.

I also find it hugely amusing that workers would act to sabotage their own self-interest by "de-regimenting" from a union they supposedly "entered against their will". Every time I've applied for and gotten a job in a union shop, I was told up front that it was union and that I was therefore a union worker. Hey, no skin off my nose - I have a job and it's union. So what?

Besides, Mr Fleming, and you must hate this, union dues are tax-deductible. So I'd get dues taken off my taxes owing at the end of the year anyway.

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 28 November 2001 03:34 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it just me, or are the calls to use the notwithstanding clause on every little thing in the charter starting to grow?
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 28 November 2001 04:50 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah like the Walmart store in windsor. There was a lot of choice by those employees.

Problem is with union democracy, I was told by the CAW national representative that workers are not allowed to vote on issues against CAW policy. Unless they want to decertify and then they are allowed. We saw this when it came to hours of work at ADM. Workers wanted 12 hour 4 day work weeks and the CAW took it away from them. Only allowing them to negotiate for this when they began seeking decertification.

A Rand formula prevents democracy in the workplace because it prevents issues from being voted on.

If the Rand Formula remains then the portion of union dues that goes towards political contributions or OCAP should be returned to the workers. Its a violation of Workers rights to force them to support political parties and organizations.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 28 November 2001 06:01 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A Rand formula prevents democracy in the workplace because it prevents issues from being voted on.

I don't understand what you mean by this. From what I could find on the topic, all the Rand Formula does is make the workers who are benefitting from a union shop pay their share towards it. Is there another part to the Rand Formula that I couldn't find?

Or do you mean that those workers who aren't union members can't vote on issues? Well,is that not their own choice, for refusing to join the union? We've been told that we can't have it both ways and a worker who enjoys the benefits of a union shop, refuses to join that union and accept the responsiblities thereof and then moans about not being able to vote on issues certainly sounds like wanting it both ways to me.

I'm going on the forgeone conclusion, by the way, of the desirability of a unionized workplace. If there's disagreement on that issue, it's a discussion for another place.

quote:
Its a violation of Workers rights to force them to support political parties and organizations.

I have to disagree with this statement. We can all cite examples of 'our' tax dollars being used to pay for things to which we personally are opposed. But that's just the way it is. I am opposed to war and resent 'my' tax dollars being spent on the military and think that the money would be better spent on daycare; my neighbour supports greater military spending and thinks that, since he has no children, he shouldn't have to put 'his' tax dollars toward daycare. So funding the things we don't individually agree with is the necessary evil in funding the things that we do individually want. Same with the unions, who like the government, can't please all of the people all of the time.

Also, I want to take issue with John's statement that employees are "regimented" into unions against their wills. I can't think of an example of how this would occur. In fact, doesn't the very necessity of the existance of the Rand Formula show that workers cannot be forced to join a union?

If what is being referred to here is joining an already unionized workplace, I'd hardly consider that to be against one's will. It is up to the individual to decide what is more important to them, having the job or not belonging to a union. If a job requires me to wear a uniform, I can't 'opt out' of that provision. Neither should I be able to 'opt out' of joining a union if that is a provision of the job.

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: andrean ]


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 November 2001 08:47 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo: You're getting two things mixed up. Please separate them out as it will aid debate.

The Rand Formula, as defined, simply indicates that all workers in a closed shop. union or not, should pay dues as they get the benefit of labor negotiations.

That's ALL.

Union democracy is a whole separate issue. You may or may not know this, but generally workers elect from one of their number a person to be part of the negotiating team when developing the contract. So if the CAW is negotiating away what workers want, then the local should be able to fire the negotiator(s) and start over.

If not, well, that's something that needs to be worked on. But it is still separate from the Rand Formula.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Liam McCarthy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 800

posted 28 November 2001 09:19 PM      Profile for Liam McCarthy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Side note. Even the Labour Minister of Ontario Chris Stockwell accepts that the Rand formula makes sense.
From: Windsor, Ont. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 29 November 2001 12:09 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
This issue has been brought up the most, So I will respond to it:

quote:
"That is precisely the line of argument used by the fellow named Rand who wrote the judgement - that non-dues-paying workers in a union shop still get the benefit of the labor negotiations and therefore should pay dues."

I am all for losing those benefits as long as I have a job. There are those here who would call it contracting out or scab labour. I don't care what you want to call it, the fact of the matter is, this type of workforece does not reflect the true socialist philosophy.

Socialist's believe that all should be able to obtain a job. Everyone should be able to feed, clothe, and house their family and lead a prosperous life. Right? Right.

What the current socialist fails to see is that by having the closed shop provisions they are hampering the employers ability to hire more workers so he/she could increase productivity and profitability.

Taking simple numbers look at this scenario:

An employer has 100 employees who are being paid $30 dollars an hour. If you were to reduce those wages by 1/3 to $20 dollars an hour, the employer could increase his/her workforce by 1/3 or 33 employees. Now you have 133 employees working in that community purchasing houses, cars and paying municipal taxes. This leaves the municipality with more money from property taxes and the ability to lower their tax base for home owners. Furthermore, the local grocery store, corner store, entertainment outlets will all have increased revenue, thus opening up more low income jobs. Those jobs can be given to the children going to high school and post secondary studies.

Instead of localizing all that money with just a few unionists, you spread it around.

This isn't the only benefit from spreading around the wealth. (I have wrote this before, so it is all on my hard drive)

quote:
“Since the 1940s, 21 states have adopted right-to-work laws and these are still in force today. These states are now among the most prosperous in the United States and have some of the lowest rates of unemployment in the country.” Cited in Economic Indicators, The Economist (Dec. 21), 1996: 142.

The contrast between the recent unemployment experiences of the United States and the European Union is indicative of the benefits that result from flexible labour markets. The United States, with what is arguably one of the world's most flexible labour markets, has in recent years experienced one of the fastest economic growth rates of all industrialized countries, and it continues to have one of the lowest unemployment rates, currently about 5.4 percent. According to a recent study by the McKinsey Global Institute, American labour productivity ranks first in the world and continues to grow rapidly.[Cited in Economic Focus: America's Power Plants, The Economist (June 8-14), 1996: 82. ] In contrast, most nations in the European Union, with their relatively rigid work practices and strong labour unions, have continued to experience very sluggish economic growth, and have had dismal employment growth rates (0.3 percent per year) for the past 35 years (OECD 1994).

When the Conservative government came to power under Margaret Thatcher, one of its election pledges was to change the law on the closed shop. Successive Conservative administrations have passed six principal pieces of industrial relations legislation, all of which have a bearing on the closed shop and the associated issue of union power.

In the case of New Zealand, after the enactment of Right-to-Work laws in 1991, the unemployment rate fell from 10.0 percent in September 1991 to 5.9 percent in March 1996.

After major labour reforms, Britain's unemployment rate has declined from 11.2 percent in 1983 to 6.9 percent in November 1996.

Clearly unemployment has gone down in these examples when closed shop provisions are repealed. Therefore, once again I call on the government to repeal the Rand Formula!

John I. Fleming

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 29 November 2001 12:15 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Liam wrote:

quote:
"Side note. Even the Labour Minister of Ontario Chris Stockwell accepts that the Rand formula makes sense."

Chris Stockwell has been raked over the coals so many times by his own conservative colleague's it is pathetic. When he was speaker he even made his own government look bad when he allowed the NDP to read off each and every street in Toronto when it was being amalgamated. That wasn't what necessarily what ticked us off. He let a street get defeated causing the government a whole new piece of legislation for that one street!

He is not even respected by his own fellow Conservatives and will be the first one off the leadership ballot.

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 29 November 2001 12:18 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Union democracy is a whole separate issue. You may or may not know this, but generally workers elect from one of their number a person to be part of the negotiating team when developing the contract. So if the CAW is negotiating away what workers want, then the local should be able to fire the negotiator(s) and start over.

You got to remember that, as in any democratic system, if the members are not half aware of what is going on, it can be corrupted by a minority of the membership.

I am forever (well, it seems like "forever") telling people to show up to union meetings, but most respond that it doesn’t really matter if they show up. This, I point out, is wrong. If few show up, the union can be easily highjacked by a “radical” few. Union members ignore union politics at their peril.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crocker Jarmon
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1877

posted 29 November 2001 12:40 AM      Profile for Crocker Jarmon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Y'know, this reminds me that I forgot to show up and vote for that Congressional pay raise last week. Oops. Oh well, it'll go through.

Remind me to attach a rider to the next anti-terrorism law that goes through to allow for decertification of unions on the advice of the FBI.

That's the ticket! Pay raises for us, NO raises for YOU!

Senator Crocker Jarmon (R-CA), 1972.


From: Senator (R-CA), 1972 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 November 2001 12:43 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
An employer has 100 employees who are being paid $30 dollars an hour. If you were to reduce those wages by 1/3 to $20 dollars an hour, the employer could increase his/her workforce by 1/3 or 33 employees. Now you have 133 employees working in that community purchasing houses, cars and paying municipal taxes. This leaves the municipality with more money from property taxes and the ability to lower their tax base for home owners. Furthermore, the local grocery store, corner store, entertainment outlets will all have increased revenue, thus opening up more low income jobs. Those jobs can be given to the children going to high school and post secondary studies.

This assumes that wages won't just fall to the market-clearing wage instead of a slightly lower value by virtue of the benevolence of the employer.

The reason we have minimum wages and Rand formulas is because there's enough bad apple bosses and corporations to spoil the whole barrel.

So we accept a socially-optimal result in exchange for an economically less-than-optimal one.

And since when have municipalities EVER lowered property taxes? Even when land values go down, they keep raising the mill rate. Don't believe me? Ask my dad. Owns some land over on the Island, and they bumped the mill rate on him when the land values dropped in the late 1990s.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 29 November 2001 01:17 AM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am all for losing those benefits as long as I have a job.

One of those so-called "benefits" is having a job.


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 29 November 2001 01:42 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
" This assumes that wages won't just fall to the market-clearing wage instead of a slightly lower value by virtue of the benevolence of the employer.

The reason we have minimum wages and Rand formulas is because there's enough bad apple bosses and corporations to spoil the whole barrel.

So we accept a socially-optimal result in exchange for an economically less-than-optimal one.

And since when have municipalities EVER lowered property taxes? Even when land values go down, they keep raising the mill rate. Don't believe me? Ask my dad. Owns some land over on the Island, and they bumped the mill rate on him when the land values dropped in the late 1990s."


The 'benevolence of the employer' and 'bad apple bosses and corporations' are held in check by the country's Ministries of Labour and labour laws found there-in.

During the 1930's and other times in history, there was a need for labour unions because the government didn't have any legislation for checks and balances. Now there is work-place safety, labour laws, minimum wage, etc. that are in place.

Answer me this please: The three examples I gave, Britain, New Zealand and the United States, all repealed their 'closed-shop' provisions. Once done, their unemployment rates all dropped. What would account for this if it weren't the repeal of 'closed-shop' provisions?

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 November 2001 02:25 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since unionization of the labor force in those three nations was below 50% even at peak levels, if memory serves, that cannot be the whole answer. But yes, given lower overall productivity growth since 1973 for the industrialized world, the problem of employment is solved in one of two ways - letting the real wage drop (which is partly accomplished by busting unions), or by letting unemployment rise (as in Europe).

So those three nations gained economic growth at the expense of the workers who you claim would be better off if wages were lowered.

... and given the reality of noncompetitive firms and industries, it stands to reason that prices won't fall in all sectors, so a fall in the real wage is not matched by a fall in prices.

On this, more later.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 29 November 2001 02:36 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
During the 1930's and other times in history, there was a need for labour unions because the government didn't have any legislation for checks and balances. Now there is work-place safety, labour laws, minimum wage, etc. that are in place.

Given that you acknowledge the need for the checks and balances provided by workplace safety legislation and labour laws, how is it the you support the Harris government's direct dismantling of such protections, and their gutting of the institutions meant to provide and police them?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 29 November 2001 02:50 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"So those three nations gained economic growth at the expense of the workers who you claim would be better off if wages were lowered."

The expense rests only with the union member in the closed shop, and the gain is given to the individual who is unemployed by spreading around the wealth.

What we have in Canada is a secular group who deny others the jobs that they deserve because they want the payroll all to themselves. If they were true socialists as most of them claim, they would spread around the wealth.

John i. Fleming

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 29 November 2001 03:04 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, Mr. Fleming, your a slippery one to get a response from. Do you work in customer service for some extremely large corporation perhaps?

I asked you a question before and you didn't answer (I think I did this before, too, methinks). Something even as innocuous as whether you browse the board or get email notification from your threads(?).

And don't think that because your original thread was closed that you are off the hook. I'm still waiting for a response. Set me straight, please, and DrC as well.

And, sorry to side track the thread, but:

quote:
Chris Stockwell has been raked over the coals so many times by his own conservative colleague's it is pathetic. When he was speaker he even made his own government look bad when he allowed the NDP to read off each and every street in Toronto when it was being amalgamated. That wasn't what necessarily what ticked us off. He let a street get defeated causing the government a whole new piece of legislation for that one street!
He is not even respected by his own fellow Conservatives and will be the first one off the leadership ballot.

Ah, I see. A maverick, I gather. And with mavericks you “rake them over the coals”. How dare he make a mistake and let someone else blabber on for once, in Queen's Park no less.
Given his comments about the other leadership candidates, I assume they are just wrong and should be ignored. Yes?

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 29 November 2001 03:56 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"And don't think that because your original thread was closed that you are off the hook. I'm still waiting for a response. Set me straight, please, and DrC as well."

I am two steps ahead of you, sir. I saved once the moderator said it was being discontinued.

I am going to start another thread named 'Keep common Sense in Ontario' and I will start with these two questions:

Dr Conway:

So the USA ran the necessary experiment to determine what happens if you cut taxes but don't cut spending.

Clockwork:

quote:


Sorry, Mr. Fleming, another question:
quote: you just might want to read the Joint Provincial Nursing Committee's reprot as well. They claim we are back to national standards.
Why would they claim they are “back” to national standards? Why do they recommend that the government “Ensure that no further losses to aggregate professional nursing takes place” (Recommendation #1).
And can you explain why I should ignore the RN per 10,000 people stat? Do you have a government report that explains what an acceptable ratio should be? A target?


I apologize if I didn’t see your response (and I still don’t), which is why I was quite surprised when I you wrote:
quote:

You have only proven me correct by all the nonsense subject matter, that is foolish and absurd. Not one single person has attempted to debate the facts that I presented from impartial sources.


Just to add:
quote:

Health care reforms in the 1990s caused some dramatic changes that negatively affected the nursing profession. Impacts included fewer nurses in the system, fewer permanent nursing positions, increased casualization of the nursing workforce, nurses leaving Ontario or the profession all together, and decreased nursing enrollments and graduates. Many of these changes, in addition to the aging nursing workforce, have had, and continue to have, a signifi-cant influence on access to nursing services in Ontario.


And:
quote:

"There is a serious disconnect between what the [Tommy Douglas] institute's academics are reporting and what patients and health care professionals are experiencing at the front lines," said Dr. Albert Schumacher, president of the Ontario Medical Association. "Patients and their families, physicians, nurses and other health care professionals all have daily, firsthand experience with the serious lack of human resources, medical technology and hospital beds in the health care system."


To restate the question, and admittedly expand on it, why is all this wonderful new spending initiatives being done now instead of before, when we were not yet in a “crisis”. Why have we had a hundred and whatever tax cuts yet over however many years when it seems to me that it was obvious that at least some of that cash was needed to fund our health care system?
Anyway,
quote:

When I used the Liberal site it was to point out that their policy is to follow the Mike Harris lead. It has no reference to any debate on health, education, taxation, poverty, etc. It simply points out what the BC liberals intend to do.
Therefore, there is no double standard. Every piece of my material is acquired from independent institutions outside of government and perceived right wing institutions like the Fraser Institute.


Pardon me. The title of the thread is “A new Era of Higher Paycheques”. A quote was made from a snazzy little flyer claiming lower tax rates lead to higher tax revenue. This is a suspect claim for me. I want you to show causation other than the nice graph that is provided.
The statement, “When income tax rates are cut, tax revenues go up over time as the economy grows”, doesn’t cut it. I could just as easily state “When income tax rates are cut, tax revenues go down over time as the economy contracts.”
That is a claim about taxation and it’s effects on the economy. Now I understand multiplier effects and what not, but when your posting these claims, I want a real reference.

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 29 November 2001 04:00 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Clockwork wrote:

quote:
"Ah, I see. A maverick, I gather. And with mavericks you “rake them over the coals”. How dare he make a mistake and let someone else blabber on for once, in Queen's Park no less. Given his comments about the other leadership candidates, I assume they are just wrong and should be ignored. Yes?"

He has berated his own colleagues just once too often. It started out because he wasn't put in Harris' first Cabinit. It was sour grapes with him first. Now he will pay for his big mouth.

"I assume they are just wrong and should be ignored?"

Ignored.

John I. Fleming

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 29 November 2001 04:11 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just to note, closed threads are still accessible.
Myself, I usually just start a new one with a link to the old one. But thanks for keeping track.

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 29 November 2001 04:16 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He has berated his own colleagues just once too often. It started out because he wasn't put in Harris' first Cabinet. It was sour grapes with him first. Now he will pay for his big mouth.

That sounds awfully vindictive. I know in union meetings (as an executive), we have to sit it out and let members vent, and still be polite about it. It’s tough though. But we don’t actually make them “pay” for venting. Something about that whole “solidarity” thing.
I like your side better, I think.

And I always liked mavericks. I know they are easily ignored, but their thought processes are intriguing to me. Sometimes you get such wonderful insights. Of course, sometimes you don’t… but who’s keeping track?


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 30 November 2001 11:36 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Unions today mean self-serving institutions that enjoy special legal privileges that permit them to expropriate the property of employers and violate the rights of workers and the public in order to gain by force what they cannot gain by cooperation.

John Roth expropriated $71 million last year.

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 November 2001 11:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, you don't quite understand. It's expropriation when a snot-nosed smart-assed worker wants an extra buck an hour and gets it without being granted that boon by management, while it's hard honest work if a CEO helps himself to a few million bucks.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 30 November 2001 11:54 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
D'oh!

Silly me.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 01 December 2001 09:30 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Time for review. There's a couple of mistaken ideas here that shouldn't go without correction.

quote:
An employer has 100 employees who are being paid $30 dollars an hour. If you were to reduce those wages by 1/3 to $20 dollars an hour, the employer could increase his/her workforce by 1/3 or 33 employees.

I fail to see why an employer would hire more workers. If it takes X number of employees to grow, mine, manufacture, transport or sell a widget, then that's how many it takes. Employers are not in the habit of hireing people to stand around.

It also quite erroneously presupposes that wages are the sole determination of labour cost. They aren't. Workers at $30.00 an hour can be a less labour cost than workers at $5.00 an hour.

It's not wages, it's labour cost. Of which wages are just one factor.

On the Rand Formula, it must be noted that no one is forced to join a union. It's a condition of employment, like shift work and other such things. A worker has the perogative of not working in a union shop, and seeking employment in a non union shop.

It should be duly noted that a closed shop has to be negotiated, and that the employer agrees to it's enforcement.

However, if we admit the argument for a moment, that being "forced" to pay dues is an infringement on an individual's liberty, then why limit the argument with the Rand Formula? Do stock holders get a vote on how their money is given to political parties by the Board of Directors? How about "Democracy In the Investment World"?

Few people seem upset with the Tory plan to FORCE me to contribute to religious instruction I disagree with. The Tory plan to have the state establish religion, and persecute disenters with punitive taxes is running full steam ahead.

This is a clear and egergious attack on freedom. And we are looking at the Rand Formula? !!

Seems some on the right are highly selective on what they see as infringement on individual liberties.

A little history on the Rand Formula is in order here. The Rand Formula was a compromise. Workers surrendered the right to strike during the length of the collective agreement, in order to get the peace of a closed shop.

This is a substantive right, and should not lightly be omitted from the discussion.

Turning back the clock to when there was no Rand Formula, and major manufacturing facilities where shut down by strikes every time someone got fired, or the employer wanted to adjust wages and conditions, is a recipe for chaos.

I'm sure it was the business comunity that whispered this to Chris Stockwell when the Rand Formula was under brief discussion, and is the reason it was quietly put to rest.

As far as commentary about unions not wanting to "share the wealth", all I can say is that I can now add idiot to the word liar when describing the bloviate who wrote it.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 04 December 2001 03:45 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Tommy Paine wrote:

quote:
Few people seem upset with the Tory plan to FORCE me to contribute to religious instruction I disagree with. The Tory plan to have the state establish religion, and persecute disenters with punitive taxes is running full steam ahead.

How about me being forced through taxation to murder unborn children with state sanctioned abortion or teaching homosexuality in our schools through sex education curriculum!

You don't like being forced to fund programmes that you find objectional, we'll neither do I mister. Suck it up.

John I. Fleming

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 04 December 2001 04:46 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How about me being forced through taxation to murder unborn children with state sanctioned abortion or teaching homosexuality in our schools through sex education curriculum!

Oh, don’t bash it until you tried it. I remember, in my first health class in the public school system, they taught us how to talk with a lisp and how to move in such an effeminate way. The next class we learned about anal penetration and which were the best positions for this.
It was SO much fun. I think you’d enjoy it.

However, I do see your point. I was dismayed to learn that the public school system also uses my tax dollar to fund math education programs. How dare they!


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 04 December 2001 10:46 AM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John I. Fleming said:

quote:
You don't like being forced to fund programmes that you find objectional, we'll neither do I mister. Suck it up.

Exactly. And you're on about the Rand Formula why again?


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 04 December 2001 05:46 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How about me being forced through taxation to murder unborn children with state sanctioned abortion or teaching homosexuality in our schools through sex education curriculum!

(if anyone wants me, I've gone to my Happy Place.)


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 04 December 2001 09:27 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"You don't like being forced to fund programmes that you find objectional, we'll neither do I mister. Suck it up."

That was what I was saying, dolt. I'll type slower for you next time.

"...teaching homosexuality in our schools through sex education curriculum!"

You really believe you can be taught to be a homosexual?

A little latency creeping in, is it?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 04 December 2001 09:29 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Better latent than never!
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca