Out of curiosity, what is the employee turn over rate at Wal-Mart?

How long before our "conservative' government legislates heavy penalties for branch closures precipitated by unionization? Before you answer, remember that this is a country that subsidizes shitty business practices, rewards abject failure of business imagination and uses your money to maintain unsustainable levels of compensation in heavily unionized industries.

UNIONS SUCK!

I hope Wal Mart shuts down the Hull operation. The morons in Hull, apparently, think they'll fare better than their komrades in Gatineau. May they be proven wrong. Idiots.

I think that NOW would be an excellent time to hold a referendum for independece in Quebec. That is, as long as the rest of Canada can vote too. How about it "La Belle "stuck-on-the-teat" Province de Quebec?

"Out of curiosity, what is the employee turn over rate at Wal-Mart?"

I take your point. If people are willing to work these jobs, by implication these jobs must be appealing.

Signed,
Serfdom

Is there any further ways that a UNION can pi$$ me off.
If it involves a union, I will not buy participate or support. I ask, first.

Out of curiosity, what is the employee turn over rate at Wal-Mart?

The employee turnover rate is fairly high - Wal-Mart tends to hire people who have trouble getting jobs elsewhere. Your typical Wal-Mart greeter was probably someone who was on welfare or unemployed not long before. They don't stay at the lowest paying jobs for long. They usually move fairly quickly to better jobs within Wal-Mart or, having gained at least a little experience, are able to find better jobs elsewhere.

The more senior positions within the store are much more stable, but there's certainly a high turnover at the entry level jobs.

"The more senior positions within the store are much more stable, but there's certainly a high turnover at the entry level jobs.

Posted by: Kevin Jaeger at December 21, 2008 12:09 AM "
Ummmmmm....got some figures to back that up? I don't know about Saskabush,but here in AB.,Wal-Mart pays way more than Mac'Ds for relatively easy jobs.And I seem to keep seeing the same people working there every time I go in.Pro-union,are you?

First off, Atlas Shrugged would be lost on all of the leftists. Secondly, every Wal-Mart that unionizes and closes in Quebec brings a cheer to my lips. A business should be allowed to close and move on if they decide to, anyone who thinks that you can legislate that they remain open to provide union jobs is just another moonbat lefty that thinks that the government should provide all for everyone at no cost to anyone... or at least to themselves.

OC, no business deserves a subsidization in a real conservative world, but to try and impose something so mind boggling to a socialist means never getting elected in Canada.

Unions today are an anachronism anyway as every province in Canada has labour standards far and away better than anything ever dreamed of even 50 years ago. A union now is something that self perpetuates on raising a person's salary high enough to collect unions dues from them, and putting in place rules that over emphasis incompetence of workers and not competence and efficiency.

I always remember what happened in Victoria a bunch of years ago as the clerks at Safeway became unionized. There were 3 Safeway stores and they closed two of the stores. So, yes, the clerks were earning a lot more money, which they gave a chunk to the union, but there were a lot less jobs left because of it. And don't tell me that someone swiping a label over a scanner really "deserves" $12.00 an hour because I don't really believe it.

And they can have a copy of Rest of Canada Shrugged when it's available, which ought to be soon.

Unions are only good anymore for unskilled labourers, who are suppressed by union bosses in order for the union to keep making money off them.

If you have any tangible skills that could be used in the private sector, you would probably make more money, and at least have room to grow into other roles to make more money.

In Edmonton, where the job market has been tight, tight, tight, whenever a Walmart opens there is always a lineup around the block of applicants who want to work there. People vote with their feet and whoever says that Walmart gets only those who can't get a job elsewhere is either misinformed or a fool.

Unions are so bad that unionized workers make on average 20% more than non-unionized workers. Too bad for you fascist bastards that the right to collective bargaining is recognized as a Charter right by the Supreme Court.

And the day that Walmart shuts down their last store can't come soon enough.

ya that's right ulianov shut down Walmart and all the jobs that go with it. Hail the mighty UAW who are now so bankrupt they need my tax dollars to pay their exorbitant wages and benefits. Good work if you can get it, too bad it looks like they priced themselves out of the market and into the food line. Walmart maybe ain't lookin so bad anymore since beggars can't really be choosers.

How do you teach stupid people anything? Start off with the mule method, a hammer between the eyes just to get their attention and repeat several times a day. Today only a half wit joins a union and half wits with learning disabilities run them.

I look at this world wide economic downturn as a wake up call, one gigantic reality check that will separate the teat suckers from the producers. A long overdue accountability assessment, a wheat from the chaff sort of thing. Personally I would like to see this downturn cut very deep, deep enough to force the liberal left loser class off their whining unproductive asses. Deep enough to force them to focus their attention on eating rather than constantly coming up with goofy air headed ideas as to how I should be living and conducting my life.

I guess we will see if it is a good call by another Einstein union.

Ulianov correct me if I am wrong but the fascists in Germany belonged to the National Socialist Workers Party.

"And the day that Walmart shuts down their last store can't come soon enough"

Typical leftist screed. Why does the left hate Walmart so much? Certainly not because of the fact that so many people on lower incomes can afford to shop there, because that's and advantage for The People.

Is it just the non-union management model? Probably that has much to do with it. God knows, any company that bucks the "RIGHT TO ORGANIZE" must be intrinsically evil, and shut down, eh? I think what really drives ulianov & his ilk to distraction is that, while the Walmart employees have the right to organize, nobody has the right to force the employer to stay open and recognize said union. It's the old maxim, "When you pick up one end of the stick, you also pick up the other".

I've worked with unions in manufacturing for 22 years, and it's not only the wages issue that makes unions unpalatable to companies. If companies could get away with paying more to unionized workers but enjoy higher output and productivity to go with the higher pay, things just might work out.

But unions spend far too much time protecting the lazy, the stupid, and those who don't wish to contribute. So you have idiotic rules requiring numerous tradesmen to tackle a job that one could, by rights, do by himself. Or other rules that prevent more effective use of labor on a production line to improve capacity. I've seen illegal job walk-offs because a supervisor dressed-down a worker for deliberate substandard performance. The list is endless...

... and the leftists of the world delude themselves into believing unions are necessary. Maybe to the unproductive, the union leadership, and pension funds, they are; but as far as allowing members to compete with the imports or (in the case of the auto industry) japanese transplants, the hardheaded CAW model is a dead man walking... they just haven't realized it yet.

All you have to do is look at how well unions have worked in the public sector to understand truly how useful they are. You can increase the size of the shovel that throws more money at education each year, but all it does is pad teachers' salaries and pensions, and there is not a dime allocated to actually encourage anybody to do one whit better at educating our kids than the worst schlub in the school district. Thus, the leftish mantra that "we need more money for schools" is completely wrong-headed; IMO you could do as much for education by cutting funding for salaries and directing it at facilities, books and resources. This way the truly useless ones who only stay for the money might just shove off for something else, and the improvements in ancilliaries might just inspire the good teachers to start (or keep) putting more effort into teaching.

I'm always accused of being "anti-education", but actually, I'm not. My response (it drives my retired father in-law and sister-in-law - both teachers - crazy) is I value education so much that I believe teachers should be put on salary, so the good ones can be paid what they are truly worth, and the bad ones can either get sacked or shove off of their own volition.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

Oh yeah...wallmart. the guys fueling the US rade deficet as they ship american dollars to china by the railcar. I guess Sam Walton was a nice enough guy. His kids are more known in little rock for the huge quantities of cocaine they consumed throughout the 90's.

on another front...didn't ol' ayne rand have a thing for amphetimines? as in...wrote the fountain head over a long weekend binge. great stuff!

national Socialists...nearly their 1st order of business in germany was killing all the trade unionists. Henry Ford liked that idea so much, he supported the nazis. probably why george bush's grandaddy bankrolled them national socialists. probably why his conviction for violating the US Trading with the Enemy Act" was mearly a wrist slap...you know...nazis...who anyone with a clue recognizes as right wing...like all fascists. I think their 1st order of business was actually killing the real socialists and commies...but you could like...read up on that.

of course, some right wingers like El Duce liked the word "corporatists" better than fascist. on the bright side, I think it was italian socialists who shot him and his girl and hung 'em up in the town square

Folks, I've come to the conclusion that "ulianov" and "harumph" are simply the pseudonyms of J. Layton and O. Chow.

'Nuff said.

"It was during this period of nonstop work on The Fountainhead that Ayn went to see a doctor. She had heard there was a harmless pill one could take to increase one's energy and lessen one's appetite. The doctor, telling her there would be no negative consequences, prescribed a low dosage of a small green tablet which doctors had begun prescribing rather routinely. Its trade name was Dexamyl. Ayn took two of these pills each day for more than thirty years."

When socialism is used to rescue capitalism:

Bush says sacrificed free-market principles to save economy

Tue Dec 16, 4:58 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from "collapse."

"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."

Bush's comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire financial crisis.

"I am sorry we're having to do it," Bush said.

But Bush said government action was necessary to ease the effects of the crisis, offering perhaps his most dire assessment yet of the country's economy.

"I feel a sense of obligation to my successor to make sure there is not a, you know, a huge economic crisis. Look, we're in a crisis now. I mean, this is -- we're in a huge recession, but I don't want to make it even worse."

At a G20 summit last month in Washington, Bush resisted some proposals for global financial regulation and argued free market principles still held true despite the global economic downturn.

And administration officials have also referred to the primacy of the free market when discussing a possible government bailout for the troubled US auto industry.

In the interview, Bush said that a "disorganized bankruptcy" of the carmakers could create "enormous" economic difficulties.

But the US president has yet to announce how his administration will proceed amid calls from Detroit automakers and Democrats for a bailout drawing on funds set aside for financial firms.

-------------

Suck it up, crypto-capitalists.

"The more senior positions within the store are much more stable, but there's certainly a high turnover at the entry level jobs."

I would certainly like to see the data on that also. In my business (taxi) I run across quite a number of Walmart employees and they seem generally happy to work there. No more or less complaints than people at other jobs.

Even if it is a stepping stone job for a lot of people I think that is a positive thing. Is it not?

Reading the comments that get left here by Eastern Canadian Communists just makes me lean further to the notion of Western Separation.

This seems to me like the most logical course of action, simply because it is the most effective way to cut the disease of Marxism from our Canadian souls.

Marxism has NEVER been defeated. It has fallen apart (perhaps? It could have been a head fake, if you study the historical nature of Perestroka/Glasnost), but it has never been defeated. Marxism is a war of the mind. There personal is the political, remember? All of that violence at the hands of Socialists (100 Million dead at the hands of gov't in 90yrs) is merely a tool of mind manipulation that became Leninism. The violence only alters the mind quicker, where as the gradualist/Fabian method (which Canada is following), does not use violence, but rather uses time and the generation gap (lost human memory over generations) to achieve their goals of Socialism. What takes four years with violence, take 40 years without. But, the 40 year long people are much more eager to keep their oppressors because they have been stupified for so long that they don't remember any other way.

Have a look at when the Soviet Union fell apart. Most of the people wanted Socialism back because they were so screwed in the head that they no longer could comprehend how to function without it. Even worse, they had never been exposed to absolute truth and thus, had no concept of how to operate in the real world. (Ever wonder why they were so enamored with the Bible? Consider this: It was the first time they were EVER exposed to the Absolute Truth - a truth that never changes - after spending a lifetime with truths that change faster than a hooker's underwear).

The same is true of Canada and its Eastern love affair with Socialism.

You will NEVER convince them of anything remotely reasonable. Try to convince them that taking God-given rights out of the constitution and replacing it with state-granted rights is a sure fired path to genocide... A non-christian should easily understand this, and yet, leftist non-christians do not. It goes on and on. It is not worth it to argue with these idiots, nor can they even comprehend how to provide for themselves without big government - and they never will, just like the people in Russia after "the fall."

Since the West is so obviously united politically, as well as sharing a decent measure of cultural hegemony that is completely foreign to Eastern Canada (but similar to the Canada of old), perhaps we should just cut our losses and do as the Bible says... if your left arm causes you to sin...

The longer we stay with these mooks, the more we will become infected with their ideology, the more our chances at true freedom diminish.

There is probably no place in the world that has such a large land base, so full of resources, that is politically/culturally of more or less the same attitude.

Such a situation could really be advantageous, as suddenly there would be a place for the hated white heterosexual people who cling to their guns and their religion to emigrate to - England, Oz, New Zealand, the USA etc. Conservative people are under attack and it is not getting better. Let them all emigrate here so we can counter the horrific 1.5 birthrate (suicide) without embracing Communist styled multiculturalism - something that is so noble that it causes all the problems in the Middle East, Africa (Kenya Riots), France (Paris Riots), the Former Yugoslavia, it started World War One... and well, it goes on and on.

In another 20 years, because of the generational gap (and our schools now declaring that education is meant to indoctrinate, not educate), it may be too late and we will never get the opportunity again, you know, after our children are all plugged into the borg...

People think that somehow we still have capitalism, corporate monopolies, or government ones (communism) is the same thing. Unfortunately for each to survive they have to work hand in hand.
Walmart is not the problem our system is.
Peter

I would disagree with the general thread that If my history is correct, unions were established because of the lousy way the bosses treated their employees.

While conditions have improved drastically and while there are now labour standards laws there are still too many managers who shouldn't have any responsibility for people.
They may be technically very competent but can not deal with people.

So I would disagree with the general thread that Unions per se are the problem.

However, as written by mhb at December 21, 2008 2:45 AM
“But unions spend far too much time protecting the lazy, the stupid, and those who don't wish to contribute. So you have idiotic rules requiring numerous tradesmen to tackle a job that one could, by rights, do by himself. Or other rules that prevent more effective use of labor on a production line to improve capacity. I've seen illegal job walk-offs because a supervisor dressed-down a worker for deliberate substandard performance. The list is endless...”

My Dad worked at a company that had a Company Employees Association. They had good pay, reasonable benefits and one of the first profit sharing programs in the country. Generally relations were good with senior management knowing many of the line workers personally. Then a small majority signed up with a big international union. The employees lost their profit sharing, benefits decreased, and management employee relations became very confrontational.

In my own situation I experienced a case where an employee, among other things, threatened the lives of his supervisor and me, unfortunately there was not enough evidence for the police to act but it was enough to move the rifle to the front closet. This case went to a national level hearing. The employee was suspended for three days and moved to another job. Union stewards unofficially told us that they agreed this person was wrong and not worth support but that they had to fully support him because of union solidarity.
The problem isn’t Unions per se it’s the mindset of the minority radicals who often end up running them, because of union member unwillingness to run, to vote or to use logic.

Come to think of it this is a reflection of our national governance as while.

Walmart will shut down the Hull store. They don't allow unions to run their business, case closed.

Their whole success in business is due to reasonable
prices and that comes about through astute management,offering employment and fair wages for the work done.

well said sam. i think it is already too late.

"Unions are so bad that unionized workers make on average 20% more than non-unionized workers. "

Have you ever heard of union dues? Most if not all of that 20% goes back to the union. Usually a zero sum game for the employee....

Wal Mart, Abitibiti/Bowater, Bear Stearns, the great cash for cars giveaway... Looters, moochers, progressives and socialist's...

What's needed is not that Atlas Shrugged is read, but that it is understood.

My daughter just moved back to Sk. after being in Calgary for a number of years. She got a part-time job at 13.00/hour. The union dues are 100 dollars per month. Her first cheque? $400 gross and $100 for the union. I said welcome to socialism. So Ulicantgetoff, the union owes her 5%. Ok?

"ulianov" = Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin)", aka lberia.

"Marx & Friends in their own words
"Let them shoot on the spot every tenth man guilty of idleness." - V. I. Lenin ... "Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!" - V. I. Lenin ... (marxwords)

Workers have a right to organize and companies have a right to re-locate.

You want the best lesson of what a radical union does to a community look at Brantford Ontario. Mid 70's it shipped products, combines and other farm equipment, around the workd. Bankrupt and broken by 83 due to a combination of bad mgt, high costs imposed by a radical union and collapsed commodity prices that slashed demand.

Point is, this is about the time that the auto parts industry really got going in Ontario. Brantford was in the middle of it but it got nothing because nobody wanted to set up a lant in a place where the work force was so radicalized, no matter what their skill. Better to hire hard working farm boys an hours drive north than experienced unionistas.

It killed the community, it killed the jobs. So if Ken lewanza want to do that to Oshawa and St Catherines they can, I suspect the workers are less radical than the leadership...but the jobs, union jobs, wont come back...ever....a community with a radical union will not see another similar industry set up in town, they avoid it like the plague.

Once again, all workers have a right to organize and all business owners have a right to shut down and locate where they wish.

Premiums, whether labour or otherwise, can be commanded only if there is a reason. So if any of "the brotherhood" can explain why a worker at an assembly plant for Chrysler deserves a premium over an assembly worker at a Honda plant based on superior quality, flexibility or skill I would like to hear it.

ahh, uianov/lberia, your 'facts' are wrong.

First, the Supreme Court does not guarantee any right to 'collective bargaining' ; the 1987 cases guaranteed only the right to join a union, section 2d but not to engage in union activities. Another judgment same year said 'does not include a guarnatee of the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike". Got that?

And 2007, 'the right to bargain collectively and to strike are modern rights created by legislatures ..not fundamental freedoms and are not included in freedom of association".

So,ulinaov/lberia, I suggest you bone up on your facts.

Unions are parasites. Their origin in the 19th c was legitimate but since legislatures have taken over their original role for minimum wages, equality, workplace safety etc, these unions have become enormously wealthy corporations in themselves. How do their get their money? Not from the production of goods and services. No way.

They take money from the worker. Simple as that. Then, they 'negotiate' heh, threaten, for more and more money. That increases their income. The problem is, these increases wages, benefits, pensions, increase the costs of the goods. And this increase bleeds into the economy. All goods increase in cost. So, the worker actually isn't better off, since the cost of living has increased everywhere.

So, unions as corporations, parasitic corporations, are actually in our modern era extremely harmful to an economy.

Oh, and ulinaov/lberia, just because something is in the Charter doesn't mean that it's a just or good law. You've fallen into the trap of 'appeal to authority'.

Try again. Think.

As for Wall-Mart, I hope they close. There is no reason why a store like that should be unionized. I'll bet the unions campaigned with those workers to get in there...and now, they've achieved their goal..which is, another source of union income.

There was a time when Unions were a very important structure which protected the rights of employees against abusive companies ... That time has passed.

Right now, Unions are mostly found in companies that hire uneducated, unskilled labour and serve the purpose of inflating the cost of running the company to the point where it becomes uncompetitive.

Walmart is never going to let a Union form in any of their stores because they can not afford to double/triple their labour costs.

Any union I have been in only protected those who were incompetent and would not be able to work elsewhere. I didn't see any increase in my wages once a union took over - in fact my takehome went down because of the union dues. I have been union free for 18 years and loving it.

As for WalMart - they are one of my favorite stores - good product, good price and employees who actually are willing to help you find things - many in my local store have been there since it opened and this in a hot, hot labour market. So it must be an OK place to work or they would have left to go to other jobs a long time ago.

Sam, what happens when you have no place left to run to?

Lefties love unionism because it is all part of their love of control and solidarity of the brothers against the evil capitalist. Of course the fact that the evil capitalist provides them with a standard of living unexcelled in the world is just details.

People like ulianov or lberia always confuse left and right in the political spectrum. Pretty simple really. Right is less government, more personal freedom and responsibility. Left is MORE government control and less personal freedom and responsiblity. Communism, Nazism, socialism are all left wing forms of control, ie shared misery for the masses but not for Beria as he got to butcher the masses and lived well until his time came, paying attention lberia.

Over 2/3 of Walmart management comes from the entry level clerk. Lefties hate Walmart because of this seamless movement of management and associates all working together to generate $404 billion in sales! They always want a rigid line between the cruel, vindictive, exploitive management and the downtrodden worker who of course the union management exploits with their dues.

When tough times come, like now, a non-unionized company will shed those it deems isn't vital for its survival in both management and non-management, cut wages, reduce work, whatever it takes. In the unionized company it has to keep all its seniority employees and lays off even excellent workers per union rules. As CAW is saying now, we wont cut our wages as the brothers have done enough.

Unfortunately there exists no good, readily available and complete translation of "Atlas Shrugged" in French. This makes Quebec's case even more desperate...

unions DO increase the take home pay and benefits of workers, while enriching themselves as a corporation. I repeat, unions are not 'workers' associations'; they are capitalist corporations. Their agenda is to MAKE MONEY.

They don't invent any goods or services,don't make any goods or services; they simply attach themselves, as a parasite, to the worker. Then, they take the worker's money. To get more money they must increase the worker's wages,

The problem, as I've noted, is no part of the ecoomic system is isolated; it's all entwined together as a network. So if you increase worker's costs you increase the costs of the goods they make or sell. That's what's happened, in large part, with the auto industries. The unions have driven them out of business.

Again, unions are not, any longer, worker's associations. They are enormous corporations interested only in profit, in getting more and more money, which they invest..for their own profits. And it certainly isn't for the long term good of the working people.

"as they ship american dollars to china by the railcar"

There's trains between the USA and China now? Who knew?

I shop at Walmart and have done so for years with out sending a single penny to China. That is, unless, Tide and Kleenex and Kellogg's cereals and Folger's coffee, you know, the same goods for sale at Zellers, Safeway and Sobey's, are made in China.

I buy them at Walmart because they are cheaper and I have a responsibility to my family's budget to get the most bang for the buck. Paying too much for tp doesn't help us.

Walmart will just shut down the Hull store and that means the Quebec shoppers will have to drive to Ottawa to shop the W.

Quebec loses jobs, sales tax revenue etc. Ontario gains all the way around.

Gotta love Quebec unions, promoting regional development, jobs & prosperity in Ontario.

I live in rural Eastern Ontario. A Walmart located in the outskirts of a nearby town several years ago. The small ad for employees drew 3 times the anticipated number of prospective employees and the hire hall had to be held over 2 days to accomodate the numbers. The town itself which had seen local store closings until Walmart now has a full main street of retail and additional new retail buildings have been built to accomodate demand. Yeah, Walmart is terrible.

Up above, somebody said they couldn't wait until the last WalMart closed in Quebec.

I agree. I hope Walmart shuts every single store these unionized protection scammers try to "organize". Union thugs being what they are, they won't learn, they'll keep going until all stores have closed up and moved to Ontario.

You want a union? Start your OWN damn store.I want to see the unions start a retail outlet, I really do. Unions are great for sucking the blood out of enterprises -other people- start. Not so good at starting their own.

"Reading the comments that get left here by Eastern Canadian Communists just makes me lean further to the notion of Western Separation."

Sam, I don't blame you.

However, if the west were to leave, your economy would fare much better than what's left of Canada and your government would be far more stable and rational.

The benefits would be apparent. It would also draw the locusts to honey.

How long before the filthy blood suckers leave the corpse of Canada and force their way onto a new fresh victim?

With the wealth increases and opportunities, it's already happening in the west. Just as it happened to Toronto.

Unfortunately the burrowed-in miscreants may end up having to be defeated by more bloody means. And the two commenting on here should give sane people pause to think. They are not us. They do not share in Canadian history. They have no similar beliefs or values. They are political aliens and enemies of our forbearers, democracy and western tradition. They do not contribute, they take. Their life purpose is spreading misery and hate, veiled by a thin veneer of false altruism.

How long before their black souls are fully exposed? As maz2, stated:

"Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!" - V. I. Lenin ... (marxwords)

History does repeat itself. They've declared war.

Conservatives loving Walmart... Why should one need Progressists?

The fact is that the leftist ideology sets up a totally fictional world. People like ulianov/lberia (who are obviously one and the same) live in this fictional world, a world that excludes reality.

They will claim, as ulianov/lberia does, that our Charter includes 'the right to collective bargaining'. It doesn't do any such thing and indeed, the Supreme Court interpretations of the charter's simple 'freedom of association' rejects any such claims. But, when people like lberia/ulianov make their claims, how many of us actually know what is in the charter and the SCC decisions? Most of us don't have the time or focus to garner that information. And so, these people assert their claims as Powerful Truths when they are totally wrong.

I've heard the mayor of Toronto, who is deeply embedded with the unions, assert that the TTC cannot be designated as 'essential' to the Toronto economy (which in reality is is) because the UN Charter of Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, asserts that the 'right to strike' is a fundamental human right. The Document says no such thing - but again, how many of us have that document in front of us and can check on it and know that the mayor was lying?

And why do they support unions? They live in this fictional world, a 19th century Dickensonian novel, which sees the workers as 'downtrodden' and the 'owners' as slobbering evil 'capitalists'.

If they would try to move out living, entranced, in the fictional world of the novel and into the hard light of reality - they might realize that this world no longer exists. Legislatures have moved the worker out of such realms. And unions have moved themselves out of being worker's associations into huge private corporations. Focused only on one things: profit.

And, their only income, is those worker's dues, which they take off the wages of the worker. Then, they invest into, heh, corporate investment schemes...to make more and more money. Does any of this profit go back to the worker? You bet not.

But the unionized workers, who are the elites and not the downtrodden, with their huge wages, their benefits, their pensions, are living in a ponzi scheme world. For the Corporate Union Costs increase the cost of producing their goods and services beyond the 'carrying capacity' of the economy.

What a unionized industry does is it removes the industry from the market forces and sets up a false, fictional economy. One based on more and more wages and benefits. Ignoring that these increase consumer costs. Eventually, this situation reaches reality with a crash - and we see what has happeend with the auto industries. Why should we taxpayers pick up the unions?

It's time to end unions. They are totally out of date, and as a parasitic corporation, they are amoral and unethical. And harmful to the economy and the worker.

ET I always enjoy reading your posts. Here is a gem which you will enjoy researching, it is called "SKILLED INCOMPETENCE" and comes from the thinking of Dr. Chris Argyris. Initially it was directed at management, however the topic can be directed at any part of an organisation and particularly at Unions with regard to their own management structures and the results of their effect on companies.

ET:

In June, 2007,the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a 6-1 decision that freedom of association as guaranteed by Section 2(d) of the Charter includes a procedural right to collective bargaining. But you know better, right?

ET, you are a propagandist. You know bugger all about the Constitution, yet you yammer on and on as if you do. You are the perfect example of what happens to people when they go to school, learning more and more about less and less until they eventually know everything about nothing. But at least you're making Goebbels proud:

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

I'm now 66 years old and have never been in a union. Like many posters here I'm not afraid of speaking my mind. I can't imagine being in a union and objecting to some union policy or rule. The thought of union heavies paying me a visit is quite intimidating.

Some years ago I worked at a mine where the crew was transported underground on a small train. One evening, as the night shift was assembling, it became apparent that the locomotive operator was stinking drunk. The mine manager in charge immediately made a move to send the driver home with the rapidly departing afternoon shift. He could have had the man cited for being drunk on the minesite, which would have been an "immediate termination" offence.

The manager then indicated that he would drive the locomotive himself. He was qualified, and under the terms of the union agreement, he was allowed to drive the train under extenuating circumstances. (such as, one would presume, a regular driver unable to dress himself)

The unionized miners immediately refused to board the train, and the strike lasted until well into the next day.

I guess unions would rather have a drunk driver at the controls than a manager concerned for their safety.

Sorry, union supporters, you have had your brains removed by the spirit of "collectiveness". You will never again have my support.

So in actuality then, are the unions not acting as another (communist) government within our country? The dictate labour rules (laws) on unionized workers, collect dues(tax) off the workers pay, and spend it as they see fit. And if their real political wing (NDP) ever gets power they will inact this communist model on everyone in the country, not just the unionized workers they currently control. Scary

I often visit Canadian based retailers before going to Walmart and find what I want. Cheaper too. There was life before Walmart. Remember?

As far unions are concerned, before you follow the pack mentality, you should do a little research on why we have unions. The conditions that brought them about, and the violent reactions by the established and the wealthy.

What I think you are missing is the balance they bring to the game. If not for them, most people would earn a great deal less. I'm not including public sector unions, as they are unnecessary.

Before unions, a tradesman working in a railway repair shop was paid piece work. There were penalties for non performance. On occasion said tradesman would work all day and end up owing the railway money because there was no material for him to work with and meet his quota.

I know a welder who quit his employer recently because after 16 yrs and multiple promises, the employer still hadn't provided some form of pension arrangement. He now works away from home all week so he can work in a unionized environment where there is a pension. He is 56 yrs old.

Back to Walmart. So what if they leave? The jobs redistribute and people go there to shop. Big deal.

no, ulianov/lberia, I'm not a propagandist; I stick to reality. Not your fictional world.

The June 8, 2007 agreement of the SCC said that collective bargaining is not a fundamental right but one created by legislatures. Therefore, you can certainly meet and tell each other your wishes, but,

"Section 2(d) of the Charter does not guarantee the particular objectives sought through this associational activity but rather the process through which those goals are pursued."

And "does not impose on the parties an obligation to conclude a collective agreement, nor does it include a duty to accept any particular contractual provisions"

And "there is no constitutional protection for the substantive outcome of a collective bargaining process".

And, in Section 15,2003 BSC " The trial judge, Garson J., dismissed the plaintiffs’ freedom of association claim on the ground that collective bargaining was not an activity recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as falling within the scope of s. 2(d) of the Charter. Indeed, she noted that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence consistently and explicitly stated that the ability to bargain collectively was not a Charter-protected activity."

And, S 19, "We conclude that s. 2(d) of the Charter protects the capacity of members of labour unions to engage, in association, in collective bargaining on fundamental workplace issues. This protection does not cover all aspects of “collective bargaining”, as that term is understood in the statutory labour relations regimes that are in place across the country. Nor does it ensure a particular outcome in a labour dispute, or guarantee access to any particular statutory regime. What is protected is simply the right of employees to associate in a process of collective action to achieve workplace goals."

Therefore, you can associate all you want but so what? There is no constitutional guarantee of any result. Nothing. Oh, and as I said in my original comment, there is no 'right to strike'.

By the way, please bone up on the definition of 'fascism' which has nothing to do with either bastardy or unions.

And I know a great deal about the constitution, which in itself says very little about anything, and even more about that travesty of a document, the so-called 'Charter of Rights'. I could go through it, point by point, and argue how deeply undemocratic a document it is.

Now, ulianov/lberia - back to the facts. Unions are a 19th c phenomenon, emerging quite validly when the legislatures were not engaged in setting up an industrial infrastructure. That is not now the case, for legislatures have taken over the original role of unions in setting minimum wages, safety, security and so on.

There is now, no need for unions, and therefore, the unions have changed; they have become enormously wealthy capitalist corporations. Engaged in only one agenda: Profit. Their income comes from one and only one source - the wages of the workers. They are parasitic on the workers.

Now, ulianov/lberia - explain to us why you support such a capitalist corporation as the Union? Hmm?

hugger - so what if the employer didn't have a pension plan. Set up an RRSP and other investments (purchase land to resell later) and obtain the same, if not more benefits on your own. Why should it be up to the empoyer to look after you, rather than yourself?

On another aspect of our Charter right of 'freedom of association' this ought to mean that we don't have to join the union in order to work in a particular company.

But this isn't the fact - you can't get a job in these union-embedded large industries or the public service, unless you are a member of the union. You can opt out, and say that you don't want to be a member but that's superficial; the union will still deduct your 'dues' even if you don't want to join their association.

So much for the Charter Rights of the individual; the unions ignore them. Again, Unions are not there for the worker; they are there to make money.

Interesting comment Hugger, just tell me one thing, where is it written that an employer must provide a pension for an employee? If I was looking for employment I would try and find a place that offers that, but it is not a right or a requirement, right?

Unions had a place at one time, but that time is past now. Bringing up conditions of 100 years ago is really pointless as the world has moved on. Yes, there are still places you can work and get paid for piece work, but no one is forced to work there! That is the whole point of this pointless conversation... no one is forced to work anywhere, they chose to work somewhere.

Last, if you don't like your salary, get more education, a trade, whatever, and look for a job that pays more! Don't form a union to force some company to pay you more since the union will take most of that away from you anyway, get a better job!

"The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness."
~Vladimir Lenin

"Outstanding leaders go out of their way to boost the self-esteem of their personnel. If people believe in themselves, it's amazing what they can accomplish."
~Sam Walton

"There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else."
~Sam Walton

Wal-Mart stores are unionized in every country outside of North America.
Lichtenstein, Nelson. 2006. Wal-Mart: The Face of Twenty-First-Century Capitalism. New Press.

Posted by: Dwayne at December 21, 2008 1:38 PM

Great synopsis given the current rate of layoffs.

Question, have you ever been 45 and out of work in a depressed economy?

hugger-

the fact is, an employer isn't obligated to hire employees.

A union has no rights to insist that he do so; that he retain an employee even when, for example, the employer can't maintain the salary; or the employee is incompetent; or the work is no longer needed.

The employer is not a Parent; he has no obligations to the worker. None. During the contract between them, the two do have a contract; the employer pays for work done. Not for work not done. the worker carries out the job and shouldn't expect to get paid for not doing so.

You example of 'piece work' refers to an out-of-date era. Legislation now has moved in to ensure the viability of the work place. Your example is no longer realistic.

Your comment about being '45 and out of work in a depressed economy' has nothing to do with the obsolute role of unions nor the role of an employer.

Unions should not exist to make employers retain workers. The only reason unions insist on this, is because they are, themselves, capitalist enterprises and want to maintain a high number of workers - to keep their own income from dues.

I've been in the work force for over forty years, worked in many different industries, both union, and non-union. Now I operate my own non-union contracting company.

Unions were originally trades guilds, the object of which was to maintain the quality of the tradesmen. Somewhere along the line, and it happened in different unions at different times, unions were seen as a vehicle to power by both organized crime, and communists. It's been downhill ever since.

When I was in the BCGEU, we had an excellent working relationship with the employer, but in the late 60's and early 70's, labour agitators from England joined the executive of the union, and quickly changed the cooperative atmosphere to one of "them vs us". In my branch, people that had been friends, and with whom we socialized, were now the enemy,"management", and a wedge was driven between management and staff.

Now, 25 years after I left, the union/management relationship in the B.C. government services is completely adversarial, to no one's benefit but the union agitators, who continue to prosper off the work of the members.

Union IS big business, and workers are now truly caught between "a rock and a hard place".

When I first started my business, I investigated becoming a union company so as to get access to the big construction contracts. I spoke to a couple of unions, and their arrogance and enmity was so apparent, I didn't bother, more trouble than it was worth.

Every company I've seen, including Wal-Mart, has entry level positions, with low wages. It gives an employee incentive to work hard, and move up to better wages. I see nothing wrong with that concept. There must be an incentive or employees will become complacent, as in government unions, and service will suffer, it's human nature.

As someone said, it's the workers right to organize, and it's the employers right to open or close a business. I wouldn't have it any other way.

The Wal-Marts in my community have been surrounded by smaller, independent businesses, feeding off the big box traffic. Seems like a Wal-mart is a winning situation for everybody.

If the unions force Wal-Mart out of Hull, the only losers will be the shoppers and employees, and the union will move on to leech somewhere else.

"Someone really should send these idiots a copy of Atlas Shrugged for some light reading over the holidays."

But of course. Because what the world really needs are more egoistic, materialistic and greedy people using right-wing ideology to justify their actions.

You can't reason with them ET, the entire concept of unionization is unreasonable. Its simple thuggery, really. "We have more guys than you, so you will do what we say or we will burn down your store." THAT is the ultimate basis of "collective bargaining".

Thanks to 100 years of Kanuckistanian Progressivism, they don't have to go to all the trouble of throwing Molotov cocktails anymore, the Quebec government does it for them.

One does not reason with such people. For them you use the Louisville Slugger. Modern version of that is Walmart locking the door and leaving town. They are big enough they can kiss off all of Quebec and not even miss it in the annual report. Or all of Canada if it comes to a Taliban Jack lead coalition.

I would encourage them to do so. I also encourage the car companies to stop conforming to California regulations. Stop selling cars in California. F- 'em, let them WALK.

debozo, unny thing about "egoistic, materialistic and greedy" right wing people. They work for what they get. Unlike those of you on the caring, non materialist wonderful Left who seem fine with stealing from those "egoistic, materialistic and greedy people" who worked for it.

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have said "redistributing". There, is that better?

Btw, you expect me to believe you've actually read Atlas Shrugged? Come on, pull the other one. It has bells on.

Hey Hugger:

Don't bother trying to reason with the fascists...they are panty pissing hysterical fear mongerers when it comes to people having a say (negotiating) in their workplace. Phatom gives us a perfect example of the fascist version of reality:
"We have more guys than you, so you will do what we say or we will burn down your store." THAT is the ultimate basis of "collective bargaining".
Yes, everyday we see threats of arson or stores burning down.

ET/Goebbels:

Keep insisting that your lies are the truth. Are you receiving a cheque for your propoganada efforts from the Conservatives or their fellow travellers? I hope it's enough to overcome any concerns you may have for your integrity, Edwina, being an academic and all...

"propaganda"

ulianov/lberia - one of the fundamental rules of blogs is that you never misuse the rights of the poster to their online name. You are ulianov/lberia. I don't use your personal name. You have no right to use my personal name in any post. That's arrogance on your part.

I notice that when leftists/socialists are confronted with factual data, they turn, instantly, to insults. So, we now have ulianov/lberia calling us 'fascists', and a host of insults along with that.

Why not simply deal with the issues? No, the leftist-socialist doesn't do that. Instead, it's the rants, the bullying, the strikes, the threats.

dmorris - very nice outline of the unions. Yes, they changed from the original guild to an adversarial framework that harms both sides. The public service unions, as you note, are set up to effectively shield the worker from accountability so public service deteriorates.

debeauxos, yes, the unions are indeed egoistic, materialistic, and greedy capitalist corporations, very greedy for more and more money from the workers's dues, which they invest in capitalist investment schemes. Unions are parasites on the workers. When the workers try to reject unions, you have the thugs in the union come out to harass and intimidate people into allowing a union on site.

ET/Goebbels:

You have provided no factual data, only your factually incorrect opinions, which you repeat, over and over. You are an elitist: you fear ordinary people exercising their democratic right to associate in groups. And you are a fascist: you demonize organized labour by calling it parasitic and you want to curtail union rights.

You don't blog using your real name, but everyone knows who you are, so you blogging integrity and your personal integrity are one and the same. Deal with it.

ulianov/lberia - no, you are abusing my privacy. If I choose to use a blog name, as do you, then you have no right to violate that right. Period.

Your fallacious 'appeal ad populam' (everyone knows) not only is incorrect but such a fallacious appeal doesn't justify your abuse of my privacy.

I provide facts and analysis based on those facts. That includes references to the charter and the SCC; it includes an outline of the historical development of unions, and the harmful effects, now, of unions in our economy by their unreasonable inflation of wages and benefits beyond the carrying capacity of the industry and economy.

I'm an elitist? heh. No, you, the socialist-left are, with your insistence on the downtrodden nature of the worker. With modern legislation, the worker is not downtrodden. It is you, the socialist, who requires that they exist in such a state.

The democratic right to associate in groups is NOT a definition of a union. Associating in groups says nothing about the closed shop nature of unions which are closed to non-union members; the dues that they take from the wages of the worker; their investment of these monies into enormous wealth which is not returned to the worker; their support for incompetence and indifference; their greediness in trying to get as many workers..that is, dues..into the fold. Their hostage taking of third parties, when, for instance, a public transit union goes on strike and effectively takes the riders hostage. None of that adversarial and economically dysfunctional behaviour has anything to do with 'association in groups'.

You haven't a clue what fascism means. Criticizng unions has nothng to do with fascism, and are you seriously going to suggest that unions have moved into some theistic holy state and outside the realm of questioning them, criticizing them, dissenting from them? Unions are Holy? Heh.

Yep, I certainly do assert that unions are parasitic and I do want to curtail union rights. Now, stick to the issues. Why don't you argue why unions are NOT parasitic and why we should NOT suggest curtailing their rights. I've explained why I conclude that they are parasitic and why they should be curtailed and even ended. Now, it's your turn. Without the insults. Without the abuse of privacy.

The employer is not a Parent; he has no obligations to the worker.

by ET at 2:41

Firstly, your name isn't Dwayne. Secondly the employer does have obligations to the worker.

Not to be rude, but your perception has obvious limitations. I was an employer for 16 years. A shop foreman for 2 years and have a great deal of background with employees. The good, the bad and the ugly. I don't assume them all to be bad though, unlike you seem to be doing.

Without the good employees, I would not have been able to do business and earn money.

Hey Hugger:

Don't bother trying to reason with the fascists.

By Ulianov @ 4:01

I have been here before. Occasionally I feel the need to point out some truths to those who post here. I think some do associate when presented with a differing take on things.

There used to be a couple of quite intelligent people who posted on this site. I admired them for their patience. Don't know if they are still around or not.

I remember Butt hargrove pleading with liberals and other assorted skum to vote for the blok instead of the conservatives.
Not much more needs to be said about that slimebag.

Hugger said: "There used to be a couple of quite intelligent people who posted on this site."

You mean Johnny Maudlin and Ti Guy? Or was it ok4ua and real/haye/new/mos/blah/blah/blah?

Yep, those guys were real intelligent. Regular brainiacs.

hugger - I am not talking about employers and employees; I'm talking about unions.

An employer and employee have a contract, where the one does an agreed-upon work process, in return for wages, benefits, etc.
As for good/bad workers, unions inhibit getting rid of the incompetent.

Unions have moved into a status as middle-agents, standing between the employer-employee. In many situations, the employee isn't allowed to interact with the employer directly; he has to go via the union.

I'm saying that in this day and age there is no need for these unions and that they have become transformed into, themselves, capitalistic enterprises, obtaining their money from the wages of the workers. That's parasitic. Their agenda is to increase their profits, which means getting more money from the worker and investing it; the worker gets little benefit in return.

The more problematic aspect is that this narrow-focus by a parasitic enterprise on profits ignores the effect on the wider economy. The union's driving up wages to increase your own profits means that consumer costs increase; the worker doesn't benefit from this.

I've no idea what you mean by 'dwayne'.

I hope the Wal-Mart employees of Weyburn read this.
It would be a shame to lose any business and especially one of that size from their city.

ET/Goebbels:

It is a pointless exercise to debate with you. You continually confuse your opinions with facts and act indignant when this is pointed out to you. One example is your claim to blogging privacy. There is no such "right." If you have a problem with your blogging comments being credited to your real name, stop blogging, or stop posting the type of comments that require you to hide behind an anonymous persona.

Secondly, if you don't like being called a fascist, stop acting like one. You promote corporatism and you single out a specific group as "parasites" that need to be done away with. OK, ET/Goebbels?

Associating in groups says nothing about the closed shop nature of unions which are closed to non-union members; the dues that they take from the wages of the worker; their investment of these monies into enormous wealth which is not returned to the worker; their support for incompetence and indifference; their greediness in trying to get as many workers..that is, dues..into the fold.

By ET @ 4:59

Gracious ET, do you realize how much your description sounds like the greedy corporate bastards that have wrought this economic disaster upon the world?

Did you know Canada's 2nd wealthiest family increased their personal fortunes by 34% in 2007, and that a member of that family will be sitting on the advisory council to the Conservative Government? Did you also know that they threatened to move to another province if they didn't get cheaper electricity rates?

Does the word enough exist in their world?

Do you have some real world business experience?

You mean Johnny Maudlin and Ti Guy? Or was it ok4ua and real/haye/new/mosv
Posted by: The Phantom at December 21, 2008 6:30 PM

Umm, no, and it wasn't you either.

Hugger:

ET/Goebbels is an academic, so she has no real world experience. She, and the various Blogging Whories who comment get their talking points from the Conservative Party/NCC/Fraser Institute. Notice how they repeat the same mantra: "Unions were useful once, but their day is over," blah, blah, blah.

hugger - what do you have against personal wealth? What's wrong with working and investing and building industries?

The only way to build an industry is to develop SURPLUS, which is called 'wealth'. Then, you invest this surplus into more industrial development. The nature of industrialism is that it requires long term investment of infrastructure and research. Therefore, it takes a lot of surplus wealth requirement..to invest in the future.
If you choose instead to produce NO Wealth/Surplus, then, you live hand-to-mouth, so to speak. This is called a Sustenance Economy.

Unions don't enable wealth production for the workers; they drive up consumption costs for all, and this means that the wealth production capacity of the society is reduced. That's why socialist countries, which disable wealth production, eventually economically collapse.

There MUST be wealth production. The fact that you envy such - so what? No, the current economic situation is most certainly NOT caused by 'greedy corporate bastards'. Such a reductionist view is quite incorrect. What is going on now is a massive global shift in production and consumer roles - and wealth productive capacities, particularly with the movement of India and China into the global economy.
I suggest you read a recent book, winner of the 2008 Best Financial Book (Goldman), called 'When Markets Collide' by M. El-Erian.

Your focus only on Employer-Employee relations ignores that an economy is much more complex than this relationship.

ulianov/lberia - don't move into the common leftist strategy of personal insults and name-calling. Try to be above such tactics.

And because someone repeats a conclusion, such as E=MC2, doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong.
Therefore, if someone concludes that unions have no constructive function in this modern era, and repeats this conclusion - the fact of repetition doesn't make it wrong. Or right.

You see, repetition doesn't prove anything. Surely you know that; you repeat the same things yourself; it doesn't mean that your opinions are wrong. Or right.

Oh, and I don't go to 'those places' for my research and analysis. And so far, neither you nor hugger have provided any reason for unions to exist in our modern era. Not one reason. Asserting that the SHOULD exist isn't a reason; it's a conclusion. How about some reasons?

Ulianov, debate, you don't know the meaning of the word. ET presents facts and reasons why unions are parasitic and you bluster and attack her because you have no counter points. As a true lefty you never defend your position just personally attack the individual or try to humiliate them.

You are truly pathetic. Go back to Kos with your fellow creatures.

While most manufacturing and retail unions do more harm than good I often think that the construction unions are a benefit to the average construction worker.

The job of the business agent is to find work for his members as well as negotiate their wages and benefits. Since many construction jobs are 'short term' employment the union with its job board approach is a great help to our economic well being. Also the benefits and pension offered to construction workers allows them stability in what is otherwise a very unstable work environment.

BTW I worked one union job just out of high school, hated it, and have never joined a union in my life.

The workers at a WalMart in Weyburn, SK have just been granted union certification by the SLRB. Considering WalMart's dominant merchandising position in this booming community, I wonder how quick they are going to be to shut this store down?

Ulianov
What will you do when there is no longer union jobs out there for you and your ilk.I personaly, who am an employer would look at your last place of work,and know that you were a union sh@it head and shread your application as quickly as i read it.Guess what, I am not the only one that thinks that way and now you have no job period.
You would be considered in the priviate non-unionized sector as unhireable in other words useless to productivity.Like I say," one bruised apple will spoil the bunch".

Terry, I wonder how quick the union will be to jack them up for a raise and benefits package? It'll be a race to see who tells who to step off first.

Walmart is hated by all these wonderful, loving, progressive types like hugger and Iberia because they refuse to be taken for a ride by the unions like the Big Three were. The Walmart kahunas seem to actually give a crap if their company lives or dies.

Wow, lots of comments.

I have been 45, but not laid off... my line of work does not have many lay offs, so to speak, just to answer the question someone answered. I don't lack compassion for people who are laid off, but I did point out that if someone is not happy with their situation it is up to them to improve it, not anyone else, and certainly not a union.

To get back to the real conversation, unions and the businesses that have to support them, I think ET said it best when he points out the parasitic nature of the unions today. The only way to expand the union's power and income is to expand, and the only way to do that is to get more non-union shops to become unionized. What is sad here, as also pointed out, is that if Wal-Mart closes their doors the people who lose out are the employees who didn't vote to become a part of the union and the consumers who will be forced to go farther afield to find another Wal-Mart, if that is where they wanted to shop.

Unions had their place and time, but that is now past... the only people who benefit from the unions today are not the people who work and pay the dues but the union executive, staff and other parasites whose pay relies on those workers who toil for the money they pay to the unions.

Posted by: ET at December 21, 2008 7:51 PM

I asked you a simple enough question and you didn't answer it. Really ET, you do more preaching than debating.

The current economic crises was created by wall street banking and investing giants, speculators, lack of adequate supervision of financial instruments, collusion among many from a variety of fields, both commercial and political and a whopping amount of arrogance and greed. That's the short version.

As far as the industrial might of the third world countries goes, who do you think financed it? Who do you think is going to finance a recovery in the West? Who is going to finance the cost of organizing the recovery in the West?

As for your question about personal wealth, who is it that has a bug in their buns about people acquiring some level of wealth? Isn't that what the unions do? Are they not offering a service for a fee? How is that unlike the corporate profit structure or vendors of professional services?

Lastly, I ask again. Do you have some real world business experience?

The commies of the USSR banned unions and killed all the labour leaders.

Not even commies can stand unions. Nuff said.

Hugger said: "Isn't that what the unions do? Are they not offering a service for a fee? How is that unlike the corporate profit structure or vendors of professional services?"

Because the "service" they offer is really nothing more than extortion. They don't -make- anything, they don't add value, they run a protection racket. "Nice store, Mr. Walmart. Be a shame if anything were to... happen to it."

Kind of like the difference between bees and ticks, hugger. Companies are like bees, they make things. Union thugs are like ticks. They hide in the long grass and wait for something to wander by so they can latch on and suck its blood.

If any ticks were affronted by this, I humbly appologise.

Sure Phatom, they don't add value, except for the average 20% higher wages, medical, dental, pensions, vacations...

They don't -make- anything, they don't add value, they run a protection racket. "Nice store, Mr. Walmart. Be a shame if anything were to... happen to it."

Posted by: The Phantom at December 22, 2008 2:36 PM

I expect this will be the only time I will respond to you.

What do Lawyers make? What do accountants make? What do politicians make? What do journalists make?

Would you like a hint?

Nice posts. I'll argue a point rarely taken on unions: envy. Jealousy can be found, if only slightly, in all comments.

The right envies unions because of their uncanny ability to maximize profit (for the union, that is).
The left loves their ability to support the working class.
And the middle because of their ability to do both - those f'ers make a TON of money AND they help out the working class!!

And since we all are jealous, we all both love and hate them. Only those who feel they are needed will ever speak of their love. And those who don't, only speak of their dislike.

Think about it, if you could start an organization that would reap 5 - 15% of total wages paid to non-management staff at your town's biggest employer, wouldn't you at least review what is required of you to reap this reward? So what if it causes some temporary chaos in your community, you're helping the working class (good PR), and you're raking in the loot!

But in the end, the economic impact unions have is simply a tax or commission, depending on your point of view, on the end product, which is simply passed on to the end consumer. This will always be the case. We are clearly entering (ok, have entered) a consumer driven economy. If consumer actions in the next two years don't drive many unions out of business, or significantly reduce powers of major unions, I don't think anything will.

Unfortunately, consumers of public sector services will never have the type of clout consumers of private sector goods and services have. So these unions continue to grow. Argh!