quote:

---

Firefighters most trusted professionals, union leaders fourth least trusted profession.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I guess if they neglect to mention all those fortune 500 company CEO's and CFO's convicted of everything from fraud and embezzling to selling their grandmothers down the river, then ya, I can maybe see a little of what they're getting at.

---

quote:

---

This is terrible. So how can it be fixed ?.

---

Unions electing more nurses, teachers and daycare workers. Term limits for union offices and self-criticism in labour union media. There was more self-criticism in the pages of Pravda (official newspaper of the Communist party in the Soviet Union) when Joseph Stalin was premier than there is in labour union media.

[ 23 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

"America@Work [the official publication of the AFL-CIO] has never printed a critical letter in its entire history," notes Martin Fishgold, president of the International Labor Communications Association, an organization representing union journalists. "There's very little dialogue or dissent in union media."

---

But despite all this it's interesting to note that CEOs, despite the constant false portrayal of them being so heroic and innovative and important, only rate at about the same as union leaders.

Even more importantly to note, this goofy poll tries to cast union leaders as a profession unto themselves, which in reality they are not. Rather, they are democratically elected representatives of various cooperative associations of workers in various industries and professions (in other words unions)--many of which are rated among the most trustworthy by people according to the poll itself (Firefighters, nurses, teachers, pharmacists, pilots, plumbers, cops—and even doctors in their own ways--are mostly unionized).

So obviously what this shows is that there is a disconnect between these workers and their professions and the elected representatives who speak for them. This is largely thanks to the misinformation and censorship about the labour movement and what unions are.

But what I find interesting is that the jobs at the top of the list are done by people you pretty much have to trust. We trust firefighters to show up and put out a fire because there is literally no-one else whom we can call. And unless you have a certain amount of medical training, you pretty much have to take health professionals at their word.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

But in areas in which we are relatively well-informed and in which there is more competition for our patronage, we don't need to trust anyone. So we don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
What does that have to do with Chile or infant mortality rates in Cuba? Focus, Fidel, focus.

---

Nothing. It has nothing to do with the failure of electricity pricing "dreg"-ulation in Ontario, Albreta, the U.K., or even the ENRONg fiasco in California. THERE are some fine examples of competition and marketizing a public good, don't you think ?.I mean, you're the economist here. Are you going to hold up the actual experiments in electricity market competition as examples to follow or not ?. Shit or get off the pot.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

But what I find interesting is that the jobs at the top of the list are done by people you pretty much have to trust. We trust firefighters to show up and put out a fire because there is literally no-one else whom we can call. And unless you have a certain amount of medical training, you pretty much have to take health professionals at their word.

But in areas in which we are relatively well-informed and in which there is more competition for our patronage, we don't need to trust anyone. So we don't.

---

Folks, believe it or not, it seems Stephen Gordon and myself are pretty much on the same page on this.

While the discussion here has focused on the union leaders, we haven't really considered the validity of this whole poll, since, as SG points out, most of the professions it says we trust the most are the ones we're pretty much expected to trust.

How can we really not trust people who are trained, paid and ready to rush into burning buildings to put out fires and save people? That's what firefighters do, and I, for one, sure appreciate it.

Despite many of our concerns with or opposition to the role of police as defenders of the corporate state and its undemocratic authority over people and its policies that keep the rich fat and the rest of us struggling, the fact is they are the ones we call when we see violence or break-ins, etc., since they are the ones best equipped to handle it--and, as workers, often risk their lives doing it.

Then there's the current dominant political sentiment among various doctors' organizations that we don't like (like supporting "two tier" medicine and expensive fee-for-service billing systems). But, again, as workers, these are the folks who advise us on our health and often save lives, treat and even cure illnesses with their skills.

That fact is, like teachers, nurses and other public service professions, these folks have a certain degree of status among the work force the others do not.

For example, what are the chances of being burned by a store clerk or a gas jockey? Practically nil. Yet why don't these jobs get to be among the most trusted?

Perhaps, as SG suggests, it's because these jobs are more readily attainable by more people, in terms of skill requirements and risk management, than the other professions, which require years of schooling and often involve much more expectation of risk.

Or how about the fact the poll lists day care workers as high up on the trust scale. So if we trust them so much (as we likely should), why don't we pay them better, since most of them a pretty low paid compared to most of the other listed professions?

Could it be because many people still largely see child care as a domestic "labour of love" instead of a bonafide skilled trade that is essential to any modern economy?

My point before was that, thanks largely to corporate media misinformation and smear campaigns, there is clearly a disconnect between respect for these professions and those professionals who are democratically elected from their ranks to represent them at the bargaining table and on various issues in society--which is pretty much what union leaders are.

For example, here in BC, the BC Teachers Federation President Ginnie Simms is well known as the rep for the teachers during their courageous defiance of the oppressive BC Liar regime's efforts to beat them into submission in order to further dismantle the public education system.

She is a teacher by trade and apparently has numerous awards in her career. So why since she's was elected to represent her co-workers in her trade is she now less trustworthy?

A similar case is BC Nurses Union President Debra MacPhearson, who is a charge nurse and has supposedly been decorated several times by the Victorian Order of Nurses and has worked to help shape the whole licensing and qualifications process for her trade. Why is she considered less trustworthy because she has been elected by her colleague to position of representation?

quote:

---

I'm a little baffled that anyone would trust either.

---

Legless Marine's comment shows that disconnect in action. The fact is union leaders, many of whom have their faults and short-comings, are democratically elected by the members of the union.

Union punishes law-abiding teachers

Campbell Liberals playing politics with patient care in LPN scheme, says HEU

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Union leaders, being elected to represent the best interests of the workers, are responsible for, among other things, calling strikes. Many of these strikes hurt the general public, especially those who are vulnerable. e.g. transit strikes, teacher strikes, etc. In addition, union leaders are mostly seen as being more interested in personal power than in benefiting workers and the economy. This may be ill-founded but friends of mine who are members of unions almost all feel this way. Some have been mistreated by their employers but the union was of no help. Thus I think their is resentment and mistrust even among the membership. Why they don't elect someone else? I don't know; maybe no real choices or fear of retribution.
Actually I see union leaders being equal in many ways to CEO's.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende
Steppenwolf Allende:

Union punishes law-abiding teachers

---

Thank you for posting this article about a scab by the name of Christopherson. After she crossed the picket line to go in and make money while her fellow workers were on strike, the union ordered her to pay her earnings as a fine. The greedy scab refused, of course. The Vancouver Province took up her cause as a hero of labour.

quote:

---

After she crossed the picket line to go in and make money while her fellow workers were on strike, the union ordered her to pay her earnings as a fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
Or maybe you think that most people are ignorant?

---

No - I think a few people pretend to be ignorant.

quote:

---

In addition, union leaders are mostly seen as being more interested in personal power than in benefiting workers and the economy. This may be ill-founded but friends of mine who are members of unions almost all feel this way.

---

Yeah, just like CEOs. They claim to be dedicated to making money for the shareholders, but friends of mine who own shares say that's wrong, the CEOs don't care about the company or the shareholders, they're all looking to steal a buck and high-tail it outta there. Doctors - don't get me started! Patients I know say all the doctors just wanna make money. No point changing doctors either - there's no real choice, and you've gotta fear retribution. The only people I know who are really selfless and will lay down everything for others, even their lives, are... lemme see... the U.S. armed forces! Look how many thousands of them are dying gratefully in Iraq without any thought of reward or even of accomplishing anything!

quote:

---

Why they don't elect someone else? I don't know; maybe no real choices or fear of retribution.

---

"Fear of retribution"!? Talk straight. They don't want to end up at the bottom of the canal wearing cement overshoes. They don't want their houses torched, their spouses and kids violated, and their kneecaps blown off. Of course they just bitch to you and never say anything in a union meeting - they value their lives. Don't be so hard on them. They're your friends, after all.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

I am shocked to hear that the AFL-CIO publication has never printed anything critical of itself. Then again, I don't think Out Times has done much of that either and they're "independent" (save for advertising revenue from unions).

quote:

---

The labour movement has a proud tradition of not airing it's dirty laundry in public for fear that negative publicity could cause membership penentration rates to tumble even further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
Originally posted by unionist
unionist:

The strike was illegal and the union reversed its decision.

---

Sorry, speak up, I can't hear you. Was she a scab? Or is it ok to cross your fellow workers' picket line when the state declares your strike illegal?

Do you actually belong to a trade union, or have you ever?

ETA: Just found this from one of Margaret Christopherson's enthusiastic supporters:

Teacher takes stand against fascist leftists and wins

quote:

---

Teacher Margaret Christopherson bravely stood up to the union as it engaged in an illegal strike and went to work, in obedience of the law.
The union punished her and demanded she pay back her earnings made during the illegal strike.
The union literally believed it could punish someone for obeying the law! Voila! Leftism unplugged and unhinged! Leftism exposed!
She defiantly refused. She wouldn't be intimidated by those oppressive scofflaw moonbats.
The union, fearing for its legal position (duh!) backed down and reinstated the teacher.
I congratulate Margaret Christopherson for standing up to the outlaw left-wing union fascists!

---

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:

Legless Marine's comment shows that disconnect in action. The fact is union leaders, many of whom have their faults and short-comings, are democratically elected by the members of the union.

---

While I do trust union leaders more than CEOs, I still don't trust them much. In fact there are few people who I trust less than Buzz Hargrove....and he is my union leader.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2: Interesting that only 39% trusted environmentalists. What's that all about?

---

I think that like most groups who are distrusted environmentalists have earned it. Some things are not their fault as for instance the 70s hysteria about a new ice age is commonly attributed to environmentalists (and leads to distrust) although in reality it was promoted by a small group of scientists and received far more media coverage at the time then the already larger group of scientists already worried about global warming.

But part of it is due to the emotional attachment of some "environmentalists" to any and all issues even when they know very little about those issues. I know several "environmentalists" who are (rightly) convinced about global warming, despite the fact that they know absolutely nothing about it. They also often find themselves emotionally attached to many other environmental issues such as the seal hunt, logging etc with a similar total lack of knowledge. Passion without knowledge leads to distrust even if you are on the correct side of an issue (and even more distrust when they have been on the wrong side of issues).

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

Yes, she was a scab.

No, it is not ok to cross your fellow workers' picket line when the state declares your strike illegal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
unionist:

Yes, she was a scab.

No, it is not ok to cross your fellow workers' picket line when the state declares your strike illegal.

Yes, I am a CUPE member/activist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Was that anti-union rhetoric? I know Reformer can be one note, but I don't think s/he has ever attacked organized labour per se. S/he thinks there needs to be some reforms in the labour movement, and from what I've seen of Reformers posts, s/he thinks there's a growing disconnection between the labour heads (particularly in the larger unions) and the rank-and-file).

(Sorry for the s/he thing. Too lazy to check a profile. How lazy is THAT?!)

---

Hey, I can beat just about Anyone when it comes to sheer determined laziness.... Anyhow, I maybe wrong about CUPe Reformer motives -I Have been known to be wrong before -once or twice- theres no doubt need for some reform within the movement, but when s/he compares em to the Mafia I can't help but have my doubts.

To the point again, I doubt the anti-union attitude so pervasive among non-unioized Canadians has much to do with anything unions put out or not, as most media sources don't even Give them much access anymore, just "what about the school children?" spin, and a lot of people still seem to learn their class biases on their daddy's knees. Even when it's against their own class interests in some cases.

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Police officers 69 per cent
Judges 52 per cent
Judicial system employees 33 per cent

---

Who are the "judicial system employees" exactly? The court clerks? Why are they trusted so much less than the judges or the police? Is it possible that people got confused and thought the question referred to lawyers (25%)?

Frankly I've known some fairly dishonest police officers in my day, but that's a different story.

quote:

---

Blaming MSM without pondering weather or not there may indeed be a problem , and fixing it, will keep the labour movement in decline.

---

First, why is the labour movement necessarily in decline? In some ways it is, and in some ways it isn't, depending on how you see it. that's the way it's always been.

Second, it seems to me large numbers of labour activists, including many elected ones, are working on and trying to fix various problems, just like we always have.

But the MSM is increasing becoming more like the Nazi propaganda machine every year. I work in that field. I see it and it makes me cringe.

quote:

---

Yes, I am a CUPE member/activist.

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

Thanks, Reformer. Now we can talk.

---

Sure. Is this the same "Reformer" who can't seem to criticize the labour movement without referring to some lying corporate-brown-nosing democracy-hating flake?

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
Why do many of you blame MSM for low opinions of labour(Union) leaders and not pause for a moment to reflect on this being their own fault or maybe deserved. Or maybe you think that most people are ignorant?

Union leaders, being elected to represent the best interests of the workers, are responsible for, among other things, calling strikes. Many of these strikes hurt the general public, especially those who are vulnerable. e.g. transit strikes, teacher strikes, etc.

...

Blaming MSM without pondering weather or not there may indeed be a problem , and fixing it, will keep the labour movement in decline.

---

People are not ignorant and that is precisely why I lay a large part of the blame on the MSM. If we had a truly free press that treated left wing leaders and union leaders with respect and reported fully on issues then the people would have a different context to form their opinions. That is a large part of the difference IMO between North America and other parts of the world like Euope and South America. They have old and established left leaning media and the people get more than the corporate mantra everyday. Strangly enough they have more unionism and stronger left wing and socialist parties. I for one think there is a direct correlation.

I represent Union's and I listen very carefully to coverage of strikes. In general the MSM picks up on and highlights the most frivilous of the Union's proposals (usually one of a dozen or more issues). As well they always talk about money as the only real main issue when in many if not most cases the money is a secondary issue to things like pensions, benefits and the big one "job security." The discourse even by the CBC is onesided and in some media like CANWEST it is anti-union.

I have tried to correct inaccurate and misleading information in the MSM and have had no success. You can tell the reporters directly the real issues and how their coverage needs expanding but it nevers sees the light of day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
And they wonder why unions are struggling in Canada.

---

It all looks very different to people who cannot get jobs because of closed shop policies with existing unions. Are these unions going to help people get work? I doubt it.

So, those who can't get work because of closed shop policies are stuck with what remains, the low-paid, contingent, part-time jobs that do not offer advancement.

And, then union people wonder why so many people do not sympathize with them. What I hear from the people is, "At least they have a job, why are they making so much of a fuss?"

[ 26 January 2007: Message edited by: Advocacy2005 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Advocacy2005:

It all looks very different to people who cannot get jobs because of closed shop policies with existing unions. Are these unions going to help people get work? I doubt it.

---

Pardon me? Is this something you read somewhere? Tell me about the last time you or a friend applied for a job and were told, "Sorry, there's a union here with a closed-shop policy, so we can't hire you."

Unless you're talking about dockworkers or construction, where there are still some surviving "hiring halls"? Even there, where the hell do you think they get new employees?

Enlighten me.

ETA: Oh wait a minute - do you mean like showing up at a personnel office and saying, "I'd like a job here but I'd rather not join the union or pay dues"? If that's what you meant, I think I understand you a lot better. Still waiting for enlightenment.

[ 26 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 26 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

It all looks very different to people who cannot get jobs because of closed shop policies with existing unions. Are these unions going to help people get work? I doubt it.

---

With all due respect, this is a load of crap.

First, the term "closed shop" is a misleading euphemism used by corporate hacks because they have an agreement that allows the union to send qualified workers to the firm. The fact this does not give them the totalitarian power to hire and fire anyone they choose at their sole discretion without any commitment to qualifications, training and experience, length of service, or personal need on the worker’s terms is why they whine and come up with all sorts of lies about it.

A hiring hall is just that: a union that has an employment hiring or job referral service. Anyone who is looking to work in an industry or sector where that union works is free to go to the union office and apply, submit and resume, inquire about training courses, etc.

The idea that firms don't hire because of an agreement with the union is as false as the Flat Earth Society. The fact is they hire via the union. If a person shows up at any of these outfits looking for work, they usually are directed to the union hiring hall. If any firm hiring via the union needs extra labour and that person has the skills, they can get the job.

It's as simple as brushing your teeth. I'm a self-employed own-op union member and we have a hiring hall/job referral service. Before new applicant is sent to a job, the dispatcher ensures that they know what their rights are, what's expected of them on the job and what they can expect.

More places should do things this way--that way newly hired people wouldn't end up getting burned as much as they do for being promised conditions that aren't forthcoming, and firms get the qualified people they need without having to check everyone out and trying lots of different people. It’s far better than having some tyrant making decisions at a whim without any accountability or concern for anyone else.

As far as getting work for people, can anyone here namely any organization or movement that historically has fought, worked, lobbied and protested for more job creation and training than the labour movement, either directly or via the NDP?

The fact is historically, both in Canada and around the globe, it has always been labour organizations that have demanded full employment, career advancement opportunities, higher education and skills training and decent-paying work with democratic rights and solid social benefits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Pardon me? Is this something you read somewhere? Tell me about the last time you or a friend applied for a job and were told, "Sorry, there's a union here with a closed-shop policy, so we can't hire you."[ 26 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
A hiring hall is just that: a union that has an employment hiring or job referral service. Anyone who is looking to work in an industry or sector where that union works is free to go to the union office and apply, submit and resume, inquire about training courses, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Advocacy2005:

Most provincial government jobs. Many jobs with large agencies where their funding has varied over the years. They all advise they hire all the laid-off people first in any new positions, then and only then (which is extremely rare) will they look outside. After an eight year job search that has resulted in nothing, they would rather re-hire somebody with less qualifications than me (e.g. three university degrees, 20 yrs in project management). I also live in a region where a significant amount of manufacturing jobs were controlled by CAW; their policies are similar. No "new" person has been hired at any of these plants in over twenty years, though when times were good for these plants, they re-hired some of the laid-off workers.

---

Ok, gotcha. It's called "seniority", not "closed shop".

It means this:

I work for the same company for 30 years. One day, the boss says: "I haven't got enough work for you to do. You're laid off." The next day, he hires you to replace me.

NOT.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I work for the same company for 30 years. One day, the boss says: "I haven't got enough work for you to do. You're laid off." The next day, he hires you to replace me.

NOT.

Don't like it? Tough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Advocacy2005:

I guess then we have to agree to disagree, because nobody "owns" a job (unless they're self-employed, of course).

---

See, the issue isn't about being pro- or anti-union. It's about caring for yourself alone vs. caring about your fellow human beings. It is about seeing your success as bound up with theirs, rather than contingent on their failure in a survival of the fittest contest.

Being part of a union teaches you there is strength in unity. It teaches you humanity (because although we're born human, only the society of other humans elicits that rich compassion and solidarity). Yeah, we union folks look after people that have less ability, less agility, less means, less gifts, less youth, less good looks, less everything. In the course of it, everyone wins.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Advocacy2005:

Then give us the contact name, address and telephone number for people who want to get union jobs with the provincial government, but who have not before worked for them and are not on any "surplus" list. Enquiring minds want to know.

---

This is about the best I can do. I've never worked for province myself. However, I did pass some tests and two interviews for a shot at a job with RevCanada in Ottawa. They ended up not hiring anyone and actually laid off more workers after spending all that time and money testing and interviewing hundreds of people for 50 apprenticeships. You may want to try bugging them for a job with public service at the federal level. I think it's pretty tight nowadays still. But what's new though?.

quote:

---

Yeah, we union folks look after people that have less ability, less agility, less means, less gifts, less youth, less good looks, less everything.

---

CUPE National sure looked after Robert Romard.

Romard v. CUPE

[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Yeah, we union folks look after people that have less ability, less agility, less means, less gifts, less youth, less good looks, less everything. In the course of it, everyone wins.

---

I think that first sentence reflects the admirable intentions of most union supporters. But, I disagree with the second sentence that "everyone wins".

Unions, for example, inject a lot of inefficiency in the economy because they protect poor performers and they establish a disincentive for good performers to excel (because they get paid the same as the poor performers). That inefficiency hurts everyone (because things cost more than they otherwise would).

Look at some of the most heavily unionized industries: automobiles, airlines, steel (well, not so much steel anymore because the industry is largely GONE in North America). Those industries are financial basket cases. Does that really help everyone? Of course, the response is that these industries all have incompetent managers. But, what a "coincidence" that they are all heavily unionized (and that "management" and the unions hate each other). It is so much better for everyone when workers, managers, and owners work together to create enterprise wealth.

I think the aspirational goals of unions is wonderful but the practice is not so wonderful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Look at some of the most heavily unionized industries: automobiles, airlines, steel (well, not so much steel anymore because the industry is largely GONE in North America). Those industries are financial basket cases.

---

We've got to do a lot less flying because of global warming. There are no fuel efficient jet engines.

Our steel mills boomed in the U.S. and Canada at the height of the Korean and Vietnam wars. They break the piggy banks when the red menace threatens their way of life. "They call it freedom when themselves are free." Unionized steel mills in Ontario are bustling with purchase orders from China. But the steel is for apartment buildings and factories not tanks and WMD.

A gold mining boom took place in the Amazon jungle years ago. There was nothing there until the natives were paid a pittance to do back-breaking work panning for flour gold to grains and nuggets from sunup to sundown. There were many accidental deaths. As more river bottom was dredged and gold sluced, prices of everything began skyrocketing in surrounding villages. And yet there were no unions to blame for price inflation. Strange.

Chile outlawed unions at one time, and the economy went to a warm place in a handbasket.

Toyota workers are unionized. Maybe Ford and GM should try new management or tweak car designs. Julius Caesar knew not to heap blame on the foot soldiers in his outfit.

quote:

---

"either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate. . . [and] have a voice in the council, in a word he will become an associate.
"In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he forms part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 215-216]

---

Market socialists explain that trade unions are a spontaneous reaction to harsh market forces, Sven. Unions are natural, and a society thats hinders formation of trade unions is not a free and democratic society. The "Right to Work" States are neither free or fair. Taft-Hartley is not laissez-faire.

[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
See, the issue isn't about being pro- or anti-union. It's about caring for yourself alone vs. caring about your fellow human beings. It is about seeing your success as bound up with theirs, rather than contingent on their failure in a survival of the fittest contest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
(re Revenue Canada) You may want to try bugging them for a job with public service at the federal level. I think it's pretty tight nowadays still. But what's new though?.

GO Jobs

---

Been there too. Because I am not in Toronto or Ottawa, government jobs here are available, but usually not open to the public.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Unions, for example, inject a lot of inefficiency in the economy because they protect poor performers and they establish a disincentive for good performers to excel (because they get paid the same as the poor performers). That inefficiency hurts everyone (because things cost more than they otherwise would).

---

... and we all have to pay these prices, whether we are a CEO or somebody one welfare.

What's this doing in the Labour and Consumption section anyway? Shouldn't it go in Canadian politics or Media sections to indicate the political and ideological nature of the subject and the likely anti-labour biases, etc.?

[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]