Author
|
Topic:
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 02 April 2005 05:39 PM
Hmm unions good or bad? Well I suppose there is nothing wrong with safe work environment. However I don't like the fact they preach that made in canada union produced goods are superior. Ie. domestic vehicles. As an avid car enthusiast I have to say that my Toyota is far superior to anything built in ontario. I've been a mechanic for 15 years and have to say I have stories that will scare you to death. cracked welds in cars that were only 4 months of the showroom...in good concious and respect for my family and fellow motorist safety I will not in near future ever own a domestically made vehicle or suggest it to anyone.Thank you C.A.W. and GM for making such crappy vehicles. It provided me reasonable wealth. And who says unions don't create jobs Todd
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 02 April 2005 09:12 PM
quote: I am losing faith in the CAW and wonder if they are here to help, or to put us all out of jobs.
Give me a break. On the one hand you dumped the UFCW because you felt they weren't fighting for you and then when the CAW does fight for you you are complaining. What do you want the union to do? Not represent its members in their dealings with the employer? Members would then be able to charge their union with unfair represenation. As well, I'm sure if you went over to the Pepsi plant you'd hear all kinds of stories about allegedly "lazy workers" being responsible for everything under the sun. I don't think I've heard of a workplace anywhere union or non-union where supposedly "lazy" workers weren't being blamed for whatever problems were there. I'm sure that if you visited the worst sweatshop in China that you'd find the management blaming "lazy workers". Its the oldest story in the book. Employers use the "threat" of competition and job loss to keep workers in line. quote: I personaly do not think that Coca Cola will shut it's Brampton facility. It's only 2 years old, and they spent $150 million on this state of the art facility. Sure Coca Cola is filthy rich, but closing a $150 million plant is probbaly just a bluff.
Now you're catching on. quote: Thank you C.A.W. and GM for making such crappy vehicles. It provided me reasonable wealth. And who says unions don't create jobs
Excuse me but the CAW has absolutely no say whatsoever about what vehicles GM decides to design, build, market and what the quality control standards are. Those decisions are all made by GM's corporate management. In fact back in the early 1990's when General Motors closed its Scarborough Van Plant the CAW waged a campaign to try to get General Motors to build an environmentally-friendly vehicle there. The campaign fell completely on deaf ears. In fact the UAW first began campaigning for smaller vehicles back in the late 1940's ... anticipating the then invasion of small European vehicles like the Volkswagen Beetle that came along in the 1950's. Did the U.S.-based manufacturers listen? Of course not. They were completely "surprised". The U.S. "big three" has always put their best efforts into producing the big gas-guzzlers because they've been much more profitable. When it came to "econo-boxes" they generally produced crap because they weren't as profitable. Police forces are heavy purchasers of cars and put some heavy duty wear and tear on them. Do they buy Toyotas? No way. All across Canada and the U.S. the Ford Crown Victoria...Ford's big gas guzzler is their vehicle of choice. And of course after the police forces cast them off they get put into service for a few more years as taxicabs. And by the way, most Japanese auto workers are also unionized. Korean auto workers are unionized too...although alot of the union leadership has had to flee underground. Sorry that this is becoming a long post. But...the other thing that really bugs me is why people are always questioning the right of workers to organize. Why don't we have a thread let's say on "Canadian Bankers Association...good or bad". Or how about... "Is the Business Council on National Issues (or whatever it is they're calling themselves these days) too powerful?" People are always criticizing organized labour. What about "organized business"? Organized business has much more influence on government policy than organized labour could ever expect to have in their wildest dreams. How about lazy CEO's? Those who spend more time figuring out how to swallow up successful businesses developed by others than coming up with businesses of their own? Or lazy CEO's who would rather spend their money on hiring lawyers to defend "intellectual property rights" than developing new business methods in a world of changing technology. The folks with the RIA and the CRIA come immediately to mind. So does the SCO Group who are trying to tear down Linux rather than put out a product that people want to use. Anyway, that's the end of my rant for now.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
gabong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8663
|
posted 02 April 2005 10:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by arborman: My union (BCGEU) is great.I used to be in the Safeway Union - CFCW. Rat Union if ever there was one. They charged $7/week in union dues (instead of a % of wages), and most of us worked no more than 10 hours/week at about $7/hr. So 10% union dues (or more for those who worked 5 hours), and absolutely no representation when things came up (and they did). My current union is great, however.
If you were working for $7 an hour, I have to wonder what good your union was.
I pay nearly $100 a month in union dues. that works out to about 3.5% for me and possibly as little as 2% for many of my co-workers.
From: Newfoundland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274
|
posted 03 April 2005 12:02 AM
Shuckins! It's amazing how effective the corporate class and its media have been in keeping so many working people, including many union members, in the dark about what unions are and the central historic role of the labour movement in establishing democracy.The fact is unions are cooperative associations collectively owned by their members, who come together to democratically address their common concerns and freely discuss issues of interest and take action if needed. That is ALWAYS--as in ALWAYS--a good thing. That doesn't mean they are perfect, or without fault. And unions are as diverse as their members, and only as good as their members overall. There is no way to hold the "union" responsible for some sort of failure without the union members taking some of the heat as well (and let's not forget that most often a union's failures are due to the corporate employer successfully blocking its efforts). Unions democratically elect their leaders and representatives. If people feel any of these are not living up to general expectation, the members can vote them out. quote: I am losing faith in the CAW and wonder if they are here to help, or to put us all out of jobs.
Wait a minute. It sounds like you folks are facing a tough situation with the bosses that run that Coca Cola plant. You are CAW members and elect your reps. That makes it your union. Granted, the union has many more members than just you folks, and it hires staff to assist and advise the members and keep the union coordinated. But in the end it is up to you folks what you want to do. You need to take the initiative, and the rest of the organization should be there to back you up, give advice and support. quote: I have talked to the Union on several occasions, and they have told me that too many people are slacking off. I agree. This is no brainer. Everyone sees it and no one can deny it. So why are they slacking off? Because they know that the Union will be there to fight for them if the company tries to discipline them.
This is another BS myth pushed by many bosses, governments and corporate lobbies that we're supposed to blindly accept: unions protect lazy and stupid workers. First, according to legions of reports and studies, the biggest cause of poor worker performance and productivity in both union and non-union environments is low morale and workplace depression. That happens when key issues workers have are not addressed or suppressed. And this is a common problem in hierarchical corporate capitalist environments where everything is top-down, and those who do the productive work are on the bottom and are sacrificed to keep those on top fat and safe. Second, who determines what a "lazy worker" is? The boss? That's one of the biggest violations of justice. The boss decides you are no good and disciplines or fires you without any accountability. That is called totalitarianism, and it is how capitalist corporations operate. So of course unions defend their members regardless of who they are. One fundamental tenet of freedom is the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Unionization provides that freedom to workers. It makes much more sense for the workers to determine who isn't performing up to speed, since they have to work harder to pick up the slack and deal with it among themselves as a union. Quite often poor work performance can be a sign of depression, drug or alcohol abuse, personal or family problems, etc. Many unions offer counseling and re-adjustment programs for their members to help with this. Third, most union work sites have fairly specific job descriptions in their collective agreements. If someone isn't performing their duties within that description, then you know there's a problem. Simply saying, "so and so is a dog phuker" just doesn't cut it. As a union organizer and past rep, I have visited workplaces where people were constantly accusing each other of slacking off, screwing around, being a corporate snitch, being crabby, etc. Yet when I look at the place overall, and maybe see some of the operating figures, everyone pretty much seems to be doing what is expected of them, and the place runs rather smoothly. quote: However I don't like the fact they preach that made in canada union produced goods are superior. Ie. domestic vehicles. As an avid car enthusiast I have to say that my Toyota is far superior to anything built in ontario.
Hate to disappoint you, but Toyotas are mainly made in Canada, Japan, Korea and the US. Most, if not all, of the plants in these places are union. And if you check out consumer reports and monitoring agencies, in general, union made goods are of better quality and quite often are not more expensive, or at least not a great deal more expensive. It's obvious why. Union workers tend to be better paid, better trained; more secure, have more advancement opportunities and therefore tend to invest more of their efforts and skills in their jobs. BTW, I have owned GM and Chryslers all my life and have never had a problem outside the usual wear and tear and basic maintenance expenses. quote: The union / company relationship is built on mutual antipathy and distrust.When dealing with work issues and grievances, reasonableness and common sense is abandoned. Natural human judiciousness is replaced with unbendable rules and regulations. It is frustrating.
Once again, antipathy and distrust is cultivated by hierarchical top-down authoritarian corporate structures. Bosses pressured by bosses above bosses above bosses, etc. The employees and professionals who do the actual productive work that creates the goods and services that give the company its value are merely seen as "human resources" to be used and discarded when the bosses determine they are no longer needed. That's not a union problem. It's a corporate problem that unions have to deal with. Secretive management that imposes decisions on workers and gets frustrated when it has to negotiate with the workers over something automatically breeds antipathy and distrust. I have found that on work sites and in firms where workers have a great deal of job control and good union consciousness, the antipathy and distrust are most often mitigated by a sense of self-confidence and security, as well as some freedom of expression as workers have some input into running the site on their own terms. As for your situation, CAW/TCA Local 973, I could try to make a couple suggestions if I had more detail (like maybe a union buy-out if the plant is viable, court action to put a lien on the plant, find another buyer, etc.) But regardless of the situation, I for one, am with you guys and I wish there was something I could do to help. I hope you can keep your plant operating.
From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 03 April 2005 04:34 AM
In my experience, my union jobs have always been less enjoyable. They paid slightly more, but in the union jobs I always felt like I was just a drone. I beleive that making a little less and working at a place where co-workers actually talk to me and treat me like a human being is a good trade-off. The unionized jobs always had a clique of people who have been there forever who barely did their job. For them it was great, but for the rest of us, the drones, it was terrible. The duties barely varied at all, and the supervisors were always breathing down our necks.In contrast, my non-union positions had great people to work with who didn't shun me because I wasn't a member of their seniority clique. My duties varied (nobody to file a grievance if I did their job), and I was responsible for doing them- I didn't have a manager micromanaging how I did my job (like at the unionized places), it was up to me to make it happen. And the boss is/was either not there, or he/she had their own work to do rather than pick on us. (I won't name places, but all of my jobs have been in the food service industry)
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 03 April 2005 06:05 AM
quote: Originally posted by Ethical Redneck: This is another BS myth pushed by many bosses, governments and corporate lobbies that we're supposed to blindly accept: unions protect lazy and stupid workers.
quote: Originally posted by Ethical Redneck: So of course unions defend their members regardless of who they are. One fundamental tenet of freedom is the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Unionization provides that freedom to workers.
The two statements seem to contradict each other: either the union protects and defends all of its workers-- the lazy and stupid included-- or it doesn't. Surely you don't mean to suggest that there aren't always a few in every shop who are lazy and stupid? We've all met them.
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 April 2005 06:12 AM
I come from a family of steel workers, fire fighters, cops and the odd other professional here and there. My two elder brothers told us stories about working alongside poorly skilled, non-union workers that would make your hair curl. Iron worker's and other high wire acts will often refuse to work with non-unionized jobers, and not due to laziness or pay differences either.And if there was any evidence that non-unionized contract work cost any less on average than unionized work in the same sector of the economy in Canada, then you can damn well bet we'd never hear the last of it, Gir. Yes, I, too, have met some real dandies on various jobs, Gir. Most unions wouldn't have them. They're usually foremen or some other job where they can't get in the way. [ 03 April 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349
|
posted 03 April 2005 08:50 AM
There is a problem when unions put out contracts that make it near impossible for employers to fluid to the changes in business.Why did you want the caw in the first place, was the money not good enough? Were not getting full time hours? 37 jobs gained only to lose 100 3 years later is not good math for the workers.
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 03 April 2005 11:36 AM
Unions are good.It is probably true that unions protect some dumb and/or lazy people. On the other hand, they are the major force stopping everyone except managers and a few irreplaceable certified geniuses from ending up as disposable serfs. And fields that think they're untouchable Gee, which of these things is more important? Hmmm . . . Of course, when it comes to protecting dumb and/or lazy people--management does a pretty good job of that too. I've run across more managers that I couldn't figure out what they were for than workers. Anecdotes such as Gir's are cute and all, but in my union shop everyone's amazingly nice. Most of them are far nicer than I am. It does not seem plausible that being unionized turns people into monsters. One thing I would suggest is that most workplaces, union or non-union, are such as to end up making people bitter and cynical. Non-union ones are likely to have higher turnover; people working non-union will either be looking for better jobs in the same field or just in that field at all while they get their education. So they're likely to be not that worried about how bad it sucks. Union places, people are more likely to have essentially gotten as good a job as they're gonna get in that field, are less likely to be going anywhere. So they're forced to confront how sucky that still is. Stuff they might have shrugged at and thought "Eh, I'll be outta here soon . . . whatever," in their stepping-stone non-union job instead gets internalized in a this-is-the-first-day-of-the-rest-of-your-futility kind of way. That's alienation for you. Unions are way better than no union. But they're not the solution. Worker ownership is better than union or non-union. When there's bosses and no unions, it's true that there isn't an adversarial situation in the sense that a guy kicking the shit out of someone curled on the ground trying to protect their vital spots isn't really a confrontation. And it's not a good situation even if the kicking guy has decided to go easy and not kick all that hard. When there's bosses and unions, there is a confrontation, and an ongoing fight isn't a very healthy situation. It does look good compared to the kicking-the-shit-out-of case, but it's still not good. When people own and control their own workplace, everyone's on the same side. When there are bosses and workers and the firm is devoted solely to generating profits for the bosses, workers have no positive motivation to do anything, especially for big companies. There's no connection between effort and reward, and there's no reason to identify with the firm. Unions undermine some of the negative motivation (threats) that are used to try to ensure hard work anyway in a non-union shop. But in a co-op, success is shared. There is positive motivation to do well, not just for yourself but for your friends at work, and because you're part of the firm; you're helping build something you have a stake in. There's a sense of ownership because there *is* ownership.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274
|
posted 03 April 2005 02:42 PM
Y'all. Despite some of the usual worn-out baseless stereotypes to smear union workers and the labour movement, this is a good discussion. quote: The two statements seem to contradict each other: either the union protects and defends all of its workers-- the lazy and stupid included-- or it doesn't.Surely you don't mean to suggest that there aren't always a few in every shop who are lazy and stupid? We've all met them.
Hey Tape, come on. I'm convinced that there ain't a group, place or situation in the whole world that you can get into where you won't run into at least one moron, dog-phuker, punk-ass or con artist. Our economy seems to produce these types for every season and every thing. But if you want to see a sector of society has probably the highest concentration of these totally out-to-lunch/out-of-touch types, it's the halls of corporate wealth and power. And what's scary about that is that since these types have such undemocratic control over such wealth and power is what makes them so dangerous. But, no, I don't think those two statements I made are contradictory. Even if we assume there are lazy and stupid people among workers in every shop, we still have to determine what constitutes "lazy" and "stupid," because, like it or not that does vary from place to place; and more importantly who actually is being lazy or acting stupid and why. That's why the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is so important. It's also why it's so critical for workers to have the right to negotiate job descriptions, performance standards and have access to a grievance and self-evaluation procedures, like in most union shops. How many millions of time a day in our economy is someone forced to answer for something someone else has or hasn't done? How many millions of times a day do bosses arbitrarily decide what is lazy and stupid and who is lazy and stupid? All the time, and that is one of the biggest injustices in our economy and businesses. Also, how many times do people assume that if someone isn't doing their job properly, it's because they are sleazy or evil instead of it being a personal problem that isn't being addressed? The general union philosophy is the basic democratic tenet that anyone who is accused or charged with something has the right to defense and response. That’s what I was trying to get at. quote: In my experience, my union jobs have always been less enjoyable. They paid slightly more, but in the union jobs I always felt like I was just a drone. I beleive that making a little less and working at a place where co-workers actually talk to me and treat me like a human being is a good trade-off.
Actually, as I have shown, the opposite is for the most part true. If you look at the records put out by various labour centrals, you find probably the major motivation for workers to organize, often even bigger than wages or working conditions or safety, is the fact that they don't want to be treated as mindless, powerless "employees" or "human resources" or, as Draxon says, "drones." Being treated like a drone is not a union characteristic. Rather, it is a characteristic directly resulting from top-down corporate capitalist boss-employee structures. The general equation seems to be that the greater degree of democratic job control workers have, the less de-humanized they tend to feel. There are always exceptions, of course. But this is usually the way it is as workers unionize. At last year's BC Fed convention, a couple folks reported a string of successful organizing efforts by workers in the high tech and software design industries. The main motivation for this, they said, was their desire for more creative freedom and better control over their workspace environment. I have a relative who works as a sound tech in the film and music industries. There the union has a very high degree of job control, the workers have a large degree of democratic self-governance and creative freedom, and, as a result, the "drone" situation is minimized. And of course, if you look at self-employed/micro-business workers and those in employee-run or cooperative ventures--many of whom are union members--the "drone" feeling is definitely minimized, since the workers own and run the business, as well as being in the union.
From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743
|
posted 03 April 2005 04:00 PM
quote: Unions: good or bad
As with most things in life, the right answer is "both". At their best, unions promote social justice, defend employees from capricious and unfair treatment, prevent further deterioration in the income distribution inequities, help the underpriviledged, encourage gender equity and ensure safe working conditions. Some of the nicest people I've ever met have been members of local union executives. At their worst, unions encourage laziness and incompetence, they can be incredibly bureaucratic, they are often only marginally democratic (often only insiders have any real hope of getting elected), they obstruct progress by blocking labour-saving technology, they are often poorly led and they strike far too often. Additionally, I've seen unions be unbelievably vindictive towards members with the temerity to challenge union decisions.
From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474
|
posted 03 April 2005 05:31 PM
There seems to be a half-way measure adopted by some "progressive" companies that mimics/co-opts worker coops and utilizes many of the benefits, but without giving away the store. For example, I read a recent article about "Whole Foods," a huge organic foods company based in the US now in Vancouver, which explained that workers in each department are granted control over hiring/discipline and what products to order based on their front line knowledge, etc. Of course this gives staff a greater sense of participation and satisfaction, and accordingly the company is rated as a (relatively) good one to work for (what's the standard, Walmart?). However, there's no mention if, in return for this extra responsibility--which ultimately benefits the bottom line--the staff is also rewarded financially, and if that possible financial reward is in line with the benefit to the company bottom line. Maybe they get a kind of commission, but for all I know, management may consider the extra responsibility a privilege and the greater satisfaction etc. reward enough. There's also a big unaccounted benefit to the bottom line because it's far less hassle running a store if your workers do it for you. You omit lots of managers, sales are up, the staff are motivated, you maybe throw some extra crumbs their way, you gain a reputation for being progressive, so if you're a corporate boss, what's not to like? Since it's as successful a strategy as it's publicized to be, it does prompt the question: "Why not go all the way?"
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 April 2005 05:36 PM
How unions help all workers by Lawrence Mishel with Matthew Walters
Some of the conclusions are: Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree. Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries. The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages. The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans. Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement, unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer. Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers contribute 28% more toward pensions. Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave (vacations and holidays). Unions play a pivotal role both in securing legislated labor protections and rights such as safety and health, overtime, and family/medical leave and in enforcing those rights on the job. Because unionized workers are more informed, they are more likely to benefit from social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance and workers compensation. Unions are thus an intermediary institution that provides a necessary complement to legislated benefits and protections" Economic Policy Institute, Washington DC
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 03 April 2005 07:02 PM
quote: posted by bittersweet For example, I read a recent article about "Whole Foods," a huge organic foods company based in the US now in Vancouver, which explained that workers in each department are granted control over hiring/discipline and what products to order based on their front line knowledge, etc. Of course this gives staff a greater sense of participation and satisfaction, and accordingly the company is rated as a (relatively) good one to work for (what's the standard, Walmart?).However, there's no mention if, in return for this extra responsibility--which ultimately benefits the bottom line--the staff is also rewarded financially, and if that possible financial reward is in line with the benefit to the company bottom line. *** Since it's as successful a strategy as it's publicized to be, it does prompt the question: "Why not go all the way?"
I don't know if the article you read covered this or not, but some Whole Foods workers in Madison, Wisconsin did try to "go all the way" and form a union. Unfortunately they found out that for all its supposedly progressive ideals, Whole Foods is just as bad as Walmart when it comes to crushing workers' organizing efforts. You might want to check out this website for more information: Whole Workers Unite! Article: How the Madison Organizing Drive Started [ 04 April 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 04 April 2005 09:29 PM
""""Excuse me but the CAW has absolutely no say whatsoever about what vehicles GM decides to design, build, market and what the quality control standards are. Those decisions are all made by GM's corporate management."""Of course it is NEVER the workers fault. Hey arn't all those engineering jobs at GM unionized as well.... As in regards to Reliability have you read any reliability ratings for the last 3 years and looked at the re-sale value of the average domestic vehicle and how many of them are subject to re-calls....And my 35,000 Toyota Sienna is a cheap piece of crap????? tell me How the CAW freestar is better that the Toyota sienna? Have you done any research at all on reliability or cost of the domestic vehicle" ""The U.S. "big three" has always put their best efforts into producing the big gas-guzzlers because they've been much more profitable"" Yes the domestics have made sooo much money lately and havn't lost any market share have they? As well where did I say all unions are bad and can't make anything good? I guess I'm really getting at is that I'm sick of hearing if its made in canada and from union it has to be the best in the world bull sh** BTW what union or unions are involved with the japanese auto plants here in North america?
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 04 April 2005 09:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by arborman: My union (BCGEU) is great.I used to be in the Safeway Union - CFCW. Rat Union if ever there was one. They charged $7/week in union dues (instead of a % of wages), and most of us worked no more than 10 hours/week at about $7/hr. So 10% union dues (or more for those who worked 5 hours), and absolutely no representation when things came up (and they did). Here at unionized grocery stores ....Some part timers have complained that after dues are taken off they make below min. My current union is great, however.
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 04 April 2005 09:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: How unions help all workers by Lawrence Mishel with Matthew Walters
Some of the conclusions are: Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree. Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries. The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages. The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans. Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement, unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer. Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers contribute 28% more toward pensions. Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave (vacations and holidays). Unions play a pivotal role both in securing legislated labor protections and rights such as safety and health, overtime, and family/medical leave and in enforcing those rights on the job. Because unionized workers are more informed, they are more likely to benefit from social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance and workers compensation. Unions are thus an intermediary institution that provides a necessary complement to legislated benefits and protections" Economic Policy Institute, Washington DC
That really depends on what industry your talking about....Here in vancouver construction workers actualy shy away from union jobs.
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 04 April 2005 09:48 PM
Gomery inquiry Secret testimonyHave any of you guys read it? It is disturbing........ Do we live in Canada or Columbia?
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 04 April 2005 09:53 PM
"""Hate to disappoint you, but Toyotas are mainly made in Canada, Japan, Korea and the US. Most, if not all, of the plants in these places are union."""" Thankfully Still foriegn designed and engineered. Please also note that most union plants Asian auto unions have relitively low influence compared to the domestics....even the ones in honda plant in allison are limited. Todd -Dont buy domestic......Buy what works
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813
|
posted 04 April 2005 11:30 PM
Nice posts, E-R.If the corperate media had any good genuine evidence that non-unionized places were more productve than unionized ones overall, you could bet whatever you own that people would be *extremely* well informed of it, a la the big US networks if not the Canadian ones. Adopting a union and keeping it in place takes time, effort, and money, and goes against peoples initial fear of change. If the workers didn't think it was of benefit, any given place would not be unionized. Hence, the workers of unionized places must therefore think the union is worth supporting, despite the percentage of wages usually taken. Also, the desires to contribute to society and to feel respected for said contributions are basic human characteristics (some would suggest needs) throughout the world. Feeling unrespected in this regard is one of the hardest thing for a modern person to accept. This can be seen all over the place, as many people will devote huge amounts of time and energy into a job/career with the hope of such recognition in mind, even if there is hardly any realistic chance of this coming about. This is even more true with "downsizing"/sending jobs offshore happening in industries with good profits and chances of survival in North America (or industrialized Europe), especially for those jumping on the bandwagon early. For whatever reason, most modern peoples place a huge focus on the workplace as the source of fulfilling these two needs/desires. The fact that some workers act "lazy" or "stupid" is IMO largely due to the feeling that they are not having one or both of these needs met, which almost always has *something* to do with corperate attitudes towards said workers as a whole. In my experience, this feeling of disrepect usually occurs only after a lot of (percieved) disrepect at the hands of those seen as being in power. IMO, the bottom line here is this: if corporations treated staff well enough to make membership in unions redundant, unions would cease to exist. If any given corperation truly wanted to kill a union - and had the neccesary wisdom to effectively follow that road - that would be the most logical way to proceed. As noted earlier, it would also help long-term productivity better than any crack-down ever could. [ 04 April 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]
From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 05 April 2005 01:55 AM
quote: have you read any reliability ratings for the last 3 years and looked at the re-sale value of the average domestic vehicle and how many of them are subject to re-calls....And my 35,000 Toyota Sienna is a cheap piece of crap????
Well Sour Apples, talking about re-calls...have you done any research about your Toyota Sienna? It took me about 10 seconds on Googlesearch to find this: Latest Toyota Sienna Recalls 2004 Toyota Sienna XLE Limited NHTSA Recall ID Number: 03V291000 Watch out for that leaky gas tank! Before you accuse others of not doing their homework Sourapples you should do your own. quote: Hey arn't all those engineering jobs at GM unionized as well
A few very low level engineers "might" be unionized but they are hardly calling the shots at General Motors. quote: Yes the domestics have made sooo much money lately and havn't lost any market share have they?
Sourapples you've missed the point entirely. The corporate big-wigs at the big three have made certain assumptions about the best way to make money in the auto industry. However those decisions have frequently been wrong. And frequently its been the unions that have pointed out that corporate management has been wrong but the unions were ignored. General Motors, Ford or Daimler Chrysler do not go to the offices of the CAW or UAW before they decide what to build and how to build it.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
blacklisted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8572
|
posted 05 April 2005 12:07 PM
any discussion of unions should , and rarely does, include a far more holistic view of the role union employment plays in providing the entire social framework that North Americans take for granted. "Consumers aren’t helped much by a policy that throws people out of work and reduces domestic purchasing power. Consumers are also workers and in Canada we’re starting with unemployment rates that are already high. As a recent Business Week article pointed out, when we buy domestic goods, the issue isn’t just price; we buy a package that imports can’t replace: "Every [domestic] auto is better than any import because it contains features you can’t get on any import - schools, crime prevention, roads, bridges, defense, health care, social security, etc." http://www.caw.ca/campaigns&issues/ongoingcampaigns/autotariffs/tariffchanges.asp and the effect of unions on employment is clearly felt most dramatically among those not protected against the excesses of "free" market privateers.the small business engine is largely run on minimum wage, non-union workers, mainly youth ,women and minorities, in my first-hand experience, through intimidation, coercion and unfair employment practices. they are routinely exploited. "working for minimum wage, however, was highest among workers in small firms (1 in 13). This likely stems from lower unionization rates and weaker bargaining power found in smaller firms—only 8% of minimum wage workers were covered by a collective agreement, compared with 32% of all employees. Indeed, only 1 in 90 union members worked for minimum wage or less, compared with 1 in 20 non-union members. The large number of part-time workers, students and other young people working for minimum wage, combined with their sizeable presence in smaller firms, tends to inhibit the ability of these workers to organize and thereby command better wages" http://www.statcan.ca/english/studies/75-001/archive/e-pdf/e-0421.pdf
From: nelson,bc | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813
|
posted 06 April 2005 06:50 AM
quote: Originally posted by blacklisted: any discussion of unions should , and rarely does, include a far more holistic view of the role union employment plays in providing the entire social framework that North Americans take for granted. "Consumers aren’t helped much by a policy that throws people out of work and reduces domestic purchasing power. Consumers are also workers and in Canada we’re starting with unemployment rates that are already high. As a recent Business Week article pointed out, when we buy domestic goods, the issue isn’t just price; we buy a package that imports can’t replace: "Every [domestic] auto is better than any import because it contains features you can’t get on any import - schools, crime prevention, roads, bridges, defense, health care, social security, etc."
Nicely put.
It should be noted that the significant amount of wealth in Canada/US held in such a small amount of hands (much of it by the owners of the big companies that actively and effectivly work to weaken labour unions and laws) effectively withdraws if from being of benefit to society as a whole, as well as tending to fragment society amongst class lines. This is money that could eliminate child poverty, child malnutrition, much - if not nearly all - of the violence associated with poverty and mental illness, and (in the US) the lack of decent medical coverage. I am not against wealth, but these things going on with some having more than a couple of million in the bank, being of little or no use to either them or anyone else (as not much of it is spent in Canada), cannot legitimately be called just in my opinion. This problem can perhaps be illuminated by the recent report suggesting that $88 billion of legitimate taxes are being lost by usage of loopholes by wealthy businesses and individuals in Canada. And, although I have mentioned it before, and due to the very small amount of people who truly understand it, I will mention NAIRU here. NAIRU is a economic belief - actively followed by the governments of Canada and the US - that a percentage of people MUST BE kept unemployed in order to keep inflation under control. If my memory is correct, the Canadian numbers - that is to say the numbers of people that the Canadian government policy has deliberately aimed to keep unemployed - has traditionally been between 8-12 percent of the total population (source: Linda McQuaig's book "Shooting the Hippo", see also here: http://www.basicincome.com/basic_mcquaig.htm ) and the interesting related page here: http://www.basicincome.com/basic_gendata.htm which also deals with IMO associated deep problems in our banking system today. If not for these policies the growth in the Canadian economy would be IMO be massive, as a) people could more easily find jobs, b) companies would have less fear of failure (low interest rates mean less bankrupsy), and c) the government would get much more in taxes and would have to pay much less in EI/welfare, and the related social problems that tend to correlate with lack of employment and associated self-respect would decrease as well. All the above would probably have a positive effect on Canadian psychology/sociology as well.
From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292
|
posted 06 April 2005 02:48 PM
British Columbia: resource based economy, historically heavily unionized, strong economy, high standard of living.New Brunswick: resource based economy, historically not unionized, weak economy, low standard of living QED [ 06 April 2005: Message edited by: BleedingHeart ]
From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
gCato
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8691
|
posted 07 April 2005 09:46 PM
quote: British Columbia: resource based economy, historically heavily unionized, strong economy, high standard of living.New Brunswick: resource based economy, historically not unionized, weak economy, low standard of living
1. Newfoundland and Labrador are the most heavily unionized provinces (40%, compared to 34% in BC). 2. The unionization is mostly in the public sector. In BC the public sector is unionized to 77.7%, while the private sector only to 21.1%. Other comparison: there are numerically MORE unionized employees in the public sector than in the private sector, although the private sector employs 3.5 times more people than the public sector. This figure is only 2.6 in the Atlantic, i.e. proportionally there are much more leeches there; that is one of the sources of their poverty. The wealth does not come from the public sector. 3. The unionization of the private sector in the Atlantic is 29.5%, MUCH HIGHER than in BC. Is that the reason for their week economy? 4. In BC, from about 1.8 million employees, only about 33 thousands are working in the "natural resources" segment; 13 thousand of them are unionized. That is 0.8% (zero point eight percent) of the total employees. Right, these make the province's economy strong. N.B. the above figures are from 2001. I don't have the newer figures, but I don't think that there is any relevant change. The document I used does not show detailed figures re the individual Atlantic provinces. quote: QED
QED requires, that you make a statement before (beside, that statement is supposed to be correct).
From: British Columbia | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
gCato
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8691
|
posted 07 April 2005 10:02 PM
quote: Every [domestic] auto is better than any import because it contains features you can’t get on any import - schools, crime prevention, roads, bridges, defense, health care, social security, etc
Rubbish. Canada's export is higher than the import, i.e. even more should be imported (but not the worthless crap from China!). Those jobs creating the export contribute to the Canadian economy equally to those, which create goods sold within Canada. Without the import there would not be export.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 04:57 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BleedingHeart: [QB]British Columbia: resource based economy, historically heavily unionized, strong economy, high standard of living.New Brunswick: resource based economy, historically not unionized, weak economy, low standard of living QED BC is highly unionized ........ Have you heard of gordon campbell???? besides how highly unionized is BC??
What about Alberta?
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 05:15 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by radiorahim: [QB]Sourapples you've missed the point entirely. The corporate big-wigs at the big three have made certain assumptions about the best way to make money in the auto industry. However those decisions have frequently been wrong. And . Here according to Consumer report magazine are the top most reliable cars http://www.consumerreports.org Toyota Corolla Scion xB Honda Civic Mazda3 Subaru Impreza Toyota Echo Mitsubishi Lancer As for the best rated used cars to buy "These are the best of both worlds: vehicles that have performed well in Consumer Reports road tests over the years and have proved to have several or more years of better-than-average overall reliability. They are listed alphabetically." Acura Integra, Acura MDX, Acura RL, Acura RSX Acura TL Buick Regal Chevrolet/Geo Prizm Chrysler PT Cruiser Ford Crown Victoria Ford Escort, ZX2 Honda Accord Honda Civic Honda CR-V Honda Odyssey Honda Prelude Honda S2000 Infiniti G20 Infiniti I30, I35 Infiniti Q45 Infiniti QX4 Lexus ES300, ES330 Lexus GS300/ GS400, GS430 Lexus IS300 Lexus LS400, LS430 Lexus RX300, RX330 Lincoln Town Car Mazda 626 Mazda Millenia Mazda MX-5 Miata Mazda Protegé Mercury Grand Marquis Mercury Tracer Mitsubishi Galant Nissan Altima Nissan Maxima Nissan Pathfinder Subaru Forester Subaru Impreza Subaru Legacy Subaru Outback Toyota 4Runner Toyota Avalon Toyota Camry Toyota Camry Solara Toyota Celica Toyota Corolla Toyota Echo Toyota Highlander Toyota Land Cruiser Toyota Prius Toyota RAV4 Toyota Sequoia Toyota Sienna Toyota Tundra Here is a list of the Worst "Be especially careful when considering these models. They have shown several years of much-worse-than-average overall reliability in their 1997 to 2004 models. They are listed alphabetically. "
Audi A6 BMW 7 Series Chevrolet Astro Chevrolet Blazer Chevrolet Express1500 Chevrolet S-10 (4WD) Chevrolet TrailBlazer Chrysler Town & Country (AWD) Dodge Dakota (4WD) Dodge Grand Caravan (AWD) Ford Windstar GMC Envoy GMC Jimmy GMC Safari GMC Savana 1500 GMC Sonoma (4WD) Jaguar S-Type Jaguar X-Type Jeep Grand Cherokee Land Rover Discovery Lincoln Navigator Mercedes-Benz C-Class (V6) Mercedes-Benz CLK Mercedes-Benz M-Class Mercedes-Benz S-Class Oldsmobile Bravada Oldsmobile Cutlass Plymouth Neon Pontiac Aztek Saturn Vue Volkswagen Golf Volkswagen Jetta Volkswagen New Beetle Volvo S80
Customer satisfaction...who tops the list/ MOST SATISFYING SMALL CARS Toyota Prius .............................94% Scion xB .................................. 87 Honda Civic Hybrid ...................81 Mazda3 ....................................80 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAMILY SEDANS Toyota Avalon ......................... 84 Honda Accord ......................... 82 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSCALE/LUXURY SEDANS Lexus LS430 ............................92 Acura TL ..................................87 Acura TSX ...............................83 Jaguar XJ Series ......................81 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SPORT/SPORTY CARS Honda S2000 ...........................89 Chevrolet Corvette ...................88 Mini Cooper ..............................85 BMW Z4 ...................................83 Porsche Boxster ......................82 BMW M3 ...................................82 Subaru Impreza WRX ...............81 Mazda MX-5 Miata ....................80
COUPES/CONVERTIBLES Lexus SC430 ...........................85% Mercedes-Benz SL ..................81 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINIVANS Toyota Sienna ..........................86 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SMALL SUVs Honda Element .........................83 Subaru Forester .......................81 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIDSIZED SUVs Lexus RX330 ...........................85 Honda Pilot ...............................83 Toyota Highlander ....................81 Lexus GX470 ...........................81 Toyota 4Runner .......................80 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LARGE SUVs Toyota Land Cruiser ................84 Lexus LX470 ...........................82 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PICKUP TRUCKS Toyota Tundra .........................83 Nissan Titan .............................82
Take notice of the manufacturer
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 05:32 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gir Draxon: [QB]In my experience, my union jobs have always been less enjoyable. They paid slightly more, but in the union jobs I always felt like I was just a drone. I beleive that making a little less and working at a place where co-workers actually talk to me and treat me like a human being is a good trade-off. The unionized jobs always had a clique of people who have been there forever who barely did their job. For them it was great, but for the rest of us, the drones, it was terrible. The duties barely varied at all, and the supervisors were always breathing down our necks.In contrast, my non-union positions had great people to work with who didn't shun me because I my mother worked as BCGEU member and the thing that frustrated here the most was how someone who started the same time as here who did not nearly as good as job got the same pay as her after 10 years ....as my mom put it "whats the point there is no incentive to work harder ...I will still get paid exactly the same"
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 05:38 PM
Here is the IUPAT and there contact info163--Burnaby, British Columbia, CN ... Canadian Union of Allied Workers PHONE: 604-290-3014 They pay construct labourers/demolition workers 11.25/hr and a majority of there work is with Asbestos and dont forget the $500 join up fee as well as dues Here is Pacific Blasting same job description but work very little with Asbestos 3183 Norland Avenue, Burnaby, BC, CANADA V5B 3A9 (604) 291-1255 FAX (604) 291-2813 They pay15/hr Almost $4/hr more than a union position...and minus all the union dues as well.
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 05:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by Sourapple: Here is the IUPAT and there contact info163--Burnaby, British Columbia, CN ... Canadian Union of Allied Workers PHONE: 604-290-3014 They pay construct labourers/demolition workers 11.25/hr and a majority of there work is with Asbestos and dont forget the $500 join up fee as well as dues Here is Pacific Blasting same job description but work very little with Asbestos 3183 Norland Avenue, Burnaby, BC, CANADA V5B 3A9 (604) 291-1255 FAX (604) 291-2813 They pay15/hr Almost $4/hr more than a union position...and minus all the union dues as well.
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 05:40 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sourapple: [QB]Here is the IUPAT and there contact info163--Burnaby, British Columbia, CN ... Canadian Union of Allied Workers PHONE: 604-290-3014 Here is Pacific Blasting same job description but work very little with Asbestos
Sorry this is the number for IUPAT District Council 38 7621 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, CN V3N 3C7 604-524-8334
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 05:41 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nister: [QB]Sourapple's Toyota superior to homegrowns? If it's a Corolla, it's likely an Ontario product. That plant is highly thought of by management; they chose to build the first non-Japanese Lexus there.At Honda in Alliston, production of the Still designed and engineered in Japan What union is at the Alliston Plant?
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 05:41 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nister: [QB]Sourapple's Toyota superior to homegrowns? If it's a Corolla, it's likely an Ontario product. That plant is highly thought of by management; they chose to build the first non-Japanese Lexus there.At Honda in Alliston, production of the Still designed and engineered in Japan What union is at the Alliston Plant?
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 05:54 PM
Here is a challenge..... here is few things aside from autos of things I regularly buy that are usually made in Asia. Please list Comparable made in Canada products preferably union that are as good and similarly priced. Home elctronics- Sony tv& stereo- Toshiba DVD- Shoes Nike - Vans - Gap Infact think about any typical household product Name as good or better made in canada equiv.
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 05:56 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BleedingHeart: [QB]British Columbia: resource based economy, historically heavily unionized, strong economy, high standard of living. And yet Vancouver has been Host To Canadas poorest neighbourhood for over a decade
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 06:04 PM
"""A few very low level engineers "might" be unionized but they are hardly calling the shots at General Motors.""" as posted BY RadioA very Few "might" be.......So you really have absolutely no idea do you? BTW who are the ones doing the quality control checks at plant level???
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 08 April 2005 06:19 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by radiorahim: [QB]It took me about 10 seconds on Googlesearch to find this: Latest Toyota Sienna Recalls 2004 Toyota Sienna XLE Limited NHTSA Recall ID Number: 03V291000 Watch out for that leaky gas tank! Before you accuse others of not doing their homework that site proved very usefull to say the least 2004 Dodge Caravan NHTSA Recall ID Number: 04V386000 3 recalls caravan Recall Date: AUG 05, 2004 Component: STEERING:HYDRAULIC POWER ASSIST:HOSE, PIPING, AND CONNECTIONS Potential Units Affected: 681000 Summary: ON CERTAIN MINIVANS EQUIPPED WITH 3.3 OR 3.8L V-6 ENGINE, THE UPPER POWER STEERING COOLER HOSE MAY SPLIT AND CAUSE A FLUID LEAK. Consequence: POWER STEERING FLUID LEAKAGE IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE CAN RESULT IN AN UNDER HOOD FIRE. Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE UPPER POWER STEERING COOLER HOSE. THIS RECALL BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT DAIMLERCHRYSLER AT 1-800-853-1403. Notes: DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, D37 2004 Dodge Caravan NHTSA Recall ID Number: 03E053000 Recall Date: OCT 24, 2003 Component: FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE Potential Units Affected: 68563 Summary: CERTAIN AFTERMARKET REPLACEMENT FUEL FILTERS, MODELS WIX FILTER PART NUMBERS 33576, 33577, 33734; NAPA FILTER PART NUMBERS 3576, 3577, 3734; AND CARQUEST FILTER PART NUMBERS 86576, 86577, 86734 USED ON 1996-2000 DAIMLERCHRYSLER TOWN & COUNTRY, DODGE CARAVAN, AND PLYMOUTH VOYAGER VEHICLES, CAN CAUSE THE FUEL LINES TO LEAK. Consequence: A POSSIBLE FIRE CAN OCCUR IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE. Remedy: WIX WILL NOTIFY ITS CUSTOMERS AND REPLACE THE FUEL FILTERS FREE OF CHARGE. NOTE: THIS DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY THE DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP. NOR ANY DAILMERCHRYSLER DEALERS. OWNER NOTIFICATION IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING NOVEMBER 2003. OWNERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT WIX AT 704-864-6711. Notes: WIX FILTERATION PRODUCTS DIVISION, 2004 Dodge Caravan NHTSA Recall ID Number: 03E045000 Recall Date: SEP 26, 2003 Component: EQUIPMENT Potential Units Affected: 45870 Summary: AFTERMARKET REPLACEMENT FUEL FILTERS MANUFACTURED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 17, 2002, AND JANUARY 20, 2003, SOLD UNDER THE BRAND NAMES LISTED ABOVE. THE FILTER MAY EXPERIENCE MALFUNCTION OF THE QUICK CONNECTOR EITHER BLOCKING FUEL FLOW TO THE ENGINE OR CAUSING A FUEL LEAK. THIS DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY THE DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP. NOR ANY DAILMERCHRYSLER DEALERS. Consequence: IF THIS CONDITION OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION, THE ENGINE COULD STALL. ALSO, IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE, THE FUEL LEAK COULD RESULT IN A VEHICLE FIRE. Remedy: AFTERMARKET REPLACEMENT FUEL FILTERS FOR 1995-2000 SHORT WHEELBASE CHRYSLER TOWN & COUNTRY, PLYMOUTH VOYAGER AND DODGE CARAVAN MINIVANS PART NO. 18232 AND DATE CODE 0237, 0249, OR 0252. REPLACEMENT FUEL FILTERS FOR 1995-2000 LONG WHEELBASE CHRYSLER TOWN & COUNTRY, PLYMOUTH VOYAGER AND DODGE CARAVAN MINIVANS PART NO. 18230 AND DATE CODE 0237, 0249, 0251, OR 0304. REPLACEMENT FUEL FILTERS FOR 2001-2004 CHRYSLER TOWN & COUNTRY, PLYMOUTH VOYAGER AND DODGE CARAVAN MINIVANS PART NO. 28871 AND DATE CODE 0249. THESE PART NUMBERS AND DATE CODES APPEAR ON THE GOLD-TONE FILTER. DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS WILL BE NOTIFIED TO ISOLATE AND RETURN AFFECTED INVENTORY. OWNERS WHO HAVE HAD THE FUEL FILTER SERVICED ON ONE OF THE APPLICABLE VEHICLES AFTER SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 SHOULD RETURN THEIR VEHICLE TO THE SERVICE FACILITY TO BE INSPECTED TO SEE IF THE FUEL FILTER THAT WAS INSTALLED IS ONE THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE RECALL. IF SO, THE OWNERS SHOULD HAVE THE FILTER REPLACED. TO RECEIVE A FULL REFUND PLUS THE COST OF POSTAGE, OWNERS SHOULD CUT THE CONNECTORS FROM THE HOSES, RINSE THE CONNECTORS AND RETURN THEM TOGETHER WITH PROOF OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE REPLACEMENT PART AND LABOR, TO INTERCONTINENTAL AT INTERCONTINENTAL AUTO PARTS, INC., Ford freestar 2 recalls 2004 Ford Freestar SE NHTSA Recall ID Number: 03V457000 Recall Date: NOV 06, 2003 Component: STEERING:HYDRAULIC POWER ASSIST:HOSE, PIPING, AND CONNECTIONS Potential Units Affected: 23996 Summary: ON CERTAIN MINIVANS, THE POWER STEERING LOW-PRESSURE LINE MAY NOT BE FULLY SEATED AT THE RACK AND PINION STEERING GEAR. Consequence: IF THIS LINE BECOMES DISCONNECTED, IT MAY CREATE THE POTENTIAL FOR FLUID TO COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE EXHAUST SYSTEM, WHICH COULD RESULT IN SMOKE OR FIRE. Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE POWER STEERING LOW-PRESSURE LINE TO ENSURE THAT IT IS SEATED PROPERLY AT THE RACK AND PINION STEERING GEAR. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN NOVEMBER 10, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. Notes: FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 03S09 2004 Ford Freestar SE NHTSA Recall ID Number: 04V446000 Recall Date: SEP 13, 2004 Component: WHEELS:CAP/COVER/HUB Potential Units Affected: 34013 Summary: CERTAIN MINIVANS MAY HAVE BEEN PRODUCED WITH FRONT WHEEL HUB ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE NOT HEAT TREATED CORRECTLY. THIS CONDITION MAY LEAD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL CRACKS IN THE HUB. Consequence: IF THE CRACKS WERE TO PROGRESS, THIS COULD EVENTUALLY RESULT IN WHEEL SEPARATION. WHEEL SEPARATION MAY LEAD TO LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, AND POTENTIALLY RESULT IN A VEHICLE CRASH. MOntana 2 recalls 2004 Pontiac Montana NHTSA Recall ID Number: 04V177000 Recall Date: APR 08, 2004 Component: EQUIPMENT THER:LABELS Potential Units Affected: 31301 Summary: CERTAIN MINIVANS FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 213, “CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS.” THESE VEHICLES DO NOT HAVE TEXT AND FORMATTING ON THE WARNING LABEL ATTACHED TO THE AVAILABLE SECOND-ROW INTEGRAL CHILD RESTRAINT AS SPECIFIED BY AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDARD. Consequence: Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH REPLACEMENT LABELS AND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON JULY 23, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT CHEVROLET AT 1-800-630-2438 OR PONTIAC AT 1-800-620-7668. Notes: GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 04022 2004 Pontiac Montana NHTSA Recall ID Number: 04V597000 Recall Date: DEC 22, 2004 Component: LATCHES/LOCKS/LINKAGES OORS:LATCH Potential Units Affected: 717302 Summary: ON CERTAIN MINIVANS EQUIPPED WITH SECOND-ROW BUCKET SEATS OR CAPTAIN'S CHAIRS AND A POWER SLIDING DOOR ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE, A PASSENGER USING THE INTERIOR HANDLE TO OPEN THE POWER SLIDING DOOR COULD BE INJURED. Consequence: IF A PASSENGER USES THE INTERIOR HANDLE TO OPEN THE POWER SLIDING DOOR AND HOLDS ONTO THE HANDLE WHILE IT IS BEING OPENED BY THE MOTOR, THE PASSENGER'S ARM MAY BE PUSHED INTO THE SEAT BACK OR ARMREST AND A WRIST OR LOWER ARM INJURY MAY RESULT. Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE POWER SLIDING DOOR INTERIOR HANDLE ON THE PASSENGER-SIDE. IF THE VEHICLE IS EQUIPPED WITH A POWER OR MANUAL SLIDING DOOR ON THE DRIVER-SIDE, THE INTERIOR HANDLE WILL ALSO BE REPLACED FOR APPEARANCE REASONS. NOTE: BEFORE THE VEHICLE IS SERVICED, GM ADVISES OWNERS TO NOT USE THE INTERIOR DOOR HANDLE TO OPEN THE DOOR. THE DRIVER CAN OPEN AND CLOSE THE DOOR FROM SWITCHES AT THE DRIVER'S POSITION OR BY USING THE REMOTE KEY FOB. THE DRIVER SHOULD TELL PASSENGERS TO USE THE SWITCH LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE DOOR TO OPEN OR CLOSE IT. THE DRIVER SHOULD USE THE OVERRIDE SWITCH TO PREVENT OPERATION OF THE POWER DOOR BY CHILDREN OR BY OTHERS WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH ITS USE. THE RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN IN MARCH 2005. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT CHEVROLET AT
you can research others...thank god I stuck to toyota and honda
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 08 April 2005 06:32 PM
Burnt Sienna?"Latest Toyota Sienna Recalls 2004 Toyota Sienna XLE Limited NHTSA Recall ID Number: 03V291000 Watch out for that leaky gas tank!"
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274
|
posted 09 April 2005 02:27 AM
Correcting more mis-info about unions: quote: 1. Newfoundland and Labrador are the most heavily unionized provinces (40%, compared to 34% in BC).
Incorrect. Two points on this: First, I don't know about Newfoundland, but the BC figure is based strictly on percentage of employed workers in certified bargaining units. It does not include the workers in non-certified bargaining units (including construction, film, music and entertainment, most faculty associations, fishermen, transportation, etc.), which is estimated by the BC Federation of Labour to be about 100,000. It also doesn't include self-employed, freelance and owner-operator workers and professionals who are union members, of which there are an estimated 60,000 in BC and growing. Statistics Canada says BC has the largest percentage of self-employed workers in the country, including the largest number of self-employed union members. It further does not include unionized worker co-ops and other employee-run businesses (about 30,000). Again, BC is second only to Quebec in these types of workers, and the highest in these types of union members (just ahead of Saskatchewan). Also, it doesn't include the large number of union members working in non-union shops, especially like in construction where, thanks to brutally anti-worker laws, contractors are hard to certify (this is estimated by the BC Building Trades Council to be at about 20,000, out of an approximate 70,000 union members in the about 165,000-strong construction industry). Finally, it doesn't include union members who are unemployed or in school or otherwise not currently in the work force. When you add these up, it is much closer to 50 per cent. Second, according to a 2001 study by the CCPA, Newfoundland’s resource sector made up only about 28 per cent of its total economy (excluding the oil rigs, like Hibernia, where only a couple thousand people work—and, yep, they are unionized and relatively well paid). In the BC, the resource sector made up a whopping 44 per cent. That’s a huge difference. I couldn’t find a breakdown of Newfoundland’s union rates (well, actually, I would have to pay $45 to get it). But a colleague who worked and was a labour activist in Newfoundland back in the 1990s estimates that only about 65 per cent of the resource sector there is union. Obviously, that’s still a good solid rate, but it’s far less than BC—and Newfoundland is known for its sweatshops in that sector. It seems the biggest component of union rate in that province has been the huge but now largely devastated fishing fleet, along with the massive processing and other related industries. Also, keep in mind that a strong influence on wage rates and other income in regions is the rate of unemployment, especially since the depressed 1980s and 1990s in that province. In BC, the official jobless rate has ranged between about seven and 8.5 per cent for about the last 20 years. In Newfoundland, it’s been more like 14 per cent. quote: 2. The unionization is mostly in the public sector. In BC the public sector is unionized to 77.7%, while the private sector only to 21.1%.Other comparison: there are numerically MORE unionized employees in the public sector than in the private sector, although the private sector employs 3.5 times more people than the public sector.
Given the above information, these figures are not accurate (although, it’s likely the public sector is much higher). quote: The wealth does not come from the public sector
This of course is the usual factless garbage that comes from the corporate capitalist loony elite. The public sector includes the bulk of health care, education, social services, safety, fire and police, infrastructure and economic support, maintenance, air and water quality, energy, utilities, transportation of various kinds, etc. These functions provide the very basis for wealth creation since they train, service and maintain the work forces and their communities that enable them to live life and productively create and contribute to the creation and continuation of the economy. Anyone who buys the above quote needs a serious reality check. quote: This figure is only 2.6 in the Atlantic, i.e. proportionally there are much more leeches there; that is one of the sources of their poverty.
Leeches are the biggest source of everyone's poverty, and you find the biggest and worst concentration of leeches among the dictatorial unproductive upper crust of Corporate Canada. quote: 3. The unionization of the private sector in the Atlantic is 29.5%, MUCH HIGHER than in BC. Is that the reason for their week economy?
When adding in all the figures, the BC private sector union rate is at least this much (likely much more). The rate posted here about the Atlantic just might be the one reason why that region hasn't totally degenerated into Third World like existence. quote: 4. In BC, from about 1.8 million employees, only about 33 thousands are working in the "natural resources" segment; 13 thousand of them are unionized. That is 0.8% (zero point eight percent) of the total employees. Right, these make the province's economy strong
I don't know where these figures come from, but they sure don't seem to add up to reality. Actually, no offense, but these sound like the usual Fraser Institute made-up lies. According to Statistics Canada labour stats, and figures from the Canadian Labour Congress, there are over 100,000 people in BC working in specifically defined resource industries—and about 80 per cent are union. It goes like this: Resource industrial work force, adjusted for 2003to approximate thousand, by identified sector: Total Union Members % Logging, yard/sorting and reforestation: 21,000 14,000 67 Wood processing and milling: 46, 500 40, 000 86 Mining, Oil and Gas: 11,000 8,000 73 Refining and Purification: 5,200 5,200 100 Pulp and Paper 12,000 12,000 100 Mineral processing and Smelting and Primary Metallurgical: 6,800 6,800 100 Non-Metal Processing: 7,700 4,900 64 Totals: 110,200 90,900 82 BC Stats says the total workforce in BC that year was approximately 2, 014, 200. Of this, about 5.5 per cent were in the resource sector. According to the three various reports, there were then about 720,000 union members working in a certified bargaining unit. That works out to 36 per cent of the total. Add to this the approximated 210,000 union members working in other situations; you get 930,000 in estimated total. That’s about 46 per cent of the total workforce. And yes, they in fact do make our economy, or any other economy, strong. Obviously, these are all approximate because in reality the size and composition of the work force changes practically on a daily basis. But there's no doubt that the general well being and degree of liberty enjoyed by a population is roughly proportional to the degree of organization/unionization of its work force and the participation of these in the economy.
From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274
|
posted 09 April 2005 03:40 AM
Now on to some more fun stuff in the debate. quote: BTW what union or unions are involved with the japanese auto plants here in North america?
Some folks have answered this already. From what I have read or heard, the unions working in most of these plants are CAW, UAW, Steelworkers, Machinists, Teamsters and Operating Engineers. In BC, the Honda/Acura parts and secondary assembly plants, as well as several of the dealerships, are with my union, the Steelworkers. I have heard that the one big Toyota plant in Ontario--I think it's called CAMI--employs the CAW (Hyundai does too). Mazda, I think, might be the Machinists, but I'm not sure. In BC, all of these sub plants as far as I know are unionized. I have also read that all of the plants in Japan and Korea, as well as Singapore, Australia and Mexico, are union as well. That’s where most of the production of these cars is. quote: That really depends on what industry your talking about....Here in vancouver construction workers actualy shy away from union jobs.
Not really. BC Building Trades Council has about 70,000 members, including about 20,000 working for non-union contractors, out of an approximate 165,000 in the construction industry. Union trained apprenticeships and upgrading courses are in high demand, according to both the Building Trades and the BCIT trades department, especially since the BC Liar regime butchered the standard apprenticeship rules in order to pay off the privileged corporate tyrannies that fund its campaign. quote: General Motors, Ford or Daimler Chrysler do not go to the offices of the CAW or UAW before they decide what to build and how to build it.
This is so sadly true, and it is probably one of the sickest features of any type of corporate capitalist venture or economy: the workers don’t democratically control the places we work in and don’t get to make or be involved in most of the big decisions. While the engineers and techs may all be union members, and are the ones who design the cars, they don’t call the final shots as to what does or doesn’t get made or how. That is largely why so many of the problems people are talking about here take place. Unaccountable, un-elected profiteering over-paid pork-choppers who don’t really have to answer to anyone: worker, shareholder (at least the non-insider/non-blue-chip/non-executive types, which are the non-voting majority) or consumer. These types control everyone’s money, information and decisions. That needs to change big time. quote: But the truth is that they do involve the union in decisions on what is going to be built and what plant is going to build it. Obviously they don't need the union's permission, but they are consulted.
Not seriously, if at all. According to a 1997 presentation by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, the biggest recalls and disasters have happened because corporate bosses overrode the designs and plans of the engineering and design staff. That apparently is also what caused the first space shuttle disaster. quote: Here is Pacific Blasting same job description but work very little with Asbestos 3183 Norland Avenue, Burnaby, BC, CANADA V5B 3A9 (604) 291-1255 FAX (604) 291-2813 They pay15/hr Almost $4/hr more than a union position...and minus all the union dues as well.
WRONG! Pacific Blasting is a fully unionized shop with the Operating Engineers Local 115. My cousin worked for them for 14 years (he’s now with SCI, also a union shop). quote: What about Alberta?
Contrary to the garbola we keep hearing from the corporate media, Alberta is actually not as de-unionized as the corporate dictatorship at its apologists would like to think. From what I have read, applying similar measures as in BC, Alberta’s unionization rate is about 33 per cent. Now that’s much less than BC (which is probably a big reason why the politics there are so backward), and a lot of it is not in certified bargaining units but it is still obviously significant enough to have an impact, especially since a lot of the unionization there is in the oil patch and related industries—the main source of Alberta’s economy (as well as a almost entirely unionized public sector). quote: Unions: good or bad? If someone had posted a thread on this board "feminism: good or bad" or "gay rights: good or bad," I dare say the thread wouldn't be long for this world.
Probably true. While I don’t think it is ever a bad thing to recognize the basic democratic rights of any group and stop persecution, it’s obvious that the types of politics around these don’t usually have to face the constant intense scrutiny by the halls of undemocratic wealth and power that the labour movement has to. I think that’s because historically labour unions and similar democratic cooperative organizations, and their related socialistic economics, are the biggest and most effective expression of the public interest and community against corporate or state tyranny. That is why they are constantly the target of attack, slander and ridicule by these institutions and their media. These other types of politics aren’t so threatening.
From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274
|
posted 09 April 2005 03:44 AM
BTW, I don't want to get Sourapple too angry, since I read here he likes Toyota cars and ain't too happy with GM products. But I remember reading in Business Week about ten years ago that a sizeable chunk of the Toyota empire (about 30 per cent) is actually owned by GM--and that both of these firms have sizeable investments in Hyundai.Corporate concentration is a real sickness today. But, on another note, as a former care buff and musician myself, I still like the old standard car tunes I grew up with, even though I have never owned any of the cars they sing about, like: Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen: And ma Pappy said son you gonna drive me to drinkin if you don’t quit drivin that Hot Rod Lincoln Lemmie tell you the story of the hot rod race When the Fords and the Lincolns were settin the pace That story is true, I’m here to say Cause I was drivin that Model A Or, Mitch Rider and the Detroit Wheels Mustang Sally, guess you better slow that Mustang down Mustang Sally, guess you better slow that Mustang down You bin cruzin all over town Gonna put yer flat backed feet on the ground… Or the classic Chuck Berry: Sound of the motor cruzin over the hill Saw Maybelline in a Coup De Ville Cadillac set out on the open road Nuthin outrun my V-8 motor Cadillac doin bout 95 Yelling bumper to bumper and side to side Maybelline, why can’t you be true…. Or Jan and Dean Wa Wa Wa-wa-wa-wa-wa-wa, my GTO Wa Wa Wa-wa-wa-wa-wa-wa, my GTO Wa Wa Wa-wa-wa-wa-wa-wa, my GTO And of course the Beach Boys: And She’ll have fun fun fun till her daddy take the T-Bird away…. Any more songs folks out there might remember? I gotta get back to work (a practice that a lot of anti-union types, especially corporates, don’t seem to understand too well), so I probably won’t be around much for a while. But I would like to see more songs on here.
From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605
|
posted 09 April 2005 12:08 PM
As most know I have been a high supporter of union principles.As I learnt through education in the experience of life, OOOOOOOOeeeeee that the basis of a union has constitutions and bylaws much like any country, Business enterprise, or some church. Now why you say and how you say is this so? Well such processes reocgnize, that the rights and freedoms of democratic institutions must have this in order to recognize the "entity" that is formed. Joe Blow Slop and Shop, or some like CLAC(Christian Labour Association-usa based?) who portrays the appearance of good democratic institutions have slipped under the radar. Was a A way to incorporate a name and make it seem it is was "good entity" that has basis democratic institutions at its heart. Ya, well after they negotiate a bid of course I moved quickly in the last paragraph, becuase I hope the young minds who speak about their brother and sisters realize that you are given a forum. That what you have to say, can be spoken about within the meetings that are established. Ya I can hear it now. but you know that if a group of people thought this one way, well that's the way it would go. I always thought that if you had a good arguement you could change the status quo? Sometimnes and not always. You can certainly stop them in their tracks to encourage discussion. That's freedom and democracy at work. Look at what your country is doing when it voted in the last election. This is a most beneficial state, for it provides for this transcendance of corporate America and it's insurgency into the peaceful ways Canadians like to live their lives. Without being told what american channel we should watch for the endless and disparged dissolution of those final inklings of Canadian Spirit. Media is the last refuge of Canadian ownership that if bought by American of those lead in Corporate Ownwership will ursurp the views of the leftist establishment. Thank God for blogs? But guess what even here they will evetually tag your id and tag products. It's done now, but the personae is just a mask that one can quickly see behind. You don't need to get the flavour of character, because you are linked right now to this forum through your computer. I will help those who believe in the freedom to use this internet to share opinion. You can get in touch with me, if you remember where to do so. [ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]
From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 27 April 2005 01:33 AM
“I have heard that the one big Toyota plant in Ontario--I think it's called CAMI--employs the CAW (Hyundai does too). Mazda, I think, might be the Machinists, but I'm not sure. In BC, all of these sub plants as far as I know are unionized.”Where is the Hyundai plant BTW http://health.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20050408/RTICKER08-13?section=Trades As for the Toyota plant being CAW read this http://www.caw.ca/campaigns&issues/ongoingcampaigns/autopolicy/caw_assembled.asp Where is the Toyota product? “As for “). Mazda, I think, might be the Machinists, but I'm not sure” Again you really don’t know do you? where is the Mazda plant in Canada? I’m really curios where it is located???? And if you also look at union agreement specifics between foreign plants whether it be Honda in Alston or others wherever they may be unions has relatively limited powers compared to the big 3 unions “”Not really. BC Building Trades Council has about 70,000 members, including about 20,000 working for non-union contractors, out of an approximate 165,000 in the construction industry. Union trained apprenticeships and upgrading courses are in high demand, according to both the Building Trades and the BCIT trades department, especially since the BC Liar regime butchered the standard apprenticeship rules in order to pay off the privileged corporate tyrannies that fund its campaign.”” This really doesn’t disprove that union construction workers make less What are you trying to say? As the IUPAT (international rkers?union for painters and allied trades) put it “Non union firms gets the lions share share of work” was in reference to the construction industry…refer to their website posted well above. Really try looking at what a non union framer makes compared to union framer? www.jobbank.gc.ca “From what I have read, applying similar measures as in BC, Alberta’s unionization rate is about 33 per cent. Now that’s much less than BC (which is probably a big reason why the politics there are so backward), and a lot of it is not in certified bargaining units but it is still obviously significant enough to have an impact, especially since a lot of the unionization there is in the oil patch and related industries—the main source of Alberta’s economy (as well as a almost entirely unionized public sector).”””
Actually many sources including stats can. have cited Alberta as having the lowest union rate among all provinces including And also there is a interesting CUPE article on this Here is a break down from Stats Canada Unionization Rate in Canada Source: Statistics Canada - 2003 Region Total % Male % Female % Canada 32.2 32.3 32.0 Quebec 40.4 42.3 38.3 Newfoundland 39.1 40.3 37.9 Manitoba 36.1 33.9 38.5 Saskatchewan 35.8 31.5 40.2 British Columbia 34.7 34.4 34.9 Prince-Edward Island 30.9 30.0 34.5 Nova Scotia 28.1 27.0 29.1 New Brunswick 28.1 28.4 27.8 Ontario 28.1 28.6 27.6 Alberta 24.5 22.6 26.6 The unionization rate for the private sector is 13.6%. in Alberta As for Alberta’s unions in general as the Left leaning parkland institute put it “Alberta' workforce rules regarding union organizing, certification, strikes, and picketing are the toughest in Canada. This is at least as important as the much-vaunted "free enterprise" culture of the province in explaining the low level of unionization” BTw I listed some made in china non union products above in a post….I see you still haven’t listed and made in Canada equiv.
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 27 April 2005 01:41 AM
Here is union propoganda teachers are supposed to teach children http://www.bctf.ca/lessonaids/online/la2039/so much more independence note the mention of the NDP
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 27 April 2005 03:26 AM
quote: “I have heard that the one big Toyota plant in Ontario--I think it's called CAMI--employs the CAW (Hyundai does too). Mazda, I think, might be the Machinists, but I'm not sure. In BC, all of these sub plants as far as I know are unionized.”
The CAMI plant is in Ingersoll, Ontario and its a joint venture of General Motors and Suzuki. They don't "employ the CAW", they employ people. Its just that CAMI employees decided to join the CAW. quote: But I would like to see more songs on here.
Can you imagine folks writing songs about their Toyota or their Nissan...nahhhhh!!!! Actually what was considered the very first rock & roll tune ever was "Rocket 88" written by Ike Turner back in 1951...its about the Oldsmobile Rocket 88 of course! Songfacts article quote: Here is union propoganda teachers are supposed to teach children http://www.bctf.ca/lessonaids/online/la2039/so much more independence note the mention of the NDP
So you think that kids should only learn about unions in dark back alleys?
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 27 April 2005 07:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by radiorahim:
So you think that kids should only learn about unions in dark back alleys?
I don’t recall ever saying that No but it shouldn't in a bias manner. The students should encounter both sides of the debate. I hate to sound cliché but there are cons and pros with everything. This is propaganda intent of delivering a political message to children. It’s school not a union drive. The pathways book standard social studies text in many high schools in BC already takes kids into the debate, however this website advises Teachers using pathways for grade 8’s to read only pages 44-52 of Pathways witch oddly skips the other side of the debate. Later in grade 9 suggested reading is a book called the labour movement in BC again a book that only tells the kids about one side of the debate. Of course there are logos around the pamphlet some like “workers fight back” and phrases like rich land owners/ business owners, the occasional reference to hard done workers and section with titles like the union advantage. At the end of the lesson in Last Word is filled with pro unions songs and words from Nancy Riche……Are my children suppose to sing along? Overall there is no lesson being taught. The kids are being told what to think. There is much great independent literature on the idea that tells the good and the ugly side of the debate. Why the resource link list is filled with links union locals and sites run by card carrying members of the NDP and admitted left wing think tanks. Where is the business associtiation links, Chamber of commerce, right wing think tanks? Better yet independent literature. What was good about my experience in school was reading lord of the flies and animal farm and we were asked how we interpreted the novels. I remember there were different interpretations from both sides of the political spectrum with strong arguments for either side. The teacher did not guide our imagination as is being suggested by the bctf who’s stated goal of the novel lesson is for kids to view this from a left wing standpoint Well I thought the pamphlets my kid brought home from the NDP and BCTF were already enough union education …lol
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 27 April 2005 07:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I expect you'll be calling for lectures on Enron and the writings of Karl Marx in Gr. 10 business classes as well, now, right? All in the name of "balance" of course.
Glad to see we are in agreement that Special Interest groups should NEVER have a direct role in what is being taught in the class room.
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 27 April 2005 07:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I expect you'll be calling for lectures on Enron and the writings of Karl Marx in Gr. 10 business classes as well, now, right? All in the name of "balance" of course.
Hmm more Marx perhaps but be careful we should limit the amount of Anti Semitism literature in our schools.
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 27 April 2005 07:58 PM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: I didn't. And I seriously doubt your business class included anti-capitalist analysis either. Face it. You are rea-ching.
It is bus. ed. grade 9-10 not Macro Economics 440We did look at the negatives of the market system and unions as well as pros for both. did we write a 5000 word essay on the issue of market vs. non market ? No but we did explore the issue considering both sides at least
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 27 April 2005 08:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: I didn't. And I seriously doubtFace it. You are rea-ching.
Look at what is the suggested curriculum for business students today.
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 27 April 2005 08:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: I didn't. And I seriously doubtFace it. You are rea-ching.
Look at what is the suggested curriculum for business students today. Here is learning outcome expected for Grade 8-10 students "It is expected that students will: outline the effects on a local economy of changes both in consumer needs and wants and in the supply of and demand for resources" "-analyse the effects of competition in the marketplace -explain how factors of production including land, labour, capital, and entrepreneurship affect business decision making -describe the effects of an information-based economy on business practices -outline methods of resource allocation in various economic systems " Students are asked a question "Brainstorm methods used to influence the economy (e.g., taxation, licensing, monetary policies, revenue distribution, minimum wage). Ask each student to choose and research one method and give a short presentation on it"
notice there is no partisan twist
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 27 April 2005 08:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: And I don't believe a word you're saying. I happen to know more about education in Canada than you ever will. You will have to find some kind of source to back your contention, or just admit you're talking out of your nether regions.
Fine state your credentials. btw In many of my posts I have provided links to the BCTF (Look at above posts for link) who have a copy of what the union education curriculum contains as well as from BCED and the books I have refered to are available at probally all libraries in the lower mainland. Your last post reminds me of something from my childhood from my jealous but still wonderfull brother "my sand castle is bigger and better than yours so naaa"
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881
|
posted 27 April 2005 08:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by Sourapple:
Really quote where students thoughts are guided towards a political direction?
Do you seriously need that explained to you? It is a class in market capitalism, period.Now, I really don't object to that. We live in a market capitalist society, after all, so why not educate students in how to go about it. The same can be said about union education - which, by the way, unless I am seriously mistaken, is not a "class" one can take, in and of itself, for credit - we live in a society wherein unions have contributed greatly. Why not teach students about that?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sourapple
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8709
|
posted 27 April 2005 08:44 PM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: Do you seriously need that explained to you? It is a class in market capitalism, period.Now, I really don't object to that. We live in a market capitalist society, after all, so why not educate students in how to go about it. The same can be said about union education - which, by the way, unless I am seriously mistaken, is not a "class" one can take, in and of itself, for credit - we live in a society wherein unions have contributed greatly. Why not teach students about that?
No it encourages both sides of the debate. Students are asked for their opinions and in text book it does list limits and consequences of the market system and the benifits of unions and the potential drawbacks of both...obviously you havn't read or retained much of what you learned in highschool. Go to your local library and pick up " The World Of Business" read module 3 and learn about business and market system failures in addition to pros
From: Burnaby | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|