# Harper muzzles parks employees



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

Parks employees are forbidden from criticizing Harper and the Conservatives:

Parks Canada staff banned from criticizing Feds - Nova Scotia - CBC News


----------



## Scherb (Feb 10, 2011)

Get bent Harper you piece off Crap. it is called freedom of speech. Down with Harper, Down with Harper. Man i Hate that Looser.


----------



## neven (May 15, 2010)

There is so much that can be said about this government. Its policies are bent on two purposes.

1. Drive wages down through attacking organized work forces through legislation (EI changes to force people to take lesser pay, and bill C-377)
2. Silence any form of opposition, in their own ranks, in the government and even in public.

now for bill c-377 i recommend reading further into it to find out the full impacts of it to Businesses in general


----------



## J'sRacing (Apr 25, 2012)

Scherb said:


> Get bent Harper you piece off Crap. it is called freedom of speech. Down with Harper, Down with Harper. Man i Hate that Looser.


As much as i don't like Harper, its not so much freedom of speech as it is uniformity. Uniformity within a government is very very crucial. It's like if you work for a company, you aren't supposed to let everyone know about your company's secrets, or tell people how crappy it is.

Oh and if you're going to criticize him, at least make him "tighter" cause he's not loose with his politics. He might be a loser though. 


neven said:


> There is so much that can be said about this government. Its policies are bent on two purposes.
> 
> 1. Drive wages down through attacking organized work forces through legislation (EI changes to force people to take lesser pay, and bill C-377)
> 2. Silence any form of opposition, in their own ranks, in the government and even in public.
> ...


He's doing it right, the higher our wages are, the more companies will shift money out of the canadian market. And attack unions was the first thing he did right. Bloody bums get paid way too much. Not to mention the amount of benefits they get.

Like i said its not silencing your opposition, it's about uniformity. There are codes that you are supposed to adhere to. Its not something that he introduced, it's something that has always been there. So you're going to rag on him, because he's actually decided to actually enforce the code?

As for Bill C-377, i'm all for it. It's about time the public sees how gross unions really are.


----------



## Luke78 (Apr 24, 2010)

Care to add a bit more on how you came to your conclusion on 'all unions' across this country? Bloody bums getting paid way to much? Really, working folks of all backgrounds contributing day in and day out making this country go forward and you label everyone with the same title?



J'sRacing said:


> As much as i don't like Harper, its not so much freedom of speech as it is uniformity. Uniformity within a government is very very crucial. It's like if you work for a company, you aren't supposed to let everyone know about your company's secrets, or tell people how crappy it is.
> 
> Oh and if you're going to criticize him, at least make him "tighter" cause he's not loose with his politics. He might be a loser though.
> 
> ...


----------



## neven (May 15, 2010)

There are quite a few people who can be offended by your comments. I worked my ass off for my career, i finished my training, just as any university grad would, and for that i deserve the wage bracket i'm in. Contrary to the rhetoric those of your political beliefs are raised on, you are greatly misinformed on how it actually is in the work environment. There are few unions that do indeed have inflated wage packages, but there are 25000 seperate union locals in canada and much of them are quite in balance with the current market place because if they get too greedy, they are locked out, or lose market share and dwindle away. Theres a lot more i can say, but here sums up much of it: http://psacbc.com/sites/bc.psacadmin.ca/files/billc377-talkingpoints2012-02-16-en.pdf


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

There is a correlation between union membership and a more equitable society with lower income inequality:

Turning Our Backs on Unions - NYTimes.com

Society is heading in the wrong direction now regarding income inequality (regarding the 1% vs. 99%)

Inequality: It

In Canada, CEO pay continues to expand way beyond rate of inflation:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/01/03/business-ceo-pay.html

Globally, CEO pay increases are on average no longer attached to job performance, meaning if the company does poorly the CEO gets a raise, if the company does well the CEO gets a larger raise:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...c/14/ceo-pay-disproportionate-job-performance

The warning signs of where we are headed (i.e. a less equitable and caring society) are all around, people just have to open their eyes.


----------



## Foxtail (Mar 14, 2012)

I personally don't like unions, I feel thst they protect and reward the lazy. I am not saying all union workers are lazy, or even most. I am saying someone that basically barely shows up to work still gets his anual raise and anual vacation increase and benefits. Where as a non unuionized worker has to work hard and do a good job in order to get a raise, which is how I believe it should be. 

Sent from my SGH-T959D using Tapatalk 2


----------



## fishdragon (Nov 8, 2010)

We all know Harper government not work for us, but for boss.

Sent from my LT15a using Tapatalk 2


----------



## dino (Aug 29, 2011)

unions protect us from retard powertripping bosses and your not suppost to talk bad about the company you work for? If thats the case id never talk about work lol


----------



## macframalama (Apr 17, 2012)

any convo involving govt is going to have many sides and opinions, bottom line we are all getting it in the rear end , have a coke and a smile and take nap, no one cares what the public wants or needs, being f'd by your govt isnt new , it was happening to your great grand parents


----------



## J'sRacing (Apr 25, 2012)

Luke78 said:


> Care to add a bit more on how you came to your conclusion on 'all unions' across this country? Bloody bums getting paid way to much? Really, working folks of all backgrounds contributing day in and day out making this country go forward and you label everyone with the same title?


I don't agree. So What you're saying is that if there were no unions then this country wouldn't move forward? In fact i think the opposite, if the workers of these union groups did not have to pay their contributions to the union, they would have more free flowing cash. In addition, for the employers hiring wouldn't be such a pain in the butt.



neven said:


> There are quite a few people who can be offended by your comments. I worked my ass off for my career, i finished my training, just as any university grad would, and for that i deserve the wage bracket i'm in. Contrary to the rhetoric those of your political beliefs are raised on, you are greatly misinformed on how it actually is in the work environment. There are few unions that do indeed have inflated wage packages, but there are 25000 seperate union locals in canada and much of them are quite in balance with the current market place because if they get too greedy, they are locked out, or lose market share and dwindle away. Theres a lot more i can say, but here sums up much of it: http://psacbc.com/sites/bc.psacadmin.ca/files/billc377-talkingpoints2012-02-16-en.pdf


Sorry, being a university grad is nothing special today. Here's something fun for you to do, go outside in a well congested area, scream out, who is a university grad or student: see the results. 
Business - Derek Thompson - 'Unnecessary' and 'Political': Why Unions Are Bad For America - The Atlantic

Interesting tid bits from actual union workers and other people, may help shed some light on an interesting topic for us.



dino said:


> unions protect us from retard powertripping bosses and your not suppost to talk bad about the company you work for? If thats the case id never talk about work lol


I've never had a power tripping boss, if you had one, you can QUIT. No one is forcing you to work there. Talking badly about the company you work for to your friends is different than talking badly about your work to the media.


----------



## dino (Aug 29, 2011)

im not that into politics but i am a union member. There is alot they dont do but one thing hey do is protect you unfortunatly it protects the useless also. If you have not had a bad boss then your lucky really lucky because im not kidding when i say i have had lots. I not saying id do better but alot of them have been just plane bad people. For someone to just quit there job is not that easy im not sure if you have been looking for jobs lately but they are few and far between


----------



## dino (Aug 29, 2011)

also to say that the parks or government work for harper is incorrect the opposite is true he works for us the tax payers we pay his outragous salary


----------



## neven (May 15, 2010)

My union gives me the job security so i don't need to put up with abusive members, or co workers. It is an independent HR department so to speak. Quite often in construction, you have people in charge who shouldn't be, who think the only way to get things done is to yell and berate your crew. Often times these same people will go over the top to certain undeserving individuals. Yes you can quit, that is always an option, but at least there's a path for conflict resolution without your job being as much at risk. Having that option there makes more people actually do the right thing and simply not take it.

Now for undeserving wages and benefits? This holds true to a very small percentage of people i've worked with. The 80s and 90s weren't kind to these folk who had the old union mentality, to waste the day away by doing nothing. When you show up to a job and don't perform, 9 times out of 10, you are laid off, pretty quickly. Meaning you have to wait for more work once again. Now there's another issues with unions wage increase not tied to performance. We can go years without a pay raise when a contract is up due to contractors stalling negotiations and refusing to talk if retro is mentioned. The labour board lets these talk stalls happen, and it causes us to fall behind in pay raises. During the 90s there was around 10 years of 0% pay increase, on avg its a year or two before wage increases happen, all without retro. So once again it goes both ways, Plus and a minus side pay wise. That is quite the pay cut over those years when you take into account inflation.

Now for my dues, i have no qualms paying them. And no one should have any issues that i am paying them, as its not their business. Company's often band together in associations, these people pay membership fees yearly for that, similar to dues. But these associations have a lot more financial clout for advocacy or political funding/lobbying, and people generally don't talk about that. Instead they demonize a union who does the same thing.

Now for our overpaid benefits? A separate pension plan (my father is on the same union pension plan im paying into = around $1400 /m after his several decade career), he have a standard blue cross medical coverage plan, $2k dental, $500 optical. That is our benefits. It is not gross at all, and many competitors have similar, except they generally RSP match rather than contribute into a pension plan. Theirs are usually a bit less, and where RSP matching is concerned, many young people don't pay a cent into their RSPs so they are matching nothing, meaning cost savings for the open shop contractors.

Now the biggest point. How are their still companies around that are unionized if the unions take so much and bleed them dry? Because money is still made, the open shop contractors charge around the same for the work needing to be done, despite the wage package gap often there. Costumers often choose the best bid for their projects, whether union or non union.

Another note, during our last labour shortage, the unions had over 40k people sitting at home across the country looking for work. But instead the government pushed to get workers from foreign nations, not familiar with our building codes or safety standards to man the jobs, instead of taking advantage of its own work force. Reason was simple though, they wanted skilled construction workers at $12 an hour to cut costs so the corporates take home a lot more profit. I remember here they had 12 Philippinos living in a 2 bedroom apartment each paying 900 / m rent in north van, and their wages were less than half that of their canadian counterparts. That is the abuse the government wants to allow happen.


----------



## neven (May 15, 2010)

now back on topic:

Any government department should be able to talk about what affects them, especially cuts. They are not another facet for political rhetoric to be played out. They are our services, we pay for them so we deserve to know whats happening with them. So the people in department head positions should not be under a gag order by the PO. That is what i have issues with. I do agree that those not in leading roles should be discouraged from talking to media outlets, but sometimes whistle blowing is a necessity, especially when such gag orders are in place, or there is mismanagement issues within the department affecting services greatly.


----------



## TomC (Apr 21, 2010)

J'sRacing said:


> As much as i don't like Harper, its not so much freedom of speech as it is uniformity. Uniformity within a government is very very crucial. It's like if you work for a company, you aren't supposed to let everyone know about your company's secrets, or tell people how crappy it is.


 The problem with that analogy is that Canada isn't a company, it's a country. And it's OUR country. We own it. So if you want to compare it to a company, then the situation is one where the people hired to work for the company are keeping secrets from the people they are employed by: us.


----------



## Elle (Oct 25, 2010)

> Uniformity within a government is very very crucial. It's like if you work for a company, you aren't supposed to let everyone know about your company's secrets, or tell people how crappy it is.


As one of the owners of this company (i.e., a taxpayer), damn straight do I want to know if the employees are unhappy or if they see problems in their organization, since they would be the first ones to know. This is disgusting, but not unexpected with this government. A basic principle of good management is to identify and address problems, not cover them up. Obviously Harper missed that lesson in school.

As for unions, I am so, so sick of hearing the same old lies being repeated about how union workers are lazy, entitled, blah blah. Was it union workers who nearly brought down the financial system in 2008? And who look like doing the same thing in 2012? No, it was the unregulated financial industry management. The periods of the greatest and most stable growth and prosperity in North America have historically coincided with periods where industries had a stable, unionized workforce. A population with stable employment and disposable income is more productive and makes for a better society than one of haves and have nots. After all, if people can't afford to eke out a living, it's only a matter of time before they stop purchasing your service or product, or before things destabilize to the point where you're seeing real social unrest, which isn't exactly business friendly. Sure, you can move your factories to China, employ children, pollute their environment instead of yours and then sell cheaply to North America, but that's no longer working so well if your customers aren't able to afford to buy anything because they have no jobs.

Read this article "The Price of Inequality" if you think that it's a great idea for the top 1% to hold all the assets: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-price-of-inequality

A telling quote from the article:



> Inequality leads to lower growth and less efficiency. Lack of opportunity means that its most valuable asset - its people - is not being fully used. Many at the bottom, or even in the middle, are not living up to their potential, because the rich, needing few public services and worried that a strong government might redistribute income, use their political influence to cut taxes and curtail government spending. This leads to underinvestment in infrastructure, education, and technology, impeding the engines of growth.


And fwiw, I don't work in a union OR in a union industry.


----------



## overlord1957 (Jul 28, 2011)

Hi J's.
Please do not paint UNION with 1 broad stroke.
As always in any worker group there are good and there are lazy.
And that has nothing to do with the gag order from our current PM.
It is Harper style of running the country.....CONTROL>>>CONTROL....if you have any doubt about it you should spend some time to read the news.
It is every where on the net. Men this guy have never been a worker all his life.
You have the right to form your believe and opinion and trust me Mr Harper is very close to being a DICTATOR..
I you were to give him 1 more majority mandate, then i will be surely miss my CANADA that i know.
Cheers.

Van


J'sRacing said:


> As much as i don't like Harper, its not so much freedom of speech as it is uniformity. Uniformity within a government is very very crucial. It's like if you work for a company, you aren't supposed to let everyone know about your company's secrets, or tell people how crappy it is.
> 
> Oh and if you're going to criticize him, at least make him "tighter" cause he's not loose with his politics. He might be a loser though.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ursus sapien (Apr 21, 2010)

While I have criticisms of some unions and their tactics, I've worked enough non-union positions to know that many non-union employers cheerfully abuse their employees.

Even a cursory comparison of the southern so-called 'right to work' states vs. the northern unionized states supports the claim that unions contribute to better overall regional economy.


----------



## onefishtwofish (Apr 21, 2010)

as a former fed worker i am familiar with their policies. there was once a time when if there was a federal election we were not allowed to put up any party signs on our lawns. there were also policies we were not allowed to tell the public about unless they asked so they didn't get more money than necessary. we had to keep daily statistics to account for our full day. there were expected numbers of each task and they were reviewed weekly. i noted on a gov website thier employees are now required to have an "emotional attachment" to their department. as for unions, look what happened to safeway as an example years ago. they bought out as many unionized employees with a buy out severance. it was voluntary. those who stayed have a good salary guaranteed hours and a pension plan. all the new people and those bought out then dropped to minimum wage and most got only 20 hours a week so the employer didn't have to pay medical and dental. still like that to this day. The number of homeless in maple ridge has gone up so much except now its not just men out their pushing their stuff around in grocery carts, their wives are there beside them. people are just not quitting the entry level or any job any more. sure they increased minimum wage but cut back on hours...........so there r good points to unions.


----------



## J'sRacing (Apr 25, 2012)

Luke78 said:


> Care to add a bit more on how you came to your conclusion on 'all unions' across this country? Bloody bums getting paid way to much? Really, working folks of all backgrounds contributing day in and day out making this country go forward and you label everyone with the same title?





neven said:


> There are quite a few people who can be offended by your comments. I worked my ass off for my career, i finished my training, just as any university grad would, and for that i deserve the wage bracket i'm in. Contrary to the rhetoric those of your political beliefs are raised on, you are greatly misinformed on how it actually is in the work environment. There are few unions that do indeed have inflated wage packages, but there are 25000 seperate union locals in canada and much of them are quite in balance with the current market place because if they get too greedy, they are locked out, or lose market share and dwindle away. Theres a lot more i can say, but here sums up much of it: http://psacbc.com/sites/bc.psacadmin.ca/files/billc377-talkingpoints2012-02-16-en.pdf





Elle said:


> As one of the owners of this company (i.e., a taxpayer), damn straight do I want to know if the employees are unhappy or if they see problems in their organization, since they would be the first ones to know. This is disgusting, but not unexpected with this government. A basic principle of good management is to identify and address problems, not cover them up. Obviously Harper missed that lesson in school.
> 
> As for unions, I am so, so sick of hearing the same old lies being repeated about how union workers are lazy, entitled, blah blah. Was it union workers who nearly brought down the financial system in 2008? And who look like doing the same thing in 2012? No, it was the unregulated financial industry management. The periods of the greatest and most stable growth and prosperity in North America have historically coincided with periods where industries had a stable, unionized workforce. A population with stable employment and disposable income is more productive and makes for a better society than one of haves and have nots. After all, if people can't afford to eke out a living, it's only a matter of time before they stop purchasing your service or product, or before things destabilize to the point where you're seeing real social unrest, which isn't exactly business friendly. Sure, you can move your factories to China, employ children, pollute their environment instead of yours and then sell cheaply to North America, but that's no longer working so well if your customers aren't able to afford to buy anything because they have no jobs.
> 
> ...


And who are the customers for these unregulated financial industry? Regular joe blows. Now the crisis in 2008 and 2012, is not entirely due to unions, but i'd say there were atleast a cause. If you think about it:

Unions bring:
collective bargaining
harsh penalties/rules when its comes to hiring and firing.
job security for the unmotivated worker.
crazy amounts of benefits.

Now how that all affects the 2008 and 2012 crisis: 
1)if these unions weren't asking for such ridiculous pay and benefits in some vital sectors, such as the automotive industry, many banks would not give a loan out to them! 
2)now what happens when the cars of union workers do not sell?
3)company does not make money. Forced to fire employees
4)as a result, these workers are no longer able to pay the mortgages and what not that they signed up for.
5)boom, more and more bad debt as well as bankruptcies.

But in addition of course, the financial industry also is to blame, the amount that they wanted to grow was unrealistic compared to the amount of actual sustainable gain. But much of the financial industry is about selling an idea, or in this case: the american dream.

Oh and you're partially right, the growth and stability of the country's economy has always been at its peak with the INTRODUCTION of unions and then it falls flat on its face, in the later stages. Look at healthcare, police force, automobile trades workers.

Do you have any idea what a first year police officer makes? 
More than a typical university grad student, thats what.
But then again those officers do a darn good job of keeping timmies safe. Look at the timmies of byrne road at any time, you'll see so very many police cruisers there.

The people of a country are what makes it rich. Have you ever wondered why Canada is suffering from losing skilled workers to foreign countries?
oh i know, it's 45% or more tax for people making over $120k. hmmm Let me see....so you'd be making about 60k after taxes...
Well i know where my headquarters will be when i open up a new business, not here thats for sure.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

J'sRacing said:


> And who are the customers for these unregulated financial industry? Regular joe blows. Now the crisis in 2008 and 2012, is not entirely due to unions, but i'd say there were atleast a cause. If you think about it:
> 
> Unions bring:
> collective bargaining
> ...


OK, usually I try to stay out of these political debates but...

Taking off my Mod hat & posting as a BCA member (my opinions are my own & have nothing to do with BCAquaria)

I am NOT a huge fan of unions but blaming unions for the 2008 crisis is ridiculous. Most of the crisis was caused by the greedy bankers who came up with the Subprime mortgage and other financial schemes that were extremely risky and only seeked the highest short term gains so they could maximize profits and maximize their own bonuses. That meant they gave out mortgages in the US to people who clearly could NOT afford to repay back hundreds of thousands of dollars on houses they were never going to actually "own" (owning as in paid off & mortgage free in 20-25 years like most homeowners). Why? Because the initial mortgage payments were set really low so people with low incomes or minimum wage jobs would dump in their life savings, take out a Subprime mortgage on their dream homes, the banks would make a killing, the housing construction industry was in a boom, and the buyers were living their dreams. Unfortunately, as soon as the first term was up and the mortgage payments went up even a little bit, most of these homeowners who should NOT have qualified for their mortgages in the first place (NEVER would have gotten one in Canada) could NO longer pay and lost their homes. NO new house, NO life savings, and as the credit crisis worsened, NO jobs.

When they first came out with the Subprime mortgage scheme in the early 2000s, I told Irene "Watch out when they finally raise the interest rates people have to pay on those Subprime mortgages. The housing markets going to tank. Huge amounts of people are going to lose their homes. The economy is going to crash."

If you don't believe me, ask my wife.

This is exactly what happened because if people are living off Kraft dinner to pay their Subprime mortgage, how are they going to survive if the mortgage rates go up. The trading and selling back and forth of blocks of these Subprime mortgages meant that your mortgage may not be owned by the bank that gave it to you in the first place. That bank already made its money. Now some other investor financial institute wants to make its profits off the Subprime mortgages and that means the interest rates going up. With sooooo many unqualified buyers, these Subprimes are extremely risky. This was happening in the free-for-all, unregulated financial industry of the Bush administration. In Canada, the rules about who qualifies and who does NOT qualify for a mortgage are much tighter.

Guess what? The US economy tanked with the credit crisis caused largely by the Subprime fiasco. The Canadian economy stayed reasonably strong and few people lost their homes here by comparison. Unfortunately the US economy is so huge that when it tanked, the resulting credit crisis, loss of buying power, lost jobs, etc. etc. spilled over into Canada and other countries.

http://www.eria.org/pdf/ERIA-DP-2009-10.pdf

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08186.pdf

The point of all this is, J'sRacing, is that ranting that the "Unions caused the 2008 crisis" shows how eager you are to blame unions for the economic recession rather than looking at the facts. Like I said, I am NOT a huge supporter of unions because I have known unions to protect lazy workers and have crazy rules about who can do what job and how seniority means everything in some unions, but most of this stuff has changed for the better over the years.

Most of the rants you posted are out-of-date or hard to understand. How has "collective bargaining" by unions caused the 2008 crisis? Collective bargaining means workers have some power to negotiate with their employers (supposedly) but nowadays, the government tends to slap a "essential services" or change the rules to force union workers back to work or lose their jobs.

Sorry, but I just don't know where these ideas are coming from. Not based on economic reality. Unions did NOT cause the economic crisis. The Subprime crisis caused the credit crisis and that caused other industries, like the automotive industry to suffer since nobody or company could get loans to keep their businesses rolling along. When the credit crisis hit industries then the snowball effect happened to cut costs to qualify for government bailouts - including renegotiating unionized wages.

The CAUSE was the financial industry's unregulated activities (specifically giving Subprime mortgages to people who should NEVER have qualified for a house mortgage).

OK, end of my rant.

[putting back Mod hat now]


----------



## Elle (Oct 25, 2010)

> as a former fed worker i am familiar with their policies. there was once a time when if there was a federal election we were not allowed to put up any party signs on our lawns. there were also policies we were not allowed to tell the public about unless they asked so they didn't get more money than necessary. we had to keep daily statistics to account for our full day. there were expected numbers of each task and they were reviewed weekly. i noted on a gov website thier employees are now required to have an "emotional attachment" to their department.


Please tell me that you're kidding.


----------



## neven (May 15, 2010)

just another side note, not all unions have seniority, many are against the concept of seniority, or only have it based on a few niche units the union may have based on skills (ie shipbuilding). For where i work, if i need to make an enclosure out of wood, i make it, theres no squabble that the carpenter is needed, those rules died in the 80s. Now if its a scaffold modification i need and the site has scaffolders on site, then its actually a problem, since they inspect them and they are liable if their structure fails. But yea, as far as protecting the lazy goes, a union cant boot them out of the union, they are not allowed to, its illegal. just like if someone can't speak english, but the government has issued them a red seal license based on references in asia or eastern europe, the union is forced to hire them if its doors are open to new members. There are harsh legal ramifications if someone is refused and someone of equal qualification is let in. A company who gets dispatched these workers though, both lazy or incompetent, they can send them back if they followed due process (verbal, written, then terminated) or are an outright safety concern (like severe language barrier causing them to not understand).


----------



## onefishtwofish (Apr 21, 2010)

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/...ition-of-select-CMHC-Performance-Measures.pdf

see the last paragraph. not kidding


----------



## J'sRacing (Apr 25, 2012)

Huh? if you read the first mini paragraph, i already stated that unions were not the main cause.


----------



## IceBlue (Mar 17, 2011)

Here we go round the mulberry bush. etc etc etc.


----------

