[Roach]

http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1305838

Premier Gordon Campbell is summoning the media to what is being called a "significant announcement" this morning.


A news conference is set for 11:30 this morning at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Vancouver.

No word on the content of the announcement, but it comes as rumours swirl in Victoria that back-bench MLA's will discuss his leadership at a caucus meeting tomorrow.

Campbell is also set to receive the results of a confidence vote by party members at the Liberal convention in Penticton later this month.

What do you guys think? Something tells me he's stepping down.

Kev

[MG1]

Who's next up in the Liberal Party?

Politics within a political party = good times. Like vultures. It's every person for themselves.

[originalhypa]

My money is on Kevin Falcon taking over.
I got $5 on it!

[twitchyzero]

more taxes coming our way? :troll:

[TheNewGirl]

It's 1130 now, lets see what he has to say.

More reckless tax cuts?

[xxxrsxxx]

he's stepping down as mentioned on news 1130

[illicitstylz]

BC Premier says he won't quit

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/09/08/bc-gordon-campbell.html

[Roach]

I wonder who will be his replacement?

Kev

[Tapioca]

Well, it looks like the people got what they wanted - at least, if you believe the comment forums of various newspapers, blogs, etc.

[xxxrsxxx]

liberal party will have a vote on nov 19/20 to choose their new leader

[The_AK]

comment on CBC.ca "If he isn't announcing his resignation, its just another lie."

haha

[TheNewGirl]

I think they were set up for a leadership review any how in the coming months.

Well this might save the Liberal Party moving forwards. Kevin Falcon's being mentioned a lot but he and Rich Colman are very close to Campbell that might taint them moving forwards.

There's some outsiders, Christie Clark & Diane Watts are being bandied around too. Both would be 'clean' of the whole HST scandal.

[Great68]

My money is on Kevin Falcon taking over.
I got $5 on it!

As long as it's not that boob Mike de Jong.

[Euro7r]

Campbell, RESIGNS! QUITS!

[adambomb]

The Vancovuer Sun is reporting that he has stepped down. :Popcorn


VANCOUVER - Premier Gordon Campbell announced this morning he is stepping down as premier.

He said he has asked the party to hold a leadership race as soon as possible.

Campbell made the announcement by way of a prepared statement at a press conference in Vancouver. He did not take questions.

Officials said the premier will hold a news conference on Thursday in Vancouver.



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Premier+Gordon+Campbell+resigns/3771490/story.html#ixzz14FLTDn3i

[smk]

Thank goodness
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Tai Chi]

About time.

[fsy82]

still doesn't take my hate away from the liberal party

[murd0c]

I never thought I would like him until now hahahaha

About fucken time!!!
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[iamon]

wow my co-worker just told me about this, this has made my day :D

[Teh Doucher]

Ya I've been watching this on the news, thank god. I was so sick of seeing that ugly mofo's mug lol.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[dhari]

woo hoooooooooooo finally he's gone!

[twitchyzero]

:thumbsup:

[tgill]

So now none of the parties in BC have any sort of strong leadership. :thumbsup:

[Roach]

A leaderless Liberal party is still better than Carol James and the NDP.

Kev

[Rogue951]

now how about Robertson and his damn useless bike lanes....

[tgill]

now how about Robertson and his damn useless bike lanes....
Yes please! what a fucking tool that guy is, sadly it seems like the majority of the CoV is on his dick.

[stylez2k4]

Campbell may not have been the best or all that good but in comparison to the NDP and Carole James.... yeah.

[willystyle]

I would still vote for a leaderless Liberal Party over NDP, anyday.

[jigga250]

wheres that liberal shill with the benz logo in his avatar who less than a week ago was telling us how gordo was the best premier in the country?:rofl:

[gdoh]

Campbell may not have been the best or all that good but in comparison to the NDP and Carole James.... yeah.

i only hope that stupid cunt carole james never gets elected she is the fakest/stupidest person there

[SumAznGuy]

wheres that liberal shill with the benz logo in his avatar who less than a week ago was telling us how gordo was the best premier in the country?:rofl:



I think he just jumped off the bandwagon.

[taylor192]

There's some outsiders, Christie Clark & Diane Watts are being bandied around too. Both would be 'clean' of the whole HST scandal.
Dianne Watts would be awesome, yet do you think she'd give up being mayor of Surrey to pursue it?

[taylor192]

wheres that liberal shill with the benz logo in his avatar who less than a week ago was telling us how gordo was the best premier in the country?:rofl:
You do realize that even with a different leader it is still the Liberal party? Gordo's replacement will be equally as good cause they'll represent the positives of the Liberal BC party.

The new leader might even be better, cause now people won't have DUI and other indiscretions to criticize and distract from the real issues.

[lilaznviper]

Now what will be carole james ad campaign without gordon campbell?

[TheNewGirl]

Dianne Watts would be awesome, yet do you think she'd give up being mayor of Surrey to pursue it?

She's said in the past no, but that was some time ago. In the last couple months she's refused to answer questions about it.

I would be very very willing to get behind the Liberal Party lead by Dianne Watts though. Or Christie Clark really when I think about it. Both of them are reasonable, critical, level headed and most importantly - completely untainted by the whole HST debacle.

[adambomb]

Gordon Campbell refuses to be a premier of a province with such strict drinking and driving laws.

--Charles Demers



:lol

[urrh]

I never thought I would like him until now hahahaha

About fucken time!!!
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
amen. he finally made a decision i'm willing to support

[MG1]

As long as it's not that boob Mike de Jong.

OMFG, if he's the leader, I will personally go and...... nvm.



Yeah that guy is total evil. He will sell out his mother, our province, his siter, his daughter, his cat, his......... you get the point.


What's the opposite of integrity? 'Cause that's the word to describe him. Opportunistic manwhore.

[Tapioca]

For the future leader of the "RS Party", what would you do to turn around this province? I'm interested in hearing some sensible ideas.

[jackmeister]

Most likely Kevin Falcon?

He seems to be moving up quick.

[CP.AR]

Now what will be carole james ad campaign without gordon campbell?

It'll all be about how they will spend more on Schools, Low Income housing, emergency shelters, healthcare. and Oh, they will also mention how they believe money grows on trees


For the future leader of the "RS Party", what would you do to turn around this province? I'm interested in hearing some sensible ideas.
Privatize TransLink, get rid of dumbshit "parking tax" would be on top of my list

[MrGoodbar]

now how about Robertson and his damn useless bike lanes....

Man, don't get me started again about bikes and bike lanes. I had a whole thread in fight club about wanting to cunt punt this fucking prick for the useless shit that he does for this city and knife bikers in the face.

[BlacknJean]

For the future leader of the "RS Party", what would you do to turn around this province? I'm interested in hearing some sensible ideas.

read my lips

no new taxes

[Great68]

read my lips

no new taxes

You know, I'd be a lot happier with the HST if was 10% and they dropped it from all food products & services.

[darkfroggy]

You know, I'd be a lot happier with the HST if was 10% and they dropped it from all food products & services.

So... 2% less tax on normal goods than before?

:)

[vafanculo]

I hope this wasn't a drunken decision and he takes it back when he sobers up in a few hours
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Great68]

So... 2% less tax on normal goods than before?

:)

;)

[bloodmack]

wheres that liberal shill with the benz logo in his avatar who less than a week ago was telling us how gordo was the best premier in the country?:rofl:

He actually posted up a link that said Gordo managed the provinces public finances better then other premiers did theirs. It didn't say he was the best premier in the country. I think you need to re-read the article.
http://www.financialpost.com/news/best+money+manager/3722523/story.html

Also, the liberals are STILL a better choice compared to NDP and others, unless RS party is made :D.

[MrGoodbar]

I can picture Campbell Crashing into the hotel in his car drunk and saying "OOOOH YEAH" I just wish I were there

[jigga250]

He actually posted up a link that said Gordo managed the provinces public finances better then other premiers did theirs. It didn't say he was the best premier in the country. I think you need to re-read the article.
http://www.financialpost.com/news/best+money+manager/3722523/story.html

Also, the liberals are STILL a better choice compared to NDP and others, unless RS party is made :D.

ummm.....the thread title was "Campbell > all other Canadian provincial premiers ":rolleyes:

[raygunpk]

I think it was in direct relation to the article.

[taylor192]

I hope this wasn't a drunken decision and he takes it back when he sobers up in a few hours
His family was there... so he was probably drunk. :D

[taylor192]

ummm.....the thread title was "Campbell > all other Canadian provincial premiers ":rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :facepalm:

[Hondaracer]

cant wait to vote to keep the HST!

[SkinnyPupp]

Good job BC, you chased away a brilliant business-minded leader.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Good job BC, you chased away a brilliant business-minded leader.

I always thought his brother would have made a great premier

[optiblue]

I'm thrilled that he resigned. Now maybe my union can finally get us a good contract! Totally getting underpaid compared to the rest of Canada.

[SumAznGuy]

I'm thrilled that he resigned. Now maybe my union can finally get us a good contract! Totally getting underpaid compared to the rest of Canada.

Yeah, now my wife can finally get a raise and I can quit my job and leech off of her. :D

[StylinRed]

glad he didn't decide to bring down the ship along with him

carole james should take the hint



Dianne Watts? no thanks she's too weak (afraid to step on the toes of the sikh community even when they're acting crazy) and wants to be blonde

Mike De Jong? (sounds like that's where its headed) He's certainly smart enough but he looks like a big goofball, reminds me of Will Sasso

http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/cast/will_sasso.gifhttp://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/39thParl/images/members_lrg/dejongM.jpg


Good job BC, you chased away a brilliant business-minded leader.

a lying and deceptive one

[no_clue]

I'm thrilled that he resigned. Now maybe my union can finally get us a good contract! Totally getting underpaid compared to the rest of Canada.

No offense, but if the new government bends over frequently to union demands, BC is screwed. Raising minimum wage and wages of unions will reflect on the cost to the consumer.

[Graeme S]

And lowering taxes results in cuts to social programs; the benefit of social programs (LIKE SCHOOLS) is much higher than a small tax increase.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[!LittleDragon]

Someone should start the "Let's be realistic" party...

[quasi]

I'm thrilled that he resigned. Now maybe my union can finally get us a good contract! Totally getting underpaid compared to the rest of Canada.


How ya figure? If anything it hurt your cause. If he stayed the NDP probably gets in next election. Since he removed himself so early (depending on who the new leader is) the liberals will now have a much better shot at getting voted in again. Hopefully that happens because the NDP is the last thing this Province needs.

[MG1]

And lowering taxes results in cuts to social programs; the benefit of social programs (LIKE SCHOOLS) is much higher than a small tax increase.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Not if governments become more efficient. Lots of waste in government. Half our tax dollars go to pay for stupidity (red tape, cock sucking, make work projects, surveys, consulting, etc.) You don't need to pay for a study to tell you what the problems are - just fucking fix it. Throwing money at programs that clearly don't work, for example. Cutting programs that work. Then finding out the cuts end up costing more in the long run. If I were the Premier, I'd go in and point at people and say, "You, you, and you, get the fuck out!" You there, you've got two months to fix the problem or we'll replace you with people who can!" I'll get support, all right, because people are sick of this shit! Once they see someone taking charge and making changes, they will support you. Even if you're brutal. Pull no punches and fuck everybody who sucks cock and fucks the dog.

Then again, I'd make a horrible Premier, 'cause I couldn't play the games they play. I wouldn't be able to lie through my teeth and sit with other dignitaries and bullshit with them. If I were sitting next to some VIP from another country, I'd probably tell them to fuck themselves for violating human rights, etc. I wouldn't be able to kiss ass. Plus, I'd probably punch out that obnoxious fuckhead of a reporter from Global TV.

[Great68]

No offense, but if the new government bends over frequently to union demands, BC is screwed. Raising minimum wage and wages of unions will reflect on the cost to the consumer.

So those people aren't allowed to get raises or benefit increases over the course of their employment, just like you, I and anyone else in the private sector do?

It's not like the cost of living ever goes up over the years or anything. :rolleyes:

[LiquidTurbo]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Gordon_campbell_arrested_dui.jpg

Even now, everytime the name Gordon Campbell is mentioned, I automatically think of this picture. :rofl:

[Tapioca]

The Globe and Mail has published a rather positive editorial on Campbell's reign:


The transformative leadership of Gordon Campbell
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Nov. 03, 2010 7:50PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Nov. 03, 2010 10:58PM EDT

Gordon Campbell leaves with his popularity at its nadir, but he will be judged as one of the great premiers of British Columbia. Almost his entire professional life was spent as a political staffer or politician, but as a provincial leader, Mr. Campbell never settled for incremental transactionalism – he has consistently pushed the boundaries of the possible, in terms of both politics and policy.

Remember that the B.C. Liberal Party he took over in 1993 had not won an election in over 50 years. With the NDP and Social Credit imploding, he could have passively sat by. But he did more than this, taking the party on a sharp ideological turn in light of the province’s economic woes, and, in the process, realigning the whole party system in the province.

Mr. Campbell’s preference for the bold over the timid was evident throughout his mandate. He was a consistent advocate for the Vancouver/Whistler 2010 Winter Olympics bid. He tackled the question of how politicians are elected, with a citizen’s assembly and referendum on electoral reform, even though it was not necessarily in his own party’s interest. He brought in a carbon tax and was one of the first fiscal conservatives at the provincial level to champion the fight against climate change.

He also transformed the province’s finances and is beginning to change the way health care is delivered, although the price – fights with the public service – was sometimes great. By introducing the Harmonized Sales Tax, he set the stage for further economic growth, at a potentially lasting political cost.

Mr. Campbell also showed an admirable capacity to change his own beliefs. He took a predominantly antagonistic relationship between the province and aboriginal peoples, a sentiment he has shared and fuelled in his early years as party leader, and upended it as Premier. He didn’t just recognize the need to get aboriginals on board to develop the province’s resources; he showed them a respect that they had never seen, concluding new land deals, making aboriginal participation integral to the Olympics, and emerging as a key national spokesman for the Kelowna Accord.

His government was harmed by some of the legacies of B.C. political life, such as political corruption and personal difficulties experienced by its premiers. But Mr. Campbell’s record of public service and his transformation of public policy in British Columbia will benefit its residents for many years to come.

I will reiterate that the strides that Campbell has made on the aboriginal file are really quite remarkable considering BC's history vis-a-vis First Nations. Most people in the city are ignorant on First Nations issues, but I will say that the future prosperity of this province is tied to our ability to settle disputes and accommodate First Nations' interests.

[carisear]

So those people aren't allowed to get raises or benefit increases over the course of their employment, just like you, I and anyone else in the private sector do?

It's not like the cost of living ever goes up over the years or anything. :rolleyes:

why should workers get an increase just because it's at the bottom of the pay scale?

why should union workers get more money/benefits just because they've worked at the job for another year?

shouldn't pay increases be tied to PERFORMANCE?

and that, right there in a nutshell, is the difference in ideology between the right and the left when it comes to jobs.

[goo3]

So those people aren't allowed to get raises or benefit increases over the course of their employment, just like you, I and anyone else in the private sector do?

It's not like the cost of living ever goes up over the years or anything. :rolleyes:

Then they can bargain for it like everyone else. You want a raise during a recession? Good luck.

The gov't isn't there to hand out money every time a union tells a sad story to the newspaper.. It's there to represent the interests of the taxpayers.

[Graeme S]

why should workers get an increase just because it's at the bottom of the pay scale?

why should union workers get more money/benefits just because they've worked at the job for another year?

shouldn't pay increases be tied to PERFORMANCE?

and that, right there in a nutshell, is the difference in ideology between the right and the left when it comes to jobs.
So why is it that business owners can increase prices without providing extra services or benefits to customers?

Shouldn't pay increases be tied to PERFORMANCE?

[SkinnyPupp]

So why is it that business owners can increase prices without providing extra services or benefits to customers?

Shouldn't pay increases be tied to PERFORMANCE?

People are free to stop going.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Nightwalker]

I think this is a brilliant political move that will help the Liberals in the next election.

[Hakkaboy]

And lowering taxes results in cuts to social programs; the benefit of social programs (LIKE SCHOOLS) is much higher than a small tax increase.


you do realise that when they lower taxes, there are actually benefits, right? money doesn't just disappear. it's just a tax shift and collected from other areas of the economy.

when your take home pay increases, do you not spend more? that has direct relationships to businesses. plus the gov't also receive more in the form of sales tax.

when businesses get more consumer spending and *gasp* tax breaks, they might even do the inconceivable thing of investing to grow their business and/or employ more workers. guess what, now these new workers will contribute by paying income taxes instead of being bums and waiting for "social programs". and another bonus, they will contribute more in sales tax as well.

[Tapioca]

you do realise that when they lower taxes, there are actually benefits, right? money doesn't just disappear. it's just a tax shift and collected from other areas of the economy.

when your take home pay increases, do you not spend more? that has direct relationships to businesses. plus the gov't also receive more in the form of sales tax.

when businesses get more consumer spending and *gasp* tax breaks, they might even do the inconceivable thing of investing to grow their business and/or employ more workers. guess what, now these new workers will contribute by paying income taxes instead of being bums and waiting for "social programs". and another bonus, they will contribute more in sales tax as well.

As sound as your logic is, this thinking is lost on half of the voters in the province. Or, someone will say that once a business becomes profitable (which happens a lot in Canada), it gets taken over by a foreign one and then is broken up, sold, downsized, etc.

[originalhypa]

As sound as your logic is, this thinking is lost on half of the voters in the province

Thanks to our socialist views, lower taxes actually hurt the province. This is evident when you consider just how many people in BC utilize the gov't for everything from a paycheck, all the way to publicly funded childcare. Lower taxes work in a capitalist society because it's a much more selfish society compared to socialism.

The US is becoming more and more socialist (everytime a dem is elected), and that pisses off the old republican way of thinking.

[darkfroggy]

Thanks to our socialist views, lower taxes actually hurt the province. This is evident when you consider just how many people in BC utilize the gov't for everything from a paycheck, all the way to publicly funded childcare. Lower taxes work in a capitalist society because it's a much more selfish society compared to socialism.

The US is becoming more and more socialist (everytime a dem is elected), and that pisses off the old republican way of thinking.

Too bad higher taxes lead to inefficiencies in the market. When consumer and income taxes are high, people stop buying stuff they would have originally bought.

Oh, and people manage their money a LOT better than the government.

Public health care in US was a disaster. Putting in an extremely expensive social program RIGHT when the economy is in a recession a terrible choice. Spending needs to be cut, not increased.

[MrGoodbar]

Too bad higher taxes lead to inefficiencies in the market. When consumer and income taxes are high, people stop buying stuff they would have originally bought.

Oh, and people manage their money a LOT better than the government.

Public health care in US was a disaster. Putting in an extremely expensive social program RIGHT when the economy is in a recession a terrible choice. Spending needs to be cut, not increased.

Can't remember who's sig this was but it was great and very relevant to this thread:

Spending your way out of debt is like fucking for virginity.

[Graeme S]

Public health care in US was a disaster. Putting in an extremely expensive social program RIGHT when the economy is in a recession a terrible choice. Spending needs to be cut, not increased.

So when is the right time to put in a social program? When things are recovering? When things are at their peak?

There is never a "right" time for social programs, but there is also never a "right" time to remove them either. Costs are costs, but having an adequate social safety net in place makes the ride infinitely smoother.

Yes, the way that the healthcare thing was done in the US was nightmarish, but this isn't the US, is it.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Gt-R R34]

It's cool, you guys are just talkin economics here. Not a bad discussion, even with the arguing.

Whoever wines and dines on government money should be shot. We pay them to work, not take our money and 6 lackies and go for a 2 week trip to some exotic place for a "business conference".

Anyways that's off point, but Gordo was done from the onset of Bill the No HST premier's campaign.

My 1 wish if they include teh taxes into the meals/items we buy like in London UK. it's so much simplier and way more palatable. EVEN if it's a 17.5% tax.

[m4k4v4li]

So why is it that business owners can increase prices without providing extra services or benefits to customers?

Shouldn't pay increases be tied to PERFORMANCE?

can i charge $10 for a crumb of bread served on a paper napkin?

[mikemhg]

Too bad higher taxes lead to inefficiencies in the market. When consumer and income taxes are high, people stop buying stuff they would have originally bought.

Oh, and people manage their money a LOT better than the government.

Public health care in US was a disaster. Putting in an extremely expensive social program RIGHT when the economy is in a recession a terrible choice. Spending needs to be cut, not increased.

You sound like you watch a lot of Fox News.

Universal Health Care in itself will reduce the US Deficit in the long term. What better time would there have been to pass the legislation? No prior president has ever been able to pass any type of real Health Care Bill. Obama did what he ran on, and that was changing the Health Care system. You can blame it on the Republicans, and in part Paper Suit Democrats in the bill not going all the way to introducing a Universal Health Care Plan. That is the most unforunate thing of that whole fiasco.

[darkfroggy]

You sound like you watch a lot of Fox News.

Universal Health Care in itself will reduce the US Deficit in the long term. What better time would there have been to pass the legislation? No prior president has ever been able to pass any type of real Health Care Bill. Obama did what he ran on, and that was changing the Health Care system. You can blame it on the Republicans, and in part Paper Suit Democrats in the bill not going all the way to introducing a Universal Health Care Plan. That is the most unforunate thing of that whole fiasco.

Last time I checked, you can't spend your way out of a deficit.

You DO know that the money from health care doesn't grow out of trees right? The money has to come from somewhere.

You're essentially forcing healthy adults to spend money on healthcare they probably won't need. I don't want to seem cruel, but a LOT of the money will be used on the elderly/very sick, who aren't very productive towards the economy. You're taking money that could have went to other more productive sectors (education, banking, manufacturing, retails) into one that doesn't provide much benefit in a FINANCIAL sense. Most healthy adults will save more paying out of their own pocket than paying into a health care program they MAY or MAY NOT use.

Plus, government-run programs usually not very efficient. It takes a long time to get things done... lots of legal fees, bureaucratic bungling, "meetings", policy advisers, lobbyists, opposition, siphoning and misuse of funds, blah blah blah.

Please tell me how it will reduce the deficit, not what Obama claimed it would do in his presidential speech.

Does healthcare make moral sense? Yes. Does it make fiscal sense? No.

BTW, I like Obama as a president. I just don't agree with some of his policies.

[Graeme S]

shot yourself in the foot. it is tied to performance. you think i can charge $10 for a crumb of bread served on a paper napkin?
Absolutely not. But you didn't open a restaurant to sell a crumb of bread on a napkin. nor am I suggesting that people should be paid to do nothing--quite the contrary. I find the inefficiencies of government even more disturbing than most conservatives because I believe that Government SHOULD be there to help people and take care of them; I feel that they are one of the most important parts of society, and should not in fact be eliminated.

Conservatives who want smaller government are "shocked and appalled at the waste of the government" and want to axe it all because they think that big government is the root of all evil. I am shocked and appalled by the waste of government because it is there to serve the people.


There are a lot of businesses downtown who price their goods without tax to make a round number with tax; Coffeeshops, pizza places, small restaurants and the like. When the HST came in, many of them adjusted their prices UP to make the prices round again. In other words, an item that was previously $2 before the HST then became $2.50 with HST because the owner wanted to keep it a round number.

This is the kind of thing I mean by 'pay increases tied to performance'. This is one of the ways the HST is making that type of business money--incremental price increases with reduced business costs due to tax credits.

[BNR32_Coupe]

It's cool, you guys are just talkin economics here. Not a bad discussion, even with the arguing.

Whoever wines and dines on government money should be shot. We pay them to work, not take our money and 6 lackies and go for a 2 week trip to some exotic place for a "business conference".

Anyways that's off point, but Gordo was done from the onset of Bill the No HST premier's campaign.

My 1 wish if they include teh taxes into the meals/items we buy like in London UK. it's so much simplier and way more palatable. EVEN if it's a 17.5% tax.

why don't we be a little more open-minded and Liberal about our governments spending habits?

if managers in big businesses take expensive trips on company money, why can't managers of a country?

managing a part of the country aint no charity drive. you get what you pay for and if you pay a politician $65k/yr with the standard 2 week vacations and no perks, you'll get joe-blow running the show. raise the stakes to $239k/yr with all expense paid trips and crazy per diems, then you'll filter out all the joe-blows and keep the truly exceptional ones at bay. of course, even at $239k/yr, you're still hiring a human-being whose prone to slipping with mistakes like drinking and driving while on vacation

people love to point their misery at something else, and with a political system like ours, not everyone can be pleased. anything that happens in politics will piss one person off or another.

political discussions always turn into arguments, you guys are all wasting your breath.

[MG1]

Civil Servant.

You go in it to make a difference. Make sacrifices to right the wrongs and work endless hours in order to do this. If all politicians did this instead of being in it for guaranteed pensions, perks, fame, glory, etc, it would truly be an honourable profession.

As it is now, even the world's oldest profession has more respect.


Only during elections are these people humble. We pay these people's wages. If and when they represent the people and put the people's interest ahead of their own agendas should we give them respect.

[Tapioca]

Last time I checked, you can't spend your way out of a deficit.

Sure you can - ever heard of John Keynes? What about Frank Roosevelt? Or about our own Stephen Harper with Canada's Economic Action plan?

You can talk about money supply, deficits, and interest rates all you want - it's still accepted theory that you have to sometimes spend public money to promote economic growth. In good times, governments should actually raise taxes (which no government actually does.)


You're essentially forcing healthy adults to spend money on healthcare they probably won't need. I don't want to seem cruel, but a LOT of the money will be used on the elderly/very sick, who aren't very productive towards the economy. You're taking money that could have went to other more productive sectors (education, banking, manufacturing, retails) into one that doesn't provide much benefit in a FINANCIAL sense. Most healthy adults will save more paying out of their own pocket than paying into a health care program they MAY or MAY NOT use.

Wow. You might as well get rid of all the mentally challenged, the disabled, the elderly, the uneducated, etc. with that line of thinking.


Plus, government-run programs usually not very efficient. It takes a long time to get things done... lots of legal fees, bureaucratic bungling, "meetings", policy advisers, lobbyists, opposition, siphoning and misuse of funds, blah blah blah.

The health care system in the US is still a victim of lobbyists and the misuse of funds. Ever get into an accident down there? If you don't have insurance, you'll literally go bankrupt after any sort of operation.

Public systems are no doubt subject to abuse, but there are ways of making it more efficient without making the system private. We should actually emphasize health care prevention, but you know, promoting exercise and taxing unhealthy foods are politically difficult. I'm going on here...

[Lomac]

You're essentially forcing healthy adults to spend money on healthcare they probably won't need. I don't want to seem cruel, but a LOT of the money will be used on the elderly/very sick, who aren't very productive towards the economy. You're taking money that could have went to other more productive sectors (education, banking, manufacturing, retails) into one that doesn't provide much benefit in a FINANCIAL sense. Most healthy adults will save more paying out of their own pocket than paying into a health care program they MAY or MAY NOT use.

So by your theory, because I'm a healthy late-20's adult male who only goes to the doctor and dentist for checkups, I should stop paying into my company's health care plan because it's a waste of money?

Health care is akin to car insurance; we pay for it every paycheque/month/year in the hopes that we don't need it. However, should the situation arise where you find your car burning down (or that you've suddenly developed a pulmonary edema), it's nice to know that you don't have to suddenly fork out your entire life savings to replace it (or sell your house to pay for the surgery).

Yes, you may have to pay a little more now but, like insurance, it's there just in case.

[goo3]

Only during elections are these people humble. We pay these people's wages. If and when they represent the people and put the people's interest ahead of their own agendas should we give them respect.

Yeah, but we never do. We just complain every time a news headline comes out because it's easy. Even if they do work hard and do a good job, who's gonna know? It's not like the media digs this stuff up because it sells.

[BlacknJean]

wwow did anyone read the province today about campbells pension plan + incentives?

dude still fucking us over after he quit

[Great68]

wwow did anyone read the province today about campbells pension plan + incentives?

dude still fucking us over after he quit

As much as I dislike the guy, he's absolutely entitled to his pension.

[MG1]

Yeah, but we never do. We just complain every time a news headline comes out because it's easy. Even if they do work hard and do a good job, who's gonna know? It's not like the media digs this stuff up because it sells.

Mayor of Surrey gets a lot of respect (from what I hear). I give credit where credit is due and I think a lot of other people do as well.

Anyway..............

[Gridlock]

So off off topic, but...

It's a major problem in western economies, of not managing them during good times and bad.

Here is why we get screwed(in my opinion)

Having an over achieving economy is just as bad as an under achieving economy.

In late 90's...the US economy is cooking hot. Dot coms are making huge amounts of coin, and the rest of the economy is running along with it. Times are good.

Incrementally, the interest rates and rates of taxation should be increased to slow the economy somewhat. Build a reserve of funding for the inevitable, bubble burst!

Economy slows.

Yes, Bush cuts the taxes, which should have been great, but they were never raised before. Therein lies the problem of why his rip off of Reagan didn't work.

Fast forward a couple of years...housing market is booming. Great for economic growth(because we all know that in our fiscal system, loans generate "new" money for the economy) And it dies.

The stimulus was all designed to re-inflate the bubble. Even saving GM was designed to go back to the glory days where they employed the mid-west and everything was good. Everyone wants the good times to go forever.

Now you have Tea Party rhetoric of cutting gov't spending, balancing the budget and lowering taxes. Can't have it all. You can't. You can cut gov't programs if you want, and in the US, I think they could stand to lose entire departments...but that isn't going to do much for the employment problem. Your tax rate is already too low, as evidenced by the education system thats fucked and many programs and infrastructure thats underfunded...not to mention social security thats severely underfunded, as that fund has been raped so many times to cook the books(Thanks Bill! If anyone doesn't know, his so-called balanced budget was at the expense of social security)

Thankfully Canada has been smarter. Paul Martin, in my opinion was one of the greatest Prime Ministers that Canada has had in recent years. His work under Chretien was fantastic. They made the hard calls. They cut spending, and increased taxes and balanced the books. Then they refunded to a rate that could be sustained.

Gordon Campbell on a provincial level did the exact same thing, and his true legacy is that people saw that it was good. His election in 2001? was based in part on voting the NDP out, but he made no promises of spending and new things for the people, we knew that he was going to cut the shit out of the gov't spending and make the province work, and he did. The fact that he was re-elected shows that we recognized it needed to happen.

That is the best thing he did for the province.

[hk20000]

yes people are happy that he quits only because the way he brings the news to the people was......let's say not very diplomatic.

but he ran the government provincial like it's a multibiliion corporation, and that is what we truly needed. That has always worked and just look at how well we did during the great depression. Many people are too fixated on a few smaller aspects that happened to them or to ones they loved and think that the gov't screwed them over....If only the policies were released in a more poor-people-friendly way.

Gordo has been doing great as a business man, too bad many don't like businessmen.

It's unfortunate that the majority of the haters failed in life and then decide that it's someone high up at fault...

[Tapioca]

wwow did anyone read the province today about campbells pension plan + incentives?

dude still fucking us over after he quit

Well, Campbell was running one of the largest organizations in the country which is akin to being a top-end CEO. No one cries foul when CEOs receive large severances, stock options, etc.

A CEO working at a big-5 bank in this country makes in the neighbourhood of around 2-5 million year, plus bonuses and other incentives. Campbell probably made a salary in the low 200K range (it was 186K in 2007). So, do you value a bank manager's work more than a government's?

[originalhypa]

Oh, and people manage their money a LOT better than the government

If you looked into the facts on average personal debt, average family debt, and average business debt in either Canada or the US, you'd realize just how silly this statement is. People do not manage their money well. That's why the Brick is so successful even though they'll give you a year of interest free payments. Even though it's hugely beneficial to their bottom line to pay down the debt, people rarely do it during the interest free period.

[Hakkaboy]

So why is it that business owners can increase prices without providing extra services or benefits to customers?

Shouldn't pay increases be tied to PERFORMANCE?

Absolutely not. But you didn't open a restaurant to sell a crumb of bread on a napkin. nor am I suggesting that people should be paid to do nothing--quite the contrary. I find the inefficiencies of government even more disturbing than most conservatives because I believe that Government SHOULD be there to help people and take care of them; I feel that they are one of the most important parts of society, and should not in fact be eliminated.

Conservatives who want smaller government are "shocked and appalled at the waste of the government" and want to axe it all because they think that big government is the root of all evil. I am shocked and appalled by the waste of government because it is there to serve the people.


There are a lot of businesses downtown who price their goods without tax to make a round number with tax; Coffeeshops, pizza places, small restaurants and the like. When the HST came in, many of them adjusted their prices UP to make the prices round again. In other words, an item that was previously $2 before the HST then became $2.50 with HST because the owner wanted to keep it a round number.

This is the kind of thing I mean by 'pay increases tied to performance'. This is one of the ways the HST is making that type of business money--incremental price increases with reduced business costs due to tax credits.

not picking on you, but lemme get this straight. you think that just because businesses can raise prices anytime they want without a valid reason, then workers should be entitled to automatic raises without it being tied to performance?

honestly, this is the exact reason what is wrong with some people in society. You want more money w/o any increase in performance? Go start you own fucking business then. Then you can charge any price you want.

You don't like your current job and it's pay and benefits? Get another fucking job then. Don't go on strikes, hold the public hostage and expect free handouts for doing jack just because you're not qualified for another job.

[darkfroggy]

So by your theory, because I'm a healthy late-20's adult male who only goes to the doctor and dentist for checkups, I should stop paying into my company's health care plan because it's a waste of money?

Health care is akin to car insurance; we pay for it every paycheque/month/year in the hopes that we don't need it. However, should the situation arise where you find your car burning down (or that you've suddenly developed a pulmonary edema), it's nice to know that you don't have to suddenly fork out your entire life savings to replace it (or sell your house to pay for the surgery).

Yes, you may have to pay a little more now but, like insurance, it's there just in case.

On AVERAGE, insurance will be a net loss.

The economy does not look at individual cases, it looks at people as a GROUP.

Like I said, you have to be losing money for the insurance companies to make money.

For MOST people, they will never use up the insurance they pay for in their lives.

[darkfroggy]

Sure you can - ever heard of John Keynes? What about Frank Roosevelt? Or about our own Stephen Harper with Canada's Economic Action plan?

You can talk about money supply, deficits, and interest rates all you want - it's still accepted theory that you have to sometimes spend public money to promote economic growth. In good times, governments should actually raise taxes (which no government actually does.)



Wow. You might as well get rid of all the mentally challenged, the disabled, the elderly, the uneducated, etc. with that line of thinking.



The health care system in the US is still a victim of lobbyists and the misuse of funds. Ever get into an accident down there? If you don't have insurance, you'll literally go bankrupt after any sort of operation.

Public systems are no doubt subject to abuse, but there are ways of making it more efficient without making the system private. We should actually emphasize health care prevention, but you know, promoting exercise and taxing unhealthy foods are politically difficult. I'm going on here...

You seriously think the Canadian Economic Action plan saved the economy? MANY of Roosevelt's policies got shot down in court, the US economy would have rebounded regardless of whether he was in power or not.

I also forgot to mention that a large percentage of the Canadian Economic Action plan funding went to... *surprise* ridings with Conservative bases.

Why are you suddently getting into eugenics? All I said was that for improving the economy, investing in public health care is an inefficient use of resources.

I like the concept of universal healthcare. From a purely financial aspect, however, it is not a good way to rebound from a recession.

Most Americans seem to understand this, with the economy taking precedence over national healthcare. Public healthcare is good when you're injured or sick, but it won't feed your family and pay the bills.

[darkfroggy]

If you looked into the facts on average personal debt, average family debt, and average business debt in either Canada or the US, you'd realize just how silly this statement is. People do not manage their money well. That's why the Brick is so successful even though they'll give you a year of interest free payments. Even though it's hugely beneficial to their bottom line to pay down the debt, people rarely do it during the interest free period.

Yes... because business debt = government debt. Businesses are run by individuals, governments are run by an elected group of individuals representing various interests.

You can bet that businesses as a whole are damn more efficient than governments.

[m4k4v4li]

...

[orange7]

rs should form a political party and run for Vancouver.

[Kamui712]

while financially that may be sound I would have to disagree with that idea. Public health care, imo, is one of the things that defines Canada and its values.

To privatize health care could further the disparity between socioeconomic classes. It may also invite a ridiculous HMO system like the USA, what regular joe could afford medical bills in the $10 000 range?

While we may not use our medical everyday, other people need it. When we see doctors we should never have to worry about if we can afford the visit or not, physical health is a basic human need it shouldn't have a price tag attached to it.



You seriously think the Canadian Economic Action plan saved the economy? MANY of Roosevelt's policies got shot down in court, the US economy would have rebounded regardless of whether he was in power or not.

I also forgot to mention that a large percentage of the Canadian Economic Action plan funding went to... *surprise* ridings with Conservative bases.

Why are you suddently getting into eugenics? All I said was that for improving the economy, investing in public health care is an inefficient use of resources.

I like the concept of universal healthcare. From a purely financial aspect, however, it is not a good way to rebound from a recession.

Most Americans seem to understand this, with the economy taking precedence over national healthcare. Public healthcare is good when you're injured or sick, but it won't feed your family and pay the bills.

[Meowjin]

even though the economy turned for better in the last 11 years for most bc citizens, the cost of living raised up signifigantly with it. I bet alot of people feel just as poor with less wage back in the 90's but cheaper COL compared to today with higher wages/more jobs but a signifigant increase to COL.

[originalhypa]

Yes... because business debt = government debt. Businesses are run by individuals, governments are run by an elected group of individuals representing various interests.

Water is wet.
See, I can state the obvious too.

You can bet that businesses as a whole are damn more efficient than governments.

More effecient in what sense?

Pure profit? Maybe, due to a company not having any level of individual responsibility. Stock scammers make pure profit too, but at a huge personal cost.

Customer service? Ever try to get a Telus rep on the phone? What about returning something to a boutique? Now try to import a shipment from China. Do your paperwork correctly, and it's highly effecient.

Are you telling me that BC Ferries is worse than the private ferry from Seattle that will refuse to sail if there aren't enough cars? Or Air Canada who will fly you to Nunavut, even if you're the only one on the plane.

Gov't isn't considered "efficient" because they're not focused on profit. Their focus is on providing services to the people of the country. As such, it's not uncommon for them to run a deficit. This is why we pay taxes.

Regardless, define efficient, and maybe we'll have something to talk about.

[Graeme S]

not picking on you, but lemme get this straight. you think that just because businesses can raise prices anytime they want without a valid reason, then workers should be entitled to automatic raises without it being tied to performance?

Actually, I don't think that workers should receive automatic raises without it being tied to performance. I also don't think that workers should lose money (via inflation) for doing the same job at the same efficiency that they normally or usually do, which is one of many problems that non-unionized workers face.

To be honest, I was quite happy working at Starbucks where I would receive bi-annual reviews and could receive up to a 6% annual raise. I think, however, that when a job is difficult to judge objectively it makes it more difficult. For a production or factory worker, someone in retail sales, it's quite easy to judge how well an employee is performing. A teacher, however, who has a dud or awesome class will have a skewed performance rating. A government agent who has several cases and is evaluated based on the number of cases cleared would end up giving people the short shrift rather than dealing with them in the best way.

Sometimes straight evaluation is not the best method of evaluation.

honestly, this is the exact reason what is wrong with some people in society. You want more money w/o any increase in performance? Go start you own fucking business then. Then you can charge any price you want.

Well, that all depends on the market and other factors; it's a similar choice between renting a house and owning a house, they each have their advantages and disadvantages.

You don't like your current job and it's pay and benefits? Get another fucking job then. Don't go on strikes, hold the public hostage and expect free handouts for doing jack just because you're not qualified for another job.

So when people have trained to be paramedics or nurses or firefighters for several years, worked for half a decade or more, have found their calling and passion but are getting axed or having their benefits cut (often to the tune of "We're offering more pay than the market should use and only cutting SOME benefits"), should they not protest?

Paramedics are a perfect case in point. Underpaid, constantly on call, often on overtime--yet the government won't authorize for more hiring or better on-call privileges, despite the fact that they would quite possibly save money for doing that.


Strikes are a method of showing people there is an issue without resorting to violence.
we live in a wealthy capitalist country with a massive social safety net. the market will regulate itself

And that social safety net is quickly fraying. Our reliance on the social safety net while steadily filing away at the cords is astonishing.

[Hakkaboy]

^you're absolutely right that people with skills that are non-transferable are at a severe disadvantage, but isn't that their choice?

i know you are using firefighters and paramedics as examples because from an emotional standpoint, they are the "good guys" and should be taken care of.

but it comes down to the age old debate of employee rights versus employer rights.

Let me ask you this. Is being employed a right or a privilege?

[Great68]

Actually, I don't think that workers should receive automatic raises without it being tied to performance. I also don't think that workers should lose money (via inflation) for doing the same job at the same efficiency that they normally or usually do, which is one of many problems that non-unionized workers face.

To be honest, I was quite happy working at Starbucks where I would receive bi-annual reviews and could receive up to a 6% annual raise. I think, however, that when a job is difficult to judge objectively it makes it more difficult. For a production or factory worker, someone in retail sales, it's quite easy to judge how well an employee is performing. A teacher, however, who has a dud or awesome class will have a skewed performance rating. A government agent who has several cases and is evaluated based on the number of cases cleared would end up giving people the short shrift rather than dealing with them in the best way.

Sometimes straight evaluation is not the best method of evaluation.



Well, that all depends on the market and other factors; it's a similar choice between renting a house and owning a house, they each have their advantages and disadvantages.



So when people have trained to be paramedics or nurses or firefighters for several years, worked for half a decade or more, have found their calling and passion but are getting axed or having their benefits cut (often to the tune of "We're offering more pay than the market should use and only cutting SOME benefits"), should they not protest?

Paramedics are a perfect case in point. Underpaid, constantly on call, often on overtime--yet the government won't authorize for more hiring or better on-call privileges, despite the fact that they would quite possibly save money for doing that.


Strikes are a method of showing people there is an issue without resorting to violence.


And that social safety net is quickly fraying. Our reliance on the social safety net while steadily filing away at the cords is astonishing.

Exactly.

There are a lot of people who have massive animosity towards the "Evil unions", classify their employees as "lazy, overpaid, underacheiving" (I can see it in Haakaboy's post) and I think it comes down to jealousy.

The "I don't get automatic wage adjustments and benefit increases, so they can't either" *stamp feet* *stamp feet* syndrome.

I work for a private company with unionized field staff. Our field staff get much higher wages and benefits far beyond that of non-unionized workers in the same field.
Because of this our labour cost is much higher, but that's OK because it also means that we attract only the very best workers. So my company actually PROMOTES this to our customers, we sell ourselves on the fact that we provide superior quality and service to them.

Yes sometimes we loose jobs because our prices may be higher than a company who pays their workers $20 an hour instead of the $50+benefits we pay ours, but that's ok.

In my company there is no US (management) vs THEM (employees) mentality like in a lot of other places, there's a lot of cooperation and it has made us very successful.

So yeah, that's why I don't have quite the same animosity towards unions as most people and I get pissed off when people stereotype all unions as being "evil".

[stylez2k4]

So when people have trained to be paramedics or nurses or firefighters for several years, worked for half a decade or more, have found their calling and passion but are getting axed or having their benefits cut (often to the tune of "We're offering more pay than the market should use and only cutting SOME benefits"), should they not protest?

Paramedics are a perfect case in point. Underpaid, constantly on call, often on overtime--yet the government won't authorize for more hiring or better on-call privileges, despite the fact that they would quite possibly save
money for doing that.

Supply and demand. Too much supply for any position = underpaid. You feel underpaid then look for another job and when enough people do it will force the government to offer higher wages. The market will judge how well someone should compensated for their jobs.

[Hakkaboy]

Exactly.

There are a lot of people who have massive animosity towards the "Evil unions", classify their employees as "lazy, overpaid, underacheiving" (I can see it in Haakaboy's post) and I think it comes down to jealousy.

The "I don't get automatic wage adjustments and benefit increases, so they can't either" *stamp feet* *stamp feet* syndrome.

I work for a private company with unionized field staff. Our field staff get much higher wages and benefits far beyond that of non-unionized workers in the same field.
Because of this our labour cost is much higher, but that's OK because it also means that we attract only the very best workers. So my company actually PROMOTES this to our customers, we sell ourselves on the fact that we provide superior quality and service to them.

Yes sometimes we loose jobs because our prices may be higher than a company who pays their workers $20 an hour instead of the $50+benefits we pay ours, but that's ok.

In my company there is no US (management) vs THEM (employees) mentality like in a lot of other places, there's a lot of cooperation and it has made us very successful.

So yeah, that's why I don't have quite the same animosity towards unions as most people and I get pissed off when people stereotype all unions as being "evil".

woah, first of all, i have worked in 2 different union camps (1 private and 1 public) and I am definitely not "jealous" of people who work in unions.

I would much rather have the ability to find another job, or change careers than be locked down into a small defined role and hide behind a union.

second, my point is that if you do not like what your employer is offering you, then either don't take the job, or find another one.

is that really such a hard concept?

[stylez2k4]

Exactly.

There are a lot of people who have massive animosity towards the "Evil unions", classify their employees as "lazy, overpaid, underacheiving" (I can see it in Haakaboy's post) and I think it comes down to jealousy.

People have problems with unions protecting lazy, overpaid and underachieving employees. You have any idea how hard it is to dismiss an incompetent teacher?

Here is an example from the New York school district and I can imagine it would be similar in a lot of different districts.

http://commongood.org/i/burden/question-6.gif

The "I don't get automatic wage adjustments and benefit increases, so they can't either" *stamp feet* *stamp feet* syndrome.

I work for a private company with unionized field staff. Our field staff get much higher wages and benefits far beyond that of non-unionized workers in the same field.
Because of this our labour cost is much higher, but that's OK because it also means that we attract only the very best workers. So my company actually PROMOTES this to our customers, we sell ourselves on the fact that we provide superior quality and service to them.

What makes you think your company can't attract the very best workers if they hire non-unionized workers? Your company attracts the very best workers because it offers high wages and benefits and has very little to do with unions.

[Great68]

This is a polarizing topic that could go on for pages and pages without changing anyone's opinion and I don't have the stamina Taylor192 does for these debates so at this point let's just say I'll agree to disagree. :)

[SkinnyPupp]

Basically the argument breaks down like this:

People who are in a union, or have family members in a union: Pro union

Everyone else: Anti union

[darkfroggy]

Actually, I don't think that workers should receive automatic raises without it being tied to performance. I also don't think that workers should lose money (via inflation) for doing the same job at the same efficiency that they normally or usually do, which is one of many problems that non-unionized workers face.

To be honest, I was quite happy working at Starbucks where I would receive bi-annual reviews and could receive up to a 6% annual raise. I think, however, that when a job is difficult to judge objectively it makes it more difficult. For a production or factory worker, someone in retail sales, it's quite easy to judge how well an employee is performing. A teacher, however, who has a dud or awesome class will have a skewed performance rating. A government agent who has several cases and is evaluated based on the number of cases cleared would end up giving people the short shrift rather than dealing with them in the best way.

Sometimes straight evaluation is not the best method of evaluation.



Well, that all depends on the market and other factors; it's a similar choice between renting a house and owning a house, they each have their advantages and disadvantages.



So when people have trained to be paramedics or nurses or firefighters for several years, worked for half a decade or more, have found their calling and passion but are getting axed or having their benefits cut (often to the tune of "We're offering more pay than the market should use and only cutting SOME benefits"), should they not protest?

Paramedics are a perfect case in point. Underpaid, constantly on call, often on overtime--yet the government won't authorize for more hiring or better on-call privileges, despite the fact that they would quite possibly save money for doing that.


Strikes are a method of showing people there is an issue without resorting to violence.


And that social safety net is quickly fraying. Our reliance on the social safety net while steadily filing away at the cords is astonishing.

Supply and demand. You learn this in Economics 100.

You may think that $12/hr is bad, there are a TON of people willing to work for less.

People get paid what they're worth. If Starbucks employees get paid too little, nobody would work there.

It's fine and dandy to say "raise the minimum wage". Then you have problems with employers hiring LESS people, and existing workers taking up their jobs.

There is no clear-cut solution to wages, simply saying "omg they get paid so little, raise it" doesn't do help.

[darkfroggy]

Basically the argument breaks down like this:

People who are in a union, or have family members in a union: Pro union

Everyone else: Anti union

I only get offended at unions when they do stupid stuff like:

1. Defend workers who rightfully got dismissed.
2. Defend unproductive/slacking workers.
3. Deny younger workers from participating in the workforce due to seniority.
4. Ostracizing workers who choose not to join a union.

BCTF fills all of these categories. It's really, really hard to fire a teacher unless they do stupid shit like touch little girls.

[Graeme S]

Supply and demand. Too much supply for any position = underpaid. You feel underpaid then look for another job and when enough people do it will force the government to offer higher wages. The market will judge how well someone should compensated for their jobs.

This is true when it comes to jobs which are not essential needs. It seems fairly foolish, however, to lay off half your firefighters because there hasn't been that many major fires lately.

One of the people on the board in the snow thread mentioned that because of the lack of snow last year, his building manager cancelled the snow removal contract that had previously existed in order to save money. If and when the snow comes back, and the manager decides it's too big of a job for him to do, he'll have to hire back the snow removers--more than likely at a higher cost than before because of "market demand".

Some things will never be "profitable". I don't know about you but I'd rather have too many 911 operators on duty so that at peak call volumes, I've still got 10-15% too many JUST in case they're needed.

I mean, who wants a busy signal when they call 911?
Basically the argument breaks down like this:

People who are in a union, or have family members in a union: Pro union

Everyone else: Anti union

It might be that cut-and-dry with some people, but not all of us. Believe me, having been through the education system and as a person who's involved with teaching, I know the horrors of having an incompetent teacher and the effects it can have on a student. I also know the difficulties of firing someone (even without a union) when they prove to be incompetent. I am by no means purely pro-union, nor am I necessarily anti-union either.

One of the biggest issues is reactionary knee-jerks; "penny-wise, pound-foolish" as they say. When I look at the financial breakdown of how the BC Place Roof will pay itself off, I find myself less displeased, but my gut reaction is still a wave of nausea and annoyance thinking of the machines and man-hours the money could put into hospitals or other social programs. In the end, though, it comes down to an analysis of cost:benefit, and sadly that most often means that things that are not as easily tangibly measurable end up facing cuts.


Supply and demand. You learn this in Economics 100.

You may think that $12/hr is bad, there are a TON of people willing to work for less.

People get paid what they're worth. If Starbucks employees get paid too little, nobody would work there.

It's fine and dandy to say "raise the minimum wage". Then you have problems with employers hiring LESS people, and existing workers taking up their jobs.

There is no clear-cut solution to wages, simply saying "omg they get paid so little, raise it" doesn't do help.

I don't think $12/hr is bad, exactly; I think that's a minimum livable wage. And yes, there are a ton of people willing to work for less, and in fact many people do. As an ESL teacher, I see quite a number of my students working away for $8 or less per hour, only because they want to get a permanent resident card and "have the chance to make more money like real Canadians do" (I shit you not, word for word).

And I agree, Starbucks pays well for the work. Nor did I mention raising the minimum wage explicitly. I have to say that anyone who started working at and is still now after several years working at a minimum wage job really needs to do some serious self-evaluation. I completely agree that entitlement is one of the biggest issues that faces the workforce nowadays--union or otherwise.


I only get offended at unions when they do stupid stuff like:

1. Defend workers who rightfully got dismissed.
2. Defend unproductive/slacking workers.
3. Deny younger workers from participating in the workforce due to seniority.
4. Ostracizing workers who choose not to join a union.

BCTF fills all of these categories. It's really, really hard to fire a teacher unless they do stupid shit like touch little girls.

While I want to disagree with you, unfortunately I can't. There are a fair number of teachers who are teaching but shouldn't be. On the other hand, there is no mechanic with which to control administrators (principals) who are incompetent or causing issues either.

The school near me recently underwent seismic upgrades (that actually finished about two months ago but were due to be done in August 2009--three cheers for accurate scheduling), and the administrator was asked for the number of rooms that should be left in the school. The way the upgrades are working it's often cheaper to demolish sections of schools rather than upgrade the entire building. Kind of makes sense.

Anyways, the principal counted the number of divisions her school had, and submitted that number.
Not accounting for Learning Assistance.
Not accounting for an Activity (music) room.
Not accounting for ESL.
Not accounting for the Special Needs program the school features.

Yet there is no way to control her. But she's not unionized.



Like I said. Inefficiencies everywhere.

[stylez2k4]

This is true when it comes to jobs which are not essential needs. It seems fairly foolish, however, to lay off half your firefighters because there hasn't been that many major fires lately.

Except it will never get to this point and if it does it is up to the voters to punish the politicians by not voting for them and vote for opposition. The providers of the essential servicse should have no right to hold the public hostage.

One of the people on the board in the snow thread mentioned that because of the lack of snow last year, his building manager cancelled the snow removal contract that had previously existed in order to save money. If and when the snow comes back, and the manager decides it's too big of a job for him to do, he'll have to hire back the snow removers--more than likely at a higher cost than before because of "market demand".

In that case the resident of the building should have the building manager removed for having such poor foresight.

Some things will never be "profitable". I don't know about you but I'd rather have too many 911 operators on duty so that at peak call volumes, I've still got 10-15% too many JUST in case they're needed.

I mean, who wants a busy signal when they call 911?

It is not about being profitable, its about reducing unnecessary expenses.

[MindBomber]

You seriously think the Canadian Economic Action plan saved the economy? MANY of Roosevelt's policies got shot down in court, the US economy would have rebounded regardless of whether he was in power or not.

I also forgot to mention that a large percentage of the Canadian Economic Action plan funding went to... *surprise* ridings with Conservative bases.

Why are you suddently getting into eugenics? All I said was that for improving the economy, investing in public health care is an inefficient use of resources.

I like the concept of universal healthcare. From a purely financial aspect, however, it is not a good way to rebound from a recession.

Most Americans seem to understand this, with the economy taking precedence over national healthcare. Public healthcare is good when you're injured or sick, but it won't feed your family and pay the bills.

How would you suggest I feed my family and pay the bills when I need healthcare, if I don't have medical coverage?

Using tax dollars to fund a government subsidized health care system is far from a poor economic decision during a recession, it empowers the struggling middle class by alleviating one of their greatest concerns. Those who would otherwise be left bankrupt, or dying in their homes as a consequence of health care costs expanding at several times higher than inflation are now protected. Now, those who are sick will not be left as economic burdens to the government and their families, instead they'll continue to contribute financially.

Also, as much as I despise Steven Harper and the Conservative party the Economic action plan was somewhat effective. Obviously it was tainted with Mr. Harper's, usual Conservative biases and self-serving narrow sightedness. Working in the trades though, myself and many of my friends would have lost our jobs had the EAP not financed projects. I work in residential construction, and over the course of three months during the worst of the recession nine out of ten jobs I did were for someone motivated by the $1500 tax rebate.

[Lomac]

Basically the argument breaks down like this:

People who are in a union, or have family members in a union: Pro union

Everyone else: Anti union

Yes, but then again, no.

I've worked in two different unions and while I can understand the benefits behind being in one, there are far too many inefficiencies that make people hate 'em. I was let go from one job after being off work for two months due to surgery. My boss and union rep both told me I only needed to contact them one week prior to my return to work and signed paperwork stating this was alright (standard union rules there states someone who is off work requires you to call in every day to give an update on your wellbeing). However, during those two months both my boss and union rep were transfered to another location and the people now doing those positions decided the signed form was null and void. My union decided to rule in favour of my new boss' decision and wouldn't even consider my appeal. this is in stark contrast of another employee actually causing physical damage to product and despite video and witnesses showing what he did, the company was still unable to fire him due to the huge amount of protection covering him (the rules at the time were three complaints per month before the union would take a look, which would then be considered null and void by the time the next month rolled around). So fucking stupid.

[goo3]

You guys are confusing different forms of efficiency. Some of what you're talking about are bad management decisions or what you perceive to be bad from your point of view. This is more of a personnel issue than businesses vs unions vs govt. Humans are imperfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency


In economics, the term economic efficiency refers to the use of resources so as to maximize the production of goods and services.[1] An economic system is said to be more efficient than another (in relative terms) if it can provide more goods and services for society without using more resources

In English, it means maximizing value (tangible and intangible) for the money you spend (ie looking for opportunities to buy things on sale AND not making mistakes that waste money).

Generally, businesses and ppl are considered to be more efficient with money because they reap the rewards and suffer the consequences of their decisions. Govt's have the power to just tax if they screw up or spend unnecessarily for political gain, etc and leave the problem to someone else. Specifically, it depends on the individual person/business/govt, of course, so you can cherry pick any counter-example or anecdote you want, but that doesn't mean jack shit in the big picture.

[Gh0stRider]

BC Government suspends 15 per cent income tax reduction


VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - Two weeks after Gordon Campbell stepped down as the Premier of British Columbia, the BC Government's Executive Council has decided to suspend the 15 per cent reduction in personal income tax rates for the first $72,000 of personal income that was promised in Campbell's televised address last month.

Quoting the outgoing Premier in a statement released today, the Executive Council says, "in order to ensure the Executive Council has maximum flexibility to set government's economic and fiscal agenda, Cabinet has decided to suspend the planned tax reduction."

The tax reduction would have taken effect January 1 of next year, provided it received legislative approval. It would have become the second largest personal income tax relief measure in BC's history.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/130717--bc-government-suspends-15-per-cent-income-tax-reduction