🚀 go-pugleaf

Sheldon Scott wrote:

> Sammi <sammi@_SPAM_alt2600.com> wrote:
> >"DWP" <poultond@cadvision.com> wrote:
> >>You can't rely on the herald or any other Southam outlet to give you
> >>fair coverage of the issue.
> >
> Seeing such actions as the Canadian Labor Congress' boycott of the
> National Post, (in a silly attempt to support the Calgary Herald), I
> don't think we need to rely on the union for sensible analysis.

Regardless of what we think of the union, let's look at the
circumstantial evidence, shall we? The Herald published union-free for
over 100 years. Why did a union show up in recent times? Well duh --
probably because the terms of employment changed and the (formerly)
non-unionized workers felt threatened, and sought representation by a
union? Ask the workers at the Jerusalem Post and the Regina Post how
*they* feel about Hollinger (Southam's parent) trying to change the terms
of employment at those papers. Mr. Conrad Black now controls over 600
newspapers, including the National Post, and his agenda seems to be to
fire anyone who disagrees with his politics (at least that's what the
public record seems to indicate), and to slash operating budgets at
profitable newspapers (like the Herald) to subsidize unprofitable ones
(like the National Post). For the union's "big-picture" take on the
situation, see http://www.savetheherald.com

> BTW, it has been amusing watching the CLC become marginalized by the
> antics of former BC labor chief Ken Georgetti.

Any organization that is dominated by one ideology is bound to suffer
from a credibility problem sooner or later. In our newspapers, we need
fair, accurate, and balanced reporting, not just the right-wing slant of
a media tycoon, or the left-wing rants of a union -- or else democracy is
threatened. As things now stand, this balance is missing from the Herald,
and the union's strike action is, as I see it, something that may restore
that balance, if both sides can be persuaded to go back to the
negotiating table in good faith.

> >Well I'm sorry, I've seen too many
> >union jobs where completely useless deadwood can't be cut. If you
> >can't, or won't, do the job you should be canned.
> >
> Once again the union's real agenda is to control the whole operation.
> They want to take over management responsibilities.  Unions are moving

Oh? That's not the impression I get, at least not based on information
that I have, including from a former publisher of the Herald and from a
noted Canadian publisher and author (Mel Hurtig). Might we inquire as to
the source of your apparent insight into the union's motives?

> away from the "wages and working conditions" paradigm in increasingly
> cynical attempts to keep the rank and file united against a common
> enemy.  Sad, really.

What is sad is the propensity of people to expound opinions based on what
they wish to be true, rather than the truth. In general, corporations do
not pay more than lip service to the interests of their employees, except
insofar as they need the loyalty and productivity of those employees. I
really do not need to expand on this, because the signs are all around us
-- just look at the phenomenon of pre-emptive layoffs during times of
great profitability.

Victor