🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 02:51:50 GMT, Victor Panlilio
<victorpanlilio@nospamhome.com> wrote:

>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
>
>

the president of the union recieves a paycheck
and if the strikers win he gets a bigger one
the unions in a good spot
the workers will never recover the money lost  while on strike
whowins? the union?