[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= OurLocal424] <br /> p.s. Good afternoon Batman[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Good Afternoon, Local. Have you seen The Green Lantern around?

[Diogenes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelvana_of ... ern_Lights<br /> both are vying for the attentions of Nelvana <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

[Milton]

Very interesting OurLocal424! Thanks for the info.

[Milton]

I came across this at the www.ourlocal424.ca website<br /> <br /> "WEALTH BY STEALTH<br /> Corporate Crime, Corporate Law,<br /> and the Perversion of Democracy<br /> <br /> by Harry Glasbeek, Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University.<br /> <br /> Page 102<br /> <br /> [The earlier decision]<br /> <br /> Another example concerns several pieces of legislation that suspended collective bargaining rights in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the federal sphere. In contrast to the Trudeau anti-inflation legislation, these statutes were enacted after the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had become part of the law of the land and had given everyone a constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. Unsurprisingly, trade unions attacked these statutes as violations of their right to strike or bargain collectively in an effective manner.<br /> <br /> The legislation, they contended, had abrogated their Charter-protected freedom to associate. In 1987, contemptuously, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed their argument. It held that the freedom to associate meant just that: people could join any group they liked, even a union; but this gave them no right to act in any way that they would not have been able to do as individuals. As an individual cannot strike-it takes at least two people to withhold labour in concert-the right to strike was not a fundamental right protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<br /> <br /> To state it baldly: in freedom-loving, Charter-governed Canada, individuals start off with all the rights, and governments, if they want to modify those rights, must justify their proposed modification to a court. In freedom-loving, Charter-governed Canada, individuals are allowed to join a trade union of their choice; but the rights of that union, as opposed to those of the individuals who comprise it, are the rights given to it by the government, and no more. Governments need not satisfy a court that they have an acceptable legal justification to regulate unions in any way they like. There is no burden of proof to be discharged by government.<br /> <br /> <br /> Page 82<br /> <br /> [Benefits of Collective bargaining]<br /> <br /> The difference between a capitalist (a would-be employer) and a worker (a would-be employee) is that workers have no property to invest except their own labour power. Thus, what workers invest in an employing corporation when they contract with it is their intellectual and physical abilities. The corporation needs to translate that potential into actual value; it must make individual workers apply as much of their intellectual and physical skills as possible for as little as possible. To help employers, the law implies a most peculiar term into every contract of employment: the worker is required to obey all reasonable commands by the employer. I say "peculiar" because there is no other contract known to law in which one contracting party is made legally subject to the other's right to command and to that other's right to punish her or him for disobedience of those commands.<br /> <br /> The employment contract, then, aims at the maintenance of a superior/ inferior nexus between property and non-property owners. This harsh sounding language is not hyperbole. The prestigious Task Force on Canadian Industrial Relations (1968) described the machinery of collective bargaining as being designed to keep the superior-inferior nexus in place. It argued that this kind of unequal relationship was crucial to the efficient deployment of capital by its managers. This understanding of capital-labour relations explains why there is a residual managerial clause in every collective agreement (and, by definition, in every individual contract of employment as well). If it is not there as a result of a specific contractual agreement, it will be imposed by law. It is there to make it clear that, unless workers have extracted some specific concessions from their employer as to how their labour is to be deployed and as to how the employer's inorganic assets are to be used, it is up to management to make those decisions. More often than not this residual decision-making power is referred to as the prerogative of management. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "prerogative" as "the right of the sovereign, theoretically subject to no restriction; peculiar right or privilege; natural or divinely given advantage, privilege or faculty; privileged, enjoyed by privilege. . ." What more needs be said about the respective rights of employers and employees?"<br /> <br /> Peruse this<br /> "NAU<br /> <br /> This is a repost as an introduction to the NAU for those that may not be familiar with it.<br /> <br /> <br /> From Our Local Union 424 | Labour Issues | Foreign Workers in Alberta<br /> <br /> Déjà vu<br /> <br /> In the oil sands we have started to see temporary foreign workers appear. How far will this go? I predict that in a few years the number of foreign workers will increase dramatically, nation wide.<br /> <br /> In 2005, several IBEW members dispatched from local 130 in New Orleans were thrown out of work while rebuilding the city, only to be replaced by cheaper electricians. Many replacement workers were illegal migrants paid $14 an hour without benefits, compared to the IBEW’s $22 an hour plus benefits. These workers were housed in a guarded compound, with 42 men bunked together in tractor-trailers in triple-level bunk beds. They had to buy water and were subjected to security checks when leaving and entering the compound.<br /> <br /> Although this may sound bad to you, these replacement workers were pleased. Compared to what they were used to, they considered $14 an hour to be good pay and tolerated the working conditions. I guess they weren’t so poor anymore. <br /> <br /> Now the NAU (North American Union agreement) is being pushed through government to be implemented by 2011. This will flood the Canadian Labour market with cheap foreign labour. The NAU will install full labour mobility between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. The American administration is already building a super-highway from Mexico to Ontario for the increased trade in goods, and the flow of people expected after the agreement comes into effect. The governments of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. are working on the NAU.<br /> <br /> The NAU will be a serious blow to the Canadian labour movement. It will undermine Canadian workers. It will decrease wages and working conditions, and increase unemployment. So far, the labour movement is muted about this threat.<br /> <br /> However, given that the NAU is the brainchild of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) it’s no wonder. In the 70’s and 80’s, the American establishment told big labour to keep quite about globalization to limit resistance. Many labour leaders did so. Believe it or not!"<br /> <br /> Serf also had this to say, <br /> "A Dead Watchdog<br /> <br /> Media content in Canada is skewed towards the elite agenda due to concentrated ownership and corporatization. There is serious under-reporting when it comes to revealing certain things to the public.<br /> <br /> This is accomplished through editorial discretion. Editors filter content on behalf of newspaper owners and support the corporate agenda. Why? Because three members of Canada’s elite employ almost every newspaper editor in Canada, and corporations refuse to advertise in newspapers that don’t say what they want. For example: how much corporate advertising revenue would you expect a pro-labour newspaper to get? That’s right, none! Could we expect Canada’s elite owners of our newspapers to tolerate an editor so inclined, or such a newspaper? Nope, it wouldn’t serve their interests and it wouldn’t make money!<br /> <br /> Although the labour viewpoint is somewhat represented in our newspapers (i.e. Jim Stanford of the CAW in the Globe & Mail, or Buzz Hargrove formerly in the National Post) it is very limited when compared to the corporate viewpoint. This allows newspapers to maintain the appearance of credibility otherwise people wouldn’t read them. The public is lead to believe that newspapers are fair and balanced when in fact they are not. Because the other side of the story, the labour viewpoint in this case, is reported but limited to such an extent that it does not change public perception about the corporate agenda, but does help the public trust their newspapers. This skewed approach to reporting has killed off the true function of newspapers in Canada as a watchdog on power."<br /> <br /> <br />

[Diogenes]

I've sent you a private message Milton

[OurLocal424]

www.ourlocal424.ca<br /> <br /> WE have had enough!<br /> <br /> Monday, August 20, 2007, 9915 Franklin Avenue, Fort McMurray, Alberta, Provincial Building at 8:00 PM<br /> <br /> Be There!