Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Monkees, Part Of The Greatest Generation
Davy Jones and The Monkees helped make the sixties the greatest era in history.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Robopalooza-The Plot Thickens
So it turns out the calls came from a burner cellphone on the Virgin Mobile network. A burner phone is one commonly used to avoid being traced. Also known as pay-as-you-go. Why is this an interesting detail?
"The order also required RackNine to release records of calls that used the number 450-760-7746. The Bell Canada phone number in Joliette, Que., appeared on call displays of some recipients of the fraudulent election day calls in Guelph."
So the burner phone had the phone number 450-760-7746. But what to make of this:
"The “Pierre Poutine” phone was activated April 30, two days before the election, and called only two numbers other than its own voice mail. Both corresponded to RackNine."
That seems odd. Someone bought a burner phone to avoid detection, then only used it to call Racknine? How can that be. According to reports many of the fraudulent calls had that phone number appear on the call display. If the number wasn't an assigned number of Racknine, an Alberta based company, but rather had a Joliette, Quebec area code, then why would that number appear on the call display of voters saying they received fraudulent phone calls, yet phone records for that phone number show it only placed calls to two phone numbers, both Racknine?
Could it be that someone had hacked or gained access to Racknine's data bank, using it to dial numbers on file and then give misleading information? I'm not sure. But if that is the case I would say it's a safe guess that it would preclude the Conservative Party from being involved, and would most likely indicate dirty tricks from one of the other parties.
I think this is going to get a lot more interesting. For example, it will be quite easy for Elections Canada or the RCMP to find which store, in which town or city, in which province the phone was purchased. Depending on the method of payment, it might also allow authorities to trace said individual(s) fairly easily.
And I'll go on the record right now. If it's proven that the Conservative Party was knowingly involved they won't get my vote in the next election. If it turns out one or more of the opposition parties was involved, I'll have to contact my ISP to get more bandwith, because there are going to be a lot of people who post on blogs and online media who are going to be eating a lot of crow.
"The order also required RackNine to release records of calls that used the number 450-760-7746. The Bell Canada phone number in Joliette, Que., appeared on call displays of some recipients of the fraudulent election day calls in Guelph."
So the burner phone had the phone number 450-760-7746. But what to make of this:
"The “Pierre Poutine” phone was activated April 30, two days before the election, and called only two numbers other than its own voice mail. Both corresponded to RackNine."
That seems odd. Someone bought a burner phone to avoid detection, then only used it to call Racknine? How can that be. According to reports many of the fraudulent calls had that phone number appear on the call display. If the number wasn't an assigned number of Racknine, an Alberta based company, but rather had a Joliette, Quebec area code, then why would that number appear on the call display of voters saying they received fraudulent phone calls, yet phone records for that phone number show it only placed calls to two phone numbers, both Racknine?
Could it be that someone had hacked or gained access to Racknine's data bank, using it to dial numbers on file and then give misleading information? I'm not sure. But if that is the case I would say it's a safe guess that it would preclude the Conservative Party from being involved, and would most likely indicate dirty tricks from one of the other parties.
I think this is going to get a lot more interesting. For example, it will be quite easy for Elections Canada or the RCMP to find which store, in which town or city, in which province the phone was purchased. Depending on the method of payment, it might also allow authorities to trace said individual(s) fairly easily.
And I'll go on the record right now. If it's proven that the Conservative Party was knowingly involved they won't get my vote in the next election. If it turns out one or more of the opposition parties was involved, I'll have to contact my ISP to get more bandwith, because there are going to be a lot of people who post on blogs and online media who are going to be eating a lot of crow.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Let's Do-Over The 1997 and 2000 Federal Elections
Chretien's Liberals won the 1997 election with a bare majority of 155 seats We know that millions of Adscam dollars were spent in Quebec ridings and never declared with Elections Canada.
We also know there were millions still unaccounted for during the 2000 election.
In the interest of fairness as a Canadian voter and as a partisan I demand both elections be declared do-overs. If after the do-overs my party still isn't victorious I demand more do-overs for some faux reasons I'll come up with when necessary.
(Note:Sarcasm On!)
We also know there were millions still unaccounted for during the 2000 election.
In the interest of fairness as a Canadian voter and as a partisan I demand both elections be declared do-overs. If after the do-overs my party still isn't victorious I demand more do-overs for some faux reasons I'll come up with when necessary.
(Note:Sarcasm On!)
Another Conservative Who Received A Robocall
As I've posted previously here and on other blogs, I myself received a robocall with incorrect polling booth information prior to the May 2011 election. The automated call stated I was to vote at a school in the Westney/Rossland area of Ajax, a few miles from my home. The actual voting location, the one listed on my voter card from Elections Canada stated my polling location was at a school right behind my house, one I could see from my back yard.
I never thought anything sinister of the call, never dawned on me it might be a dirty trick from an opposition party, just a case of someone making an error. In light of the fact the opposition parties and media seem to accept people's statements about receiving these calls almost a year after the election, with Bob Rae and Pat Martin saying they have sworn affidavits, I myself have no problem signing a sworn affidavit for Elections Canada to look at and investigate.
In fact I'll also provide them again the picture taken at the Guelph University advanced polling showing Liberal campaign literature being handed out at the door. I'll also ask for a better explanation why complaints made to EC in the 2008 election concerning Conservative pamphlets being removed from apartment lobbies and replaced with an opposition parties literature never warranted any penalty.
I never thought anything sinister of the call, never dawned on me it might be a dirty trick from an opposition party, just a case of someone making an error. In light of the fact the opposition parties and media seem to accept people's statements about receiving these calls almost a year after the election, with Bob Rae and Pat Martin saying they have sworn affidavits, I myself have no problem signing a sworn affidavit for Elections Canada to look at and investigate.
In fact I'll also provide them again the picture taken at the Guelph University advanced polling showing Liberal campaign literature being handed out at the door. I'll also ask for a better explanation why complaints made to EC in the 2008 election concerning Conservative pamphlets being removed from apartment lobbies and replaced with an opposition parties literature never warranted any penalty.
BREAKING NEWS! CBC Had Reports Of Voter Suppression Complaints From Conservative Party In May 2011 Election....
And apparently some of those calls, which also used an American area code, were traced to a robocall company with LIBERAL ties?
"Ten Liberal campaigns in Ontario, including Ms. Bennett's, also complained of harassing phone calls made to their supporters purporting to be from them when they were not. Some were in the middle of the night or made repeatedly. Candidates feared the scheme was done deliberately to annoy their supporters and suppress the vote. The CBC reported that some calls were reportedly traced to American area codes and to a Canadian call centre doing some legitimate Liberal calling that denies it.
The CBC also reported that one of its journalists had talked to NDP and Conservative supporters who had experienced the same kinds of phone calls."
So that kind of blows holes through the opposition and media argument that it was the Conservatives using "Nixonian" tactics doesn't it? It's also noteworthy that CBC had reports from Conservative supporters back in May 2011 about bogus phone calls, yet hasn't seemed to include that snippet in this weeks stories. I'm sure Kady will be quick to correct the record.
And as I posted on another thread, I myself experienced a robocall a few days before the May 2011 election, telling me my polling station was miles away, not at the school I can see from my back window. And I'm a Conservative supporter, helped out on Chris Alexander's campaign, attended both Ajax appearances by the PM, the second one invitation only by the way.
So I think it's safe to say the Conservative Party would not be the one trying to supress my vote. As the riding was supposed to be too close to call between Liberal incumbent Mark Holland and Conservative candidate and winner Chris Alexander, you be the judge of who had skin in the game.
"Ten Liberal campaigns in Ontario, including Ms. Bennett's, also complained of harassing phone calls made to their supporters purporting to be from them when they were not. Some were in the middle of the night or made repeatedly. Candidates feared the scheme was done deliberately to annoy their supporters and suppress the vote. The CBC reported that some calls were reportedly traced to American area codes and to a Canadian call centre doing some legitimate Liberal calling that denies it.
The CBC also reported that one of its journalists had talked to NDP and Conservative supporters who had experienced the same kinds of phone calls."
So that kind of blows holes through the opposition and media argument that it was the Conservatives using "Nixonian" tactics doesn't it? It's also noteworthy that CBC had reports from Conservative supporters back in May 2011 about bogus phone calls, yet hasn't seemed to include that snippet in this weeks stories. I'm sure Kady will be quick to correct the record.
And as I posted on another thread, I myself experienced a robocall a few days before the May 2011 election, telling me my polling station was miles away, not at the school I can see from my back window. And I'm a Conservative supporter, helped out on Chris Alexander's campaign, attended both Ajax appearances by the PM, the second one invitation only by the way.
So I think it's safe to say the Conservative Party would not be the one trying to supress my vote. As the riding was supposed to be too close to call between Liberal incumbent Mark Holland and Conservative candidate and winner Chris Alexander, you be the judge of who had skin in the game.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Does Bob Rae Think Elections Canada Uses "Nixonian" Tactics?
CARLETON PLACE - Scott Reid, Conservative candidate for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, is demanding that Elections Canada correct an error that may influence the outcome of the election in many rural seats across Canada.
Using his own riding as an example, Reid notes that Elections Canada has incorrectly placed thousands of voters in the wrong polls in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington. Many electors in the riding have received Voter Information Cards that instruct them to vote at polling locations 100 kilometers or more from where they reside. Other individuals, who live in adjoining ridings, have received cards instructing them to vote in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington. In this case, acting as instructed by Elections Canada would be against the law.
In an effort to correct this, a letter was sent to the Returning Officer on June 13, requesting confirmation that the Returning Officer would instruct Deputy Returning Officers in writing to not turn away voters who turn up at the polling stations closest to their homes. (A copy of this letter is included as an attachment to this press release.) Written instructions are needed in order to ensure that Section 6 of the Canada Elections Act is honoured at each polling station.
LINK
Using his own riding as an example, Reid notes that Elections Canada has incorrectly placed thousands of voters in the wrong polls in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington. Many electors in the riding have received Voter Information Cards that instruct them to vote at polling locations 100 kilometers or more from where they reside. Other individuals, who live in adjoining ridings, have received cards instructing them to vote in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington. In this case, acting as instructed by Elections Canada would be against the law.
In an effort to correct this, a letter was sent to the Returning Officer on June 13, requesting confirmation that the Returning Officer would instruct Deputy Returning Officers in writing to not turn away voters who turn up at the polling stations closest to their homes. (A copy of this letter is included as an attachment to this press release.) Written instructions are needed in order to ensure that Section 6 of the Canada Elections Act is honoured at each polling station.
LINK
Voter Suppression Is Why The Liberals Lost The Last Three Elections...
Of course it never had anything to do with Curly, Larry, or Moe. Nor will it have anything to do with Shemp in the next election.
There Were Election Canada Violations In The Guelph Riding, By The Liberals
You remember, the one where they had an advance poll for students, not approved by Elections Canada, who allowed the votes to count anyways. There were allegations of Liberal campaign literature at the campus polling station. In fact I posted the photos seen here on my blog at the time. I also forwarded the pictures to Elections Canada. The one picture shows a person handing out campaign literature to people waiting in line to vote. The picture on top,you can actually read the Liberal candidates name on the pamphlet that was being handed out. (right-click, save picture, then enlarge) Elections Canada response? No big deal. Rules were violated. Never affected the outcome.
Is It News If The Media Refuse To Report It?
Media once again running with the newest supposed scandal, this time robocalls. Almost every story from every media source quotes a story about someone named Carolyn Siopiolosz, who claims to have received a call instructing her to vote at the wrong polling booth. In fact, it was reported at the time of the 2011 election, and even acknowledged by the Conservative Party that indeed it was them who called and gave the wrong polling booth information.
So it is more than fair for the media to include that information. What isn't fair, no, what is sleazy and disgusting is what these supposed journalists seem to omit from almost every story when mentioning this incident:
"The Conservative party released a statement Tuesday that said the call Carolyn Siopiolosz received was a mistake. It said the party has Siopiolosz registered in both her actual riding of Kitchener-Conestoga (won by a 17,000 vote margin) and the riding of Kitchener Centre, in which the phone call told her to vote. The party claims the marketing firm RMG, which was charged with placing the calls, accidentally contacted her about voting in Kitchener Centre. "
By the way, I also received a call prior to the 2011 election, that directed me to the wrong polling booth, stating I was to vote at a polling booth in north Ajax, rather than the appropriate one walking distance from my house on Pickering Beach. Given that I'm a card carrying member of the Conservative Party, and volunteered on MP Chris Alexander's campaign, had a lawn sign, attended two appearances by the PM in Ajax, I think it's safe to say the Conservative Party would not try and misdirect me to the wrong polling booth.
If any member of the media wishes to do a story on this phone call and the possibility the Liberals or NDP may have been involved, feel free to give me a call. In the meantime, I won't hold my breath.
So it is more than fair for the media to include that information. What isn't fair, no, what is sleazy and disgusting is what these supposed journalists seem to omit from almost every story when mentioning this incident:
"The Conservative party released a statement Tuesday that said the call Carolyn Siopiolosz received was a mistake. It said the party has Siopiolosz registered in both her actual riding of Kitchener-Conestoga (won by a 17,000 vote margin) and the riding of Kitchener Centre, in which the phone call told her to vote. The party claims the marketing firm RMG, which was charged with placing the calls, accidentally contacted her about voting in Kitchener Centre. "
By the way, I also received a call prior to the 2011 election, that directed me to the wrong polling booth, stating I was to vote at a polling booth in north Ajax, rather than the appropriate one walking distance from my house on Pickering Beach. Given that I'm a card carrying member of the Conservative Party, and volunteered on MP Chris Alexander's campaign, had a lawn sign, attended two appearances by the PM in Ajax, I think it's safe to say the Conservative Party would not try and misdirect me to the wrong polling booth.
If any member of the media wishes to do a story on this phone call and the possibility the Liberals or NDP may have been involved, feel free to give me a call. In the meantime, I won't hold my breath.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Another Nail In Ontario's Coffin
Massive debt and deficits. Manufacturing jobs being lost every day. Skyrocketing electricity bills. A looming debt downgrade. The list goes on and on. So one would think these should be the most pressing issues for the Liberals, PC's, and NDP to deal with, no? NO!
"Ontario’s prohibition on pit bulls is unreasonable, unworkable and unfair, members of all parties in the Legislature said Thursday as they passed a private member’s bill urging the Liberals to lift the breed-specific ban.
Progressive Conservative Randy Hillier, who owns two dogs he said could be seized and destroyed under the Dog Owner’s Liability Act, said the ban was introduced because of what he called a very few high profile dog attacks, mostly in the Toronto area.
“It was clear to everyone that the government of the day felt significant pressure to be seen to be doing something regardless if it was doing the right thing,” Hillier told the Legislature.
“Good public policy is driven by the interests of our constituents, by science and by evidence, not by media hysteria, nor bold headlines and slogans.”
Pit bulls aren’t really an identifiable breed, added Hillier, so the law only provides a physical description of dogs, which he said could be applied to many breeds.
The vague description of pit bulls in the legislation — which speaks of broad shoulders, short hair and a wide forehead — would apply to most of the male members of the Legislature, said New Democrat Cheri DiNovo, a co-sponsor of Hillier’s bill.
"Ontario’s prohibition on pit bulls is unreasonable, unworkable and unfair, members of all parties in the Legislature said Thursday as they passed a private member’s bill urging the Liberals to lift the breed-specific ban.
Progressive Conservative Randy Hillier, who owns two dogs he said could be seized and destroyed under the Dog Owner’s Liability Act, said the ban was introduced because of what he called a very few high profile dog attacks, mostly in the Toronto area.
“It was clear to everyone that the government of the day felt significant pressure to be seen to be doing something regardless if it was doing the right thing,” Hillier told the Legislature.
“Good public policy is driven by the interests of our constituents, by science and by evidence, not by media hysteria, nor bold headlines and slogans.”
Pit bulls aren’t really an identifiable breed, added Hillier, so the law only provides a physical description of dogs, which he said could be applied to many breeds.
The vague description of pit bulls in the legislation — which speaks of broad shoulders, short hair and a wide forehead — would apply to most of the male members of the Legislature, said New Democrat Cheri DiNovo, a co-sponsor of Hillier’s bill.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
"Exceptional Circumstances" No Excuse For Shoddy Misleading Journalism...
They say that two things are guaranteed in life. Death and taxes. It now appears there is a third constant. Misconstrued, misleading, error filled stories by those that are supposed to be the cream of Canadian journalism. We've been subjected to the tarring of Bev Oda, with the NDP, Bloc, and Liberals working hand in hand with said journalists in claiming Oda and the government were in contempt and misleading Parliament. One sentence in testimony given before committee by the head of Oda's office, stating that it was routine for the minister to add "not" when rejecting funding applications never saw the light of day in print, online, or on political talk shows save for a handful of journalists who actually possess the ethics and skills necessary to perform their job.
Just recently, we witnessed a media frenzy claiming the Conservatives were going to change same-sex marriage laws. Baseless in fact. Yet the usual suspects in the Parliamentary Press Gallery continued to run with the story, when no story existed. Same for wafergate. Ditto changes in abortion laws. Quick to try and inflict damage on the PM and his government, next to non-existent when it's time to set the record straight.
That takes us to the current media pile-on, Bill C-30. The target this time being Vic Toews. Admittedly, Toews painted a big bulls eye on his back with his idiotic comment about being with the government or the child pornographers. Toews has been subjected to someone tweeting the details of his divorce, from a House of Commons computer no less. True, some have showed the gumption to denounce these personal attacks, but some of the usual suspects seem to think Toews deserves it. Don Martin, the one who wrote an editorial denouncing journalists writing about Ruby Dhalla's nanny troubles, stating her private life should be out of bounds, seemed to imply Toews is deserving on Power Play. Not surprising, considering Martin actually did an op-ed detailing Toews divorce a few years ago.
But what seems to have taken this crappy journalism to the next level, is an Evan Solomon interview with Toews. In that interview, Solomon asks the minister about the "exceptional circumstances clause". Journalists have been running with the story about how Toews didn't read his own legislation.
Matt Gurney of the National Post ran an editorial titled Vic Toews should step down, which includes this gem: "When read this section of his own bill on CBC Radio, Mr. Toews seemed taken aback, and said that he didn’t believe that was appropriate. It was something, Mr. Toews said, that he would like to see explained." I have to wonder if Gurney ever even heard interview, or did he base his "facts" on what other journalists had previously written?
So what were Toews actual words in the Solomon interview? h/t to Gabby and Joanne
Toews: Let’s have that discussion then at first reading because I’m not familiar with that framing of the concern because, as I understand it, they can only ask for this information where they’re conducting a specific criminal investigation … [my emphasis]
Solomon: I’m just reading directly from section 17 under “exceptional circumstances”. So you’d be prepared then … that might be something you would be prepared to amend if that was brought up at committee.
Toews: I’d certainly like to see an explanation of that, because right today, police already have exceptional powers, whether it’s to come into your house, your car, and do any kind of seizure in exceptional circumstances. That is a common law power that is continued into our criminal code and beyond"
So with the media still running with this story today, it might be worth pointing out the obvious, that the "exceptional circumstances clause", the one Solomon and his brethren seem to be so fixated on as an invasion of privacy being forced on Canadians by a ruthless government, actually already exists. The highlighted sections of Toews reply to Solomon show that it is Toews who is actually aware of the existing law and how it would affect the proposed legislation.
It's also noteworthy this section of the criminal code was put into force in 1993. 13 years of Liberal governments and never a peep about the law being invasive.
Just recently, we witnessed a media frenzy claiming the Conservatives were going to change same-sex marriage laws. Baseless in fact. Yet the usual suspects in the Parliamentary Press Gallery continued to run with the story, when no story existed. Same for wafergate. Ditto changes in abortion laws. Quick to try and inflict damage on the PM and his government, next to non-existent when it's time to set the record straight.
That takes us to the current media pile-on, Bill C-30. The target this time being Vic Toews. Admittedly, Toews painted a big bulls eye on his back with his idiotic comment about being with the government or the child pornographers. Toews has been subjected to someone tweeting the details of his divorce, from a House of Commons computer no less. True, some have showed the gumption to denounce these personal attacks, but some of the usual suspects seem to think Toews deserves it. Don Martin, the one who wrote an editorial denouncing journalists writing about Ruby Dhalla's nanny troubles, stating her private life should be out of bounds, seemed to imply Toews is deserving on Power Play. Not surprising, considering Martin actually did an op-ed detailing Toews divorce a few years ago.
But what seems to have taken this crappy journalism to the next level, is an Evan Solomon interview with Toews. In that interview, Solomon asks the minister about the "exceptional circumstances clause". Journalists have been running with the story about how Toews didn't read his own legislation.
Matt Gurney of the National Post ran an editorial titled Vic Toews should step down, which includes this gem: "When read this section of his own bill on CBC Radio, Mr. Toews seemed taken aback, and said that he didn’t believe that was appropriate. It was something, Mr. Toews said, that he would like to see explained." I have to wonder if Gurney ever even heard interview, or did he base his "facts" on what other journalists had previously written?
So what were Toews actual words in the Solomon interview? h/t to Gabby and Joanne
Toews: Let’s have that discussion then at first reading because I’m not familiar with that framing of the concern because, as I understand it, they can only ask for this information where they’re conducting a specific criminal investigation … [my emphasis]
Solomon: I’m just reading directly from section 17 under “exceptional circumstances”. So you’d be prepared then … that might be something you would be prepared to amend if that was brought up at committee.
Toews: I’d certainly like to see an explanation of that, because right today, police already have exceptional powers, whether it’s to come into your house, your car, and do any kind of seizure in exceptional circumstances. That is a common law power that is continued into our criminal code and beyond"
So with the media still running with this story today, it might be worth pointing out the obvious, that the "exceptional circumstances clause", the one Solomon and his brethren seem to be so fixated on as an invasion of privacy being forced on Canadians by a ruthless government, actually already exists. The highlighted sections of Toews reply to Solomon show that it is Toews who is actually aware of the existing law and how it would affect the proposed legislation.
184.4. Interception in exceptional circumstances
184.4 A peace officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication where
(a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;
(b) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that such an interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and
(c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.
184.4 A peace officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication where
(a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;
(b) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that such an interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and
(c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.
It's also noteworthy this section of the criminal code was put into force in 1993. 13 years of Liberal governments and never a peep about the law being invasive.
Friday, February 17, 2012
It's Amazing How Screwed Ontario's Finances Are...
When you are paying 24% on items. Just bought a new printer at Staples. Price, $49.99, plus HST, plus McGuinty's "environmental fee". Grand total is $62.41, which includes aforementioned green fee of $5.40, or a little over 10%. Of course that enviro tax is also taxed by the HST. Plus the provincial portion of the HST, another 8%.
Think about it. That's 19% going into McGuinty's pocket. He gets billions more from the federal government in transfers, $3 billion from his health tax, and countless billions in other taxes he has brought in. Ontario should be rolling in the dough.
Problem is McGuinty blew all those extra billions on E-Health, ORNGE, the Sunshine List, all day kindergarten. Hell, compared to McGuinty Bob Rae looks to be fiscally conservative.
Yet people still vote for him. Want to see what Greece is really like? Your already there.
Think about it. That's 19% going into McGuinty's pocket. He gets billions more from the federal government in transfers, $3 billion from his health tax, and countless billions in other taxes he has brought in. Ontario should be rolling in the dough.
Problem is McGuinty blew all those extra billions on E-Health, ORNGE, the Sunshine List, all day kindergarten. Hell, compared to McGuinty Bob Rae looks to be fiscally conservative.
Yet people still vote for him. Want to see what Greece is really like? Your already there.
Fire Whoever Redesigned The HRDC Job Bank
Another example of fixing something that wasn't broken gone astray. I know many people who used the HRDC job bank for seeking employment. It was an excellent design, allowing users to search specific geographical regions, as well as certain job categories or have a listing of all jobs avaialable. Searchiong for say, a cashier in Ajax brings up one job posting, and it's not even a cashier position. Seems some tech guru decided they knew how to make the job search better, making it pretty much useless for most. Brilliant!
p.s. I'd provide link but the site is down again.
p.s. I'd provide link but the site is down again.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
About That PBO Expalnation Re: OAS Being Sustainable...
I previously posted about PBO Kevin Page releasing a report in 2011 stating federal finances were unsustainable, and his flip-flop last week about how federal finances were in fact sustainable, and no changes or reforms were needed to OAS. Another Blogging Tory,h/t PlattyTalk, contacted the PBO for an explanation, and received this reply:
"It’s good to hear from you again Mr. Platten. I would be more than pleased to provide clarification.
The short answer is that over the period of time from Mr. Page’s initial (September 29 2011) comment, which pertains to our September 2011 report (http://www.parl.gc.ca/PBO-DPB/documents/FSR_2011.pdf), to his recent comment (that pertains to our February 2012 note http://www.parl.gc.ca/PBO-DPB/documents/Sustainability_OAS.pdf), our assessment of the sustainability of the federal fiscal structure changed as a result of the Government of Canada’s December 2011 renewal of the federal Canada Health Transfer (CHT) – no other assumptions or projections underlying our fiscal sustainability analysis have changed.
Our September 2011 report was based on the assumption that the federal CHT would continue to grow at 6% annually beyond 2016-17. However, on December 19 2011 the Government of Canada announced that beyond 2016-17 (to at least 2024) growth in the CHT would be limited to nominal GDP growth (with a 3% minimum guaranteed). This fundamentally changed the federal fiscal structure given that we projected nominal GDP growth to average 3.8% beyond 2016. Following the renewal of the CHT, the PBO published a note in January 2012 (http://www.parl.gc.ca/PBO-DPB/documents/Renewing_CHT.pdf) which indicated that as a result of the change to the CHT the federal fiscal structure was now sustainable.
In February 2012, the PBO published another note (http://www.parl.gc.ca/PBO-DPB/documents/Sustainability_OAS.pdf) that reiterated the updated federal results and compared various projections of elderly benefits. The main contribution of our February note was to provide an analytical framework for assessing the sustainability of the federal elderly benefits program. With growth in the federal CHT beyond 2016-17 limited to nominal GDP growth, the current federal fiscal structure has sufficient room to absorb the cost pressures arising from the impact of population ageing on the federal elderly benefits program. Indeed, PBO baseline estimates that there is some scope (0.4% of GDP annually) for reducing federal revenue and/or increasing federal program spending (relative to PBO’s projections) while maintaining fiscal sustainability at the federal level.
However, the mirror image of the change to the federal CHT structure is reflected at the provincial-territorial level – the provincial-territorial fiscal situation has deteriorated. As a result of the change to the CHT, the amount of policy action required to achieve fiscal sustainability at the provincial-territorial level has increased from 1.5% of GDP annually (published in our September 2011 report) to 2.9% of GDP (published in our January 2012 report). At the same time, the federal situation has improved from requiring 1.2% of GDP annually in policy action to achieve fiscal sustainability to having 0.4% of GDP in fiscal ‘room’ to reduce revenue and/or increase program spending while maintaining fiscal sustainability. That said, at the consolidated (i.e., combined) federal and provincial-territorial level, the overall fiscal structure remains unsustainable over the long term.
I hope this helps to clarify Mr. Page’s comments and our analysis. I would be pleased to discuss further and provide additional information, so please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Thank you kindly for your interest in our fiscal sustainability analysis and I would encourage you to continue to follow it closely.
Best regards,Chris Matier
Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
50 O'Connor Street, Room 912B
Ottawa, Canada
K1A 0A9
Notice the parts highlighted in blue? The only calculation that caused Page to change his doom and gloom prediction to a rosy one was a result of the federal government limiting the escalating clause, currently at 6% until the year 2017, to one linked to nominal GDP growth, which Page himself projects to be 3.9% yearly. That's a reduction of 2.1% yearly in the Canada Health Transfer increase to the provinces and territories.
The second line highlighted actually seems to somewhat contradict what Page stated last week, that OAS was sustainable in it's present format. He states as a result of the changes to CHT, provincial and territorial finances were not sustainable. So in effect Page now thinks that by dumping more health costs to the provinces, Ottawa can afford an increase of $106 billion in OAS payments in the year 2030. Given that the CHT in 2011 was roughly $30 billion, it seems unfathomable that a 2.1% reduction in the CHT escalation , which Page himself projects to be 3.9% from 2017 forward, could result in a net yearly savings of $106 billion 2030 onward.
In fact, even if the government were in fact able to save the $106 billion through reduced CHT increases, it would still be a wash, making the federal finances unsustainable as Page alluded too in September 2011.
Update: In order to properly assess Page's prediction, it would be helpful if he made public the CHT projected amount in 2030 both before and after Flaherty's announcement of changes to the escalation clause.
"It’s good to hear from you again Mr. Platten. I would be more than pleased to provide clarification.
The short answer is that over the period of time from Mr. Page’s initial (September 29 2011) comment, which pertains to our September 2011 report (http://www.parl.gc.ca/PBO-DPB/documents/FSR_2011.pdf), to his recent comment (that pertains to our February 2012 note http://www.parl.gc.ca/PBO-DPB/documents/Sustainability_OAS.pdf), our assessment of the sustainability of the federal fiscal structure changed as a result of the Government of Canada’s December 2011 renewal of the federal Canada Health Transfer (CHT) – no other assumptions or projections underlying our fiscal sustainability analysis have changed.
Our September 2011 report was based on the assumption that the federal CHT would continue to grow at 6% annually beyond 2016-17. However, on December 19 2011 the Government of Canada announced that beyond 2016-17 (to at least 2024) growth in the CHT would be limited to nominal GDP growth (with a 3% minimum guaranteed). This fundamentally changed the federal fiscal structure given that we projected nominal GDP growth to average 3.8% beyond 2016. Following the renewal of the CHT, the PBO published a note in January 2012 (http://www.parl.gc.ca/PBO-DPB/documents/Renewing_CHT.pdf) which indicated that as a result of the change to the CHT the federal fiscal structure was now sustainable.
In February 2012, the PBO published another note (http://www.parl.gc.ca/PBO-DPB/documents/Sustainability_OAS.pdf) that reiterated the updated federal results and compared various projections of elderly benefits. The main contribution of our February note was to provide an analytical framework for assessing the sustainability of the federal elderly benefits program. With growth in the federal CHT beyond 2016-17 limited to nominal GDP growth, the current federal fiscal structure has sufficient room to absorb the cost pressures arising from the impact of population ageing on the federal elderly benefits program. Indeed, PBO baseline estimates that there is some scope (0.4% of GDP annually) for reducing federal revenue and/or increasing federal program spending (relative to PBO’s projections) while maintaining fiscal sustainability at the federal level.
However, the mirror image of the change to the federal CHT structure is reflected at the provincial-territorial level – the provincial-territorial fiscal situation has deteriorated. As a result of the change to the CHT, the amount of policy action required to achieve fiscal sustainability at the provincial-territorial level has increased from 1.5% of GDP annually (published in our September 2011 report) to 2.9% of GDP (published in our January 2012 report). At the same time, the federal situation has improved from requiring 1.2% of GDP annually in policy action to achieve fiscal sustainability to having 0.4% of GDP in fiscal ‘room’ to reduce revenue and/or increase program spending while maintaining fiscal sustainability. That said, at the consolidated (i.e., combined) federal and provincial-territorial level, the overall fiscal structure remains unsustainable over the long term.
I hope this helps to clarify Mr. Page’s comments and our analysis. I would be pleased to discuss further and provide additional information, so please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Thank you kindly for your interest in our fiscal sustainability analysis and I would encourage you to continue to follow it closely.
Best regards,Chris Matier
Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
50 O'Connor Street, Room 912B
Ottawa, Canada
K1A 0A9
Notice the parts highlighted in blue? The only calculation that caused Page to change his doom and gloom prediction to a rosy one was a result of the federal government limiting the escalating clause, currently at 6% until the year 2017, to one linked to nominal GDP growth, which Page himself projects to be 3.9% yearly. That's a reduction of 2.1% yearly in the Canada Health Transfer increase to the provinces and territories.
The second line highlighted actually seems to somewhat contradict what Page stated last week, that OAS was sustainable in it's present format. He states as a result of the changes to CHT, provincial and territorial finances were not sustainable. So in effect Page now thinks that by dumping more health costs to the provinces, Ottawa can afford an increase of $106 billion in OAS payments in the year 2030. Given that the CHT in 2011 was roughly $30 billion, it seems unfathomable that a 2.1% reduction in the CHT escalation , which Page himself projects to be 3.9% from 2017 forward, could result in a net yearly savings of $106 billion 2030 onward.
In fact, even if the government were in fact able to save the $106 billion through reduced CHT increases, it would still be a wash, making the federal finances unsustainable as Page alluded too in September 2011.
Update: In order to properly assess Page's prediction, it would be helpful if he made public the CHT projected amount in 2030 both before and after Flaherty's announcement of changes to the escalation clause.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
PBO Kevin Page Projects Federal Budget To Hit $710 Billion By 2030 ?
Yet another fatal flaw in Page's complete 180, stating OAS is affordable and can be sweetened to boot. As it stands now, the OAS costs $36 billion a year from the total federal budget, or roughly 14%. Page himself predicts OAS payments will cost $142 billion per year around 2030, yet says this is affordable as OAS will still only account for roughly 20% of federal spending.
20%. So that means the federal budget in 2030 will be $710 billion? I admit, I completely suck at math. Are my calculations correct? 20% of $710 billion is $142 billion, no?
Looks like he must be factoring in the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition coming into power.
20%. So that means the federal budget in 2030 will be $710 billion? I admit, I completely suck at math. Are my calculations correct? 20% of $710 billion is $142 billion, no?
Looks like he must be factoring in the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition coming into power.
Why Won't The Media Ask PBO Kevin Page What Changed In Five Months?
Kevin Page September 29th, 2011: "“The fiscal structure at the federal and provincial-territorial level is not sustainable over the long term,” the report states. “Population aging will put downward pressure on revenues, as growth in economic activity, and therefore the tax base, slows. At the same time, aging will put upward pressure on programs whose benefits are mostly realized by Canadians in older age groups.”
Kevin Page February 2012: "In fact, not only is the OAS sustainable, but Ottawa has room to sweeten benefits.
"PBO's updated long-term debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) show that the federal fiscal structure is sustainable even under the baseline assumption that there is some additional enrichment to elderly benefit payments," the report states.
"This indicates that... the federal government could reduce revenue, increase program spending or some combination of both ... while maintaining fiscal sustainability."
So is the federal fiscal structure sustainable or not Mr. Page? It seems you may have painted yourself into a corner by trying to act as official opposition rather than the mandate of your position and office. And nary a peep from any of the msm. Sheesh
Kevin Page February 2012: "In fact, not only is the OAS sustainable, but Ottawa has room to sweeten benefits.
"PBO's updated long-term debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) show that the federal fiscal structure is sustainable even under the baseline assumption that there is some additional enrichment to elderly benefit payments," the report states.
"This indicates that... the federal government could reduce revenue, increase program spending or some combination of both ... while maintaining fiscal sustainability."
So is the federal fiscal structure sustainable or not Mr. Page? It seems you may have painted yourself into a corner by trying to act as official opposition rather than the mandate of your position and office. And nary a peep from any of the msm. Sheesh
Thursday, February 9, 2012
PBO Kevin Page Jumps The Shark...
PBO Kevin Page has now pulled a Fonzie and jumped the shark. Whenever the government makes a policy announcment, Page is always just a few days behind to refute the governments position and numbers, usually with a doom and gloom prediction. This time Page flip-flops, telling us the taxpayer can afford those huge increases in OAS, starting around the year 2030. To outdo himself, he even mentioned there would be enough room to lower taxes and increase social spending. So I'm sure by now most Canadians realize he thinks he has taken on the role of an opposition member, merely doing a 180 to whatever the government says.
So who you gonna trust.? Page or Flaherty?
"Reports from Finance and the PBO since Mr. Page’s appointment show that in 15 comparable forecasts, the government beat the PBO nine times. The PBO forecasts were more accurate four times and there were two ties.
Measured another way, the Finance Ministry comes out slightly ahead with an average forecasting error – the difference between the projected surplus or deficit and the final number – of $12.6-billion, compared to $13.2-billion for the PBO."
So who you gonna trust.? Page or Flaherty?
"Reports from Finance and the PBO since Mr. Page’s appointment show that in 15 comparable forecasts, the government beat the PBO nine times. The PBO forecasts were more accurate four times and there were two ties.
Measured another way, the Finance Ministry comes out slightly ahead with an average forecasting error – the difference between the projected surplus or deficit and the final number – of $12.6-billion, compared to $13.2-billion for the PBO."
Monday, February 6, 2012
Will The Star Want To Play Hardball With Bombardier..
More pathetic journalism from The Star, this time from David Olive. Seems Olive is another journalist who doesn't bother bother researching facts before writing complete tripe. I won't even bother linking to his article, as it's not worthy of an Internet hit on the counter.
Suffice it to say, The Star and it's completely inept editorial staff are completely out to lunch, with Tim Harper also writing the same crap about about Caterpillar is all Harper's fault. Olive wants to play hardball with Caterpillar, placing tariffs on all their products coming into Canada. Tim Harper thinks Caterpillar should pay back tax breaks, all the while being too stupid to realize the tax incentives went to companies purchasing rail machinery, like CN, and were anounced in 2008, two years before Caterpillar bought EMD.
All this in itself is enough to show the Star as a leftist partisan propaganda machine that doesn't care about actual facts, and is completely comfortable printing misleading or what many would allege are false statements as fact. So if anyone at the Star cares to play hardball with companies producing locomotives outside Canada, that have received countless millions of taxpayer dollars, millions doled out by Chretien and Martin by the way, perhaps they might want to look at that Quebec media darling Bombardier.
" Bombardier Transportation has also acted as subcontractor, manufacturing units at its plant in Sahagun, Mexico since 1998; with over one thousand locomotives completed by 2007. The manufacturing agreement continued under Progress Rail ownership."
Over one thousand locomotives manufactured in Mexico, for EMD, owned by Progress Rail, which is owned by Caterpillar. Hey wait, aren't workers at Bombardier represented by the CAW? By Ken Lewenza? Funny, I don't remember Lewenza ever uttering a peep about that. I guess we all know what my next blog post will be about:0)
Suffice it to say, The Star and it's completely inept editorial staff are completely out to lunch, with Tim Harper also writing the same crap about about Caterpillar is all Harper's fault. Olive wants to play hardball with Caterpillar, placing tariffs on all their products coming into Canada. Tim Harper thinks Caterpillar should pay back tax breaks, all the while being too stupid to realize the tax incentives went to companies purchasing rail machinery, like CN, and were anounced in 2008, two years before Caterpillar bought EMD.
All this in itself is enough to show the Star as a leftist partisan propaganda machine that doesn't care about actual facts, and is completely comfortable printing misleading or what many would allege are false statements as fact. So if anyone at the Star cares to play hardball with companies producing locomotives outside Canada, that have received countless millions of taxpayer dollars, millions doled out by Chretien and Martin by the way, perhaps they might want to look at that Quebec media darling Bombardier.
" Bombardier Transportation has also acted as subcontractor, manufacturing units at its plant in Sahagun, Mexico since 1998; with over one thousand locomotives completed by 2007. The manufacturing agreement continued under Progress Rail ownership."
Over one thousand locomotives manufactured in Mexico, for EMD, owned by Progress Rail, which is owned by Caterpillar. Hey wait, aren't workers at Bombardier represented by the CAW? By Ken Lewenza? Funny, I don't remember Lewenza ever uttering a peep about that. I guess we all know what my next blog post will be about:0)
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Why Is Caterpillar Anti-Union? Here's Your Answer...
Caterpillar came close to bankruptcy in the early 1980s, at one point losing almost US$1 million per day due to a sharp downturn in product demand as competition with Japanese rival Komatsu increased. (At the time, Komatsu used the internal slogan "encircle Caterpillar".)Caterpillar suffered further when the United States declared an embargo against the Soviet Union after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, causing the company to be unable to sell US$400 million worth of pipelaying machinery that had already been built.
Due to the drastic drop in demand, Caterpillar initiated employee layoffs, which led to strikes, primarily by the members of the United Auto Workers, against Caterpillar facilities in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Several news reports at the time indicated that products were piling up so high in facilities that replacement workers could barely make their way to their work stations.
In 1992, the United Auto Workers conducted a five-month strike against Caterpillar. In response, Caterpillar threatened to replace Caterpillar's entire unionized work force. Over ten thousand UAW members striked again in 1994–1995 for 17 months, a record at that time. The strike ended with the UAW deciding to return to work without a contract despite record revenues and profits by Caterpillar.[83] In 1994 Caterpillar offered a contract to the UAW members that would have raised the salary of top workers from $35,000 to $39,000 per year. However, the UAW was seeking the same top wage of $40,000 that was paid to workers at Deere & Company in 1994.During the strikes, Caterpillar used management employees in an attempt to maintain production. Caterpillar suspended research and development work, sending thousands of engineers and other non-bargained for employees into Caterpillar's manufacturing and assembly facilities to replace striking or locked out union members.
Rather than continuing to fight the United Auto Workers, Caterpillar chose to make itself less vulnerable to the traditional bargaining tactics of organized labor. One way Caterpillar achieved its goal was by outsourcing much of Caterpillar's parts production and warehouse work to outside firms. In another move, according to United Auto Workers union officials and industry analysts, Caterpillar began to execute a "southern strategy". The "southern strategy" involved opening new, small plants, termed "focus facilities", in right-to-work states. Caterpillar opened these new, smaller facilities in Clayton and Sanford North Carolina, Greenville South Carolina, Corinth Mississippi, Dyersburg Tennessee, Griffin Georgia, LaGrange and Seguin Texas and North Little Rock Arkansas.
Due to the drastic drop in demand, Caterpillar initiated employee layoffs, which led to strikes, primarily by the members of the United Auto Workers, against Caterpillar facilities in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Several news reports at the time indicated that products were piling up so high in facilities that replacement workers could barely make their way to their work stations.
In 1992, the United Auto Workers conducted a five-month strike against Caterpillar. In response, Caterpillar threatened to replace Caterpillar's entire unionized work force. Over ten thousand UAW members striked again in 1994–1995 for 17 months, a record at that time. The strike ended with the UAW deciding to return to work without a contract despite record revenues and profits by Caterpillar.[83] In 1994 Caterpillar offered a contract to the UAW members that would have raised the salary of top workers from $35,000 to $39,000 per year. However, the UAW was seeking the same top wage of $40,000 that was paid to workers at Deere & Company in 1994.During the strikes, Caterpillar used management employees in an attempt to maintain production. Caterpillar suspended research and development work, sending thousands of engineers and other non-bargained for employees into Caterpillar's manufacturing and assembly facilities to replace striking or locked out union members.
Rather than continuing to fight the United Auto Workers, Caterpillar chose to make itself less vulnerable to the traditional bargaining tactics of organized labor. One way Caterpillar achieved its goal was by outsourcing much of Caterpillar's parts production and warehouse work to outside firms. In another move, according to United Auto Workers union officials and industry analysts, Caterpillar began to execute a "southern strategy". The "southern strategy" involved opening new, small plants, termed "focus facilities", in right-to-work states. Caterpillar opened these new, smaller facilities in Clayton and Sanford North Carolina, Greenville South Carolina, Corinth Mississippi, Dyersburg Tennessee, Griffin Georgia, LaGrange and Seguin Texas and North Little Rock Arkansas.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
NDP Exploit EMD Workers?
Absolutely Pathetic!
"SUDBURY, Ont. - NDP MP Paul Dewar is hosting a fundraiser for workers who lost their jobs after an American company shut its plant in London, Ont., following a long labour dispute.
About 450 employees who were locked out a month ago lost their jobs at the Electro-Motive plant on Friday after the decision by owner and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc (NYSE:CAT).
Dewar, who is a NDP leadership candidate, has tweeted that $2,500 will be going to the now out-of-work employees.
He says the fundraising concert is a show of solidarity with the Electro-Motive employees and is urging people to ask the Prime Minister to defend Canadian jobs.
The fundraiser is being co-hosted by NDP MPs Charlie Angus, Claude Gravelle, and Glenn Thibeault at the Townehouse bar in Sudbury, Ont.
Caterpillar subsidiary Progress Rail Services said Friday that the cost structure at the London plant was unsustainable, even though Caterpillar last week reported a 58 per cent increase in its quarterly earnings with a record profit of nearly $5 billion."
Let's see, $2500 divided by 450 employees. That's what, $5.55 per worker? Is Dewar not going to share the money with the non-union emplyees of the plant who are also now looking for a job? Will fellow NDP MP Peggy Nash also show up? And if so, will she tell the EMD workers that if she is voted out in a federal election, she will be thinking of them if she returns again to her job-for-life with the CAW National making $100,000+ per year?
"SUDBURY, Ont. - NDP MP Paul Dewar is hosting a fundraiser for workers who lost their jobs after an American company shut its plant in London, Ont., following a long labour dispute.
About 450 employees who were locked out a month ago lost their jobs at the Electro-Motive plant on Friday after the decision by owner and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc (NYSE:CAT).
Dewar, who is a NDP leadership candidate, has tweeted that $2,500 will be going to the now out-of-work employees.
He says the fundraising concert is a show of solidarity with the Electro-Motive employees and is urging people to ask the Prime Minister to defend Canadian jobs.
The fundraiser is being co-hosted by NDP MPs Charlie Angus, Claude Gravelle, and Glenn Thibeault at the Townehouse bar in Sudbury, Ont.
Caterpillar subsidiary Progress Rail Services said Friday that the cost structure at the London plant was unsustainable, even though Caterpillar last week reported a 58 per cent increase in its quarterly earnings with a record profit of nearly $5 billion."
Let's see, $2500 divided by 450 employees. That's what, $5.55 per worker? Is Dewar not going to share the money with the non-union emplyees of the plant who are also now looking for a job? Will fellow NDP MP Peggy Nash also show up? And if so, will she tell the EMD workers that if she is voted out in a federal election, she will be thinking of them if she returns again to her job-for-life with the CAW National making $100,000+ per year?
EMD Workers Agree To 100% Pay Cut
Well, Ken Lewenza did anyway. Sad to see these jobs leaving for good. I'm sure the employees there were all hard working and will face a struggle both financially as well as in finding a job. Caterpillar paid hard ball, as did Lewenza. Problem was Caterpillar were All-Stars and Lewenza was a minor-league call-up. Pity that the CAW National chose to refuse to submit a counter-proposal, which would have served two purposes. 1. Showing a willingness on the part of the union to accept today's economic realities. 2. Served to get both public and political support for the labor cause. Read the comments from any news source and workers are getting lambasted, all because the union thinks this is a winning strategy. IT"S NOT!
Here is what those workers, the city of London and surrounding communities lost:
Crane operator: $34.98 ($18)
Crane operator mobile (licensed): $35.25 ($22).
Cleaning, production parts: $34.47 ($16.50)
Stationary engineer, second class: $40.70 ($34)
Plumber: $40.70 ($34)
Electrician: $41.01 ($34)
Industrial truck repair/gas, electrical and diesel: $41.01 ($34)
Machine repair machinist: $40.89 ($34)
Welder, tool and die maintenance: $40.93 ($34)
Labourer: $34.62 ($16.50)
Oiler: $34.75 ($18)
Cleaning, production parts: $34.47 ($16.50)
Stationary engineer, second class: $40.70 ($34)
All in the name of a futile effort by the union leadership to win a battle with no bullets. Happened at Navistar, Happened here, and looks like Lewenza wants history to repeat itself again later this year with Chrysler, with either the Windsor or Brampton plant the casualty. A little friendly advice for Lewenza and the National. Chrysler workers won't put up with it. They won't be sold out by union leaders making six-figure incomes. The ones who will keep making those incomes when thousands of workers could potentially lose their jobs. There is already a growing number of hourly workers ready for a fight in contract negotiations.
The difference this time is it will a battle against two sides, the company AND the union.
Here is what those workers, the city of London and surrounding communities lost:
Crane operator: $34.98 ($18)
Crane operator mobile (licensed): $35.25 ($22).
Cleaning, production parts: $34.47 ($16.50)
Stationary engineer, second class: $40.70 ($34)
Plumber: $40.70 ($34)
Electrician: $41.01 ($34)
Industrial truck repair/gas, electrical and diesel: $41.01 ($34)
Machine repair machinist: $40.89 ($34)
Welder, tool and die maintenance: $40.93 ($34)
Labourer: $34.62 ($16.50)
Oiler: $34.75 ($18)
Cleaning, production parts: $34.47 ($16.50)
Stationary engineer, second class: $40.70 ($34)
All in the name of a futile effort by the union leadership to win a battle with no bullets. Happened at Navistar, Happened here, and looks like Lewenza wants history to repeat itself again later this year with Chrysler, with either the Windsor or Brampton plant the casualty. A little friendly advice for Lewenza and the National. Chrysler workers won't put up with it. They won't be sold out by union leaders making six-figure incomes. The ones who will keep making those incomes when thousands of workers could potentially lose their jobs. There is already a growing number of hourly workers ready for a fight in contract negotiations.
The difference this time is it will a battle against two sides, the company AND the union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)