STEVE BALL- look at this fuckn yuppy in loafers , hoop ur forehead u crook! oyea make sure u get his mansion in the background , dont worry workers im still living in my giant fuckn house ill even have in the background for the interview! hahahahh whata fuckn yuppy
Unions are great at expanding wages/benefits for their members in the short run. However, over time, they leech so much capital out of their host that they run it into bankruptcy. The US' manufacturing base has moved oversees because our insanely high union wages/benefits CANNOT compete with hard-working Chinese and Indian who are willing to work for a fraction of our wages. If you want to live better today, increase union power. If you want your kids to live better tomorrow, ban all unions.
Except corporatism, fascism, Nazism and even the USSR were based on severely limiting the power of trade unions. Free ride? Slackers? You obviously have an axe to geind and it seems to me he only one being childish is you.
Love Leo in the background taking notes.... typical cult-bully mentality. How do all you stikers feel now after fat old Leo promised you a one month strike ? Nice leader you picked. What a despicible bunch of clowns and childish, uneducatd morons. A bunch of slackers that have had a free ride for way to long. Reminds of a Nazi propaganda session. No one has enough brains or balls to voice their real opinion. Union freaks.
Please watch the real news previous coverage on this topic (posted july/august last year) to understand the situation better. It gives more detail about the mining company vale inco and its busniess around the globe. A big help in forming my opinion on this topic.
why dont you guys look at some facts before you make coments on thing. vale inco made 4.1 billion in 2 years and the workers are greedy because they wanna keep the same contract and not lose anything????? are you retarded? a bad year for vale inco is only making acuple hundred million profit. where not talking about a company that has any money problems.
therealnews is a propaganda outlet. it's not uncommon for "news" outlets to inject their biases into their reporting and therealnews is clearly no different.
@allgoo19: i would be happy to have a conversation about this with you, allgoo19, though youtube doesn't allow enough space to cover the amount of ground we'll need to cover, so i might have to send multiple responses.
maybe i'm misunderstanding what you're saying. when you say unions represent the consumer market, do you mean in the sense that union workers are consumers and their income affects their consumption?
It's called job marketing. You don't need to be explained. Go to a job hunting, get a job, change career, reapeat those over and over, you'll find it.
we'll have to take your word for that since you offer absolutely no support for your position. as an aside, i'd bet money that i am far more well read than you.
@sanchosteve : ok, so why don't you read a bit about the effect of unionized wages on non unionized wages and report back with a reference that counters my assertion. I'll bet you cannot find one. It is clear from your original post that you have not studied or read about the relationship of unionized on non-unionized wages.
Does this mean you have no opinion of your own but only thing you can do is to show somebody else's vedio clip? 10 yr. old can do that and say " I like this video, you should watch it too." You don't need to to have any brain to do it.
haha, you're feisty, i like you. well, are you going to answer my question?
it's true that union workers are consumers. they may consume some goods and services to which their own labor contributed in some way, but likely most of what they consume is produced without the aid of their labor. they would prefer the goods that they consume to be cheaper, while they would prefer that the good that they sell, their labor, to be valuable, expensive.
so if, say, a steel workers union can be used to seize higher compensation for the workers' labor than the market has judged it is worth. in this case, the cost of steel and all products for which steel is a factor of production would be raised. the prices would rise for union workers as well as the rest of society. if consumers still chose to buy in their previous quantities, then however much the cost was raised by the union, consumers would have that much less.
so consumers now have that much less money to spend on other goods and services, causing other industries to shrink commensurate with the increase in costs incurred by the union. one of the essential teachings of economics is that there is no free lunch. the higher wages of the union workers come from somewhere. someone loses. also, to the extent that unionization is used to raise the cost of labor in other industries, even the gains of the union workers may be negated.
All that long comment and you are talking about relation between wage increase and price of the products? Learn to make it short.
Google, "Engel's law"
Basically what he says is percent of necessity cost against the whole income don't rise as quick as the income increase. 10% increase in wage doesn't mean 10% increase in spending but far more.
@allgoo19 there is no free lunch. economics teaches that you can not get something for nothing. you can force one group in society to subsidize another, but you cannot magically bring about prosperity by forcing individuals to pay more for a particular good or service than they would otherwise. prosperity is brought about by increasing the productive capacity of society, which is possible through capital accumulation, which makes labor more efficient, and which capitalism encourages.
If you have been spending 10% of your income to the luxury after food and all the necessity, it would be mean 50% increase in spending power. 10% increase in wage to the products cost, on the other hand, affects much less than 10% toward final price of the product unless the product you sell is a service (even then, still less than 10%). Even if the prices rise, it'd be far less effect to the whole economy than wage increase. History backs it up.
@allgoo19 no, the effect would not be far less. the effect would be exactly the same, except that the burden would be spread around on far more people than the benefits were concentrated on. since the group that benefits has such a direct stake in the success of unions propping up wages they will fight for the unions, but since the burden is spread on so many they have much less interest in fighting off the parasitic unions. i don't think history does back you up.
@allgoo19 you act as if the only thing going on in the universe was union power. without explaining your reasoning for asserting unions as the cause of 50s and 60s prosperity you are falling prey to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. we would have to study the monetary policies being pursued at the time, and we would have to take into consideration the massive influx of workers that occurred upon the conclusion of WWII, and many other factors. it is not my job to prove a negative.
@allgoo19 I would also point to the fact that, during the 20s, when the conservatives were in charge in the US, labor was disempowered and eventually underconsumption occurred. The result: The Great Depression. This was the warning of many historians when Reagan took the same tack in the 80s: his "trickle down" and and union busting had been tried before and had not worked.
@Nogeorgiabelle haha, is that how you explain the depression? monetary policy had nothing to do with causing malinvestments throughout the 20s that sowed the seeds for their own liquidation which resulted in the crash? how can you ignore monetary policy when explaining the boom of the 20s and the resulting crash? you will never be able to convince me that you can get something for nothing, that no trade-off is involved in paying employees more than their market worth, without good reasoning
@allgoo19 there is no burden of disproof on me. if you make a completely unsupported assertion it is your job to support it. maybe the FED was pumping money into the economy, maybe the post war boom was responsible. i would have to study the era. but without studying anything, i can tell that you offer ZERO support for that assertion.
Your way of saying you have no answer? That was predictable. And you say you are taking economics? If you can't back up your opinion in the history, it doesn't mean a thing.
According to you, unions make the economy slow down, not even keeping it on par. Why it was opposite?
Answer?
By the way, wars had negative effect on the economy more often. Look at before the French revolution. None of the wars Bushes started helped economy
@allgoo19 i don't think this is the first time you have failed to grasp what i tell you. i didn't say anything about wars being good for the economy. i said the exact opposite. this tells me that either you're not listening to me or you're having difficulty understanding. it looks like English is not your native language. maybe that is what is making communication so difficult. are you trying to say that economic theory is worthless? haha, you're funny.
This is your way, make your opinion first without learning anything. You should learn somehting then make up your opinion. Your way is borrowing somebody else's opinion without understanding nor having any knowledge of it. Learning economics by watching youtube... geeeez..
@allgoo19 lol, you're going to have to pay me if you want me to do research and come back and give you lessons. if you want to go around making unsupported assertions that's your prerogative. haha, watching youtube videos? i read scores of books and essays relating to economics. i shouldn't have to tell you this but your personal attacks are not relevant to the discussion.
you're the one going around making unsupported assertions! haha, i have tried to support everything i have said with REASONS. i'm sure i have not done so perfectly, but wow, how quickly you resort to irrelevant personal attacks.
but we must also point out that not all consumers are union workers, so while the union workers may benefit even after considering the rise in living expenses caused by unions in other industries, some will see only increase prices and no benefits. they will purchase less of the higher priced goods, and the ones who do purchase the higher priced goods will spend less on other goods, so while jobs will certainly lost in other industries, the unionized industries may also shrink.
@sanchosteve except that historically the effect of unionized workers has been the opposite. If more labor is empowered, more people make better wages and thus have money to buy manufactured products. Underconsumption occurs when too many people do not make enough money to have the expendable income to do so.
@Nogeorgiabelle you can't get something for nothing. sure, unions can raise the wages of their workers, but not without raising production costs, a burden that will be equal to the benefits bestowed on union workers and union bosses, but spread across all the rest of society. one of the fundamental lessons of economics is that there is no free lunch, and while some effects of certain policies may be difficult to trace and understand, these effects are no less real.
@sanchosteve Take a college-level history class. take a college level economics class. Take a college level economics history class. it is obvious that you are merely an ideologue who has done of those things. As someone who has done all of those things, the fact that you haven't is plainly obvious to me. Spew your ignorance on someone ignorant enough to believe it.
@Nogeorgiabelle i am an econ major. i aced macro and intend to ace micro. i have taken college level history classes. the teachers were totally ignorant of economics and uttered a bunch of nonsense on the subject, the fallaciousness of which i was able to articulate in class. i study economics and read books and essays on the subject in my spare time. macro econ professors are teaching from within a flawed paradigm in many respects. they will stuff your head with lies in college.
@sanchosteve@sanchosteve Take a college-level history class. take a college level economics class. Take a college level economics history class. it is obvious that you are merely an ideologue who has never done any of those things. As someone who has done all of those things, the fact that you haven't is plainly obvious to me. Spew your ignorance on someone ignorant enough to believe it.
@Nogeorgiabelle colleges perpetuate the reigning paradigm, for the most part. sure you can still learn lots from them, but if you're not careful you may be stuffing your head with lies, especially from macro econ. in macro econ they teach lots of ideas that were popular in nazi germany, ideas that have failed time and again in practice and have demonstrated to be flawed in theory as well. economics might be ready for another revolution, and the Austrian School will play a major role once more
@Nogeorgiabelle i would agree with you partially. it is true that workers consume less with less pay, but using unions to prop wages up above their market worth does not magically whisk new resources into existence. the main way to raise real wages is to make labor more efficient by investing in capital, which is one of the functions that capitalists serve. investing in capital increases society's productive capacity. artificially raising wages through unions comes at a cost.
@Nogeorgiabelle also, if you are talking about the sort of underconsumption that supposedly causes depressions and crashes, then i would disagree with you. Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains this phenomena much better, in my humble opinion. when the central bank, our federal reserve, pumps lots of new money into the economy, printing it out of thin air, so to speak, it causes an unsustainable boom that must inevitably result in a crash. i've read scores of essays and books on the topic
@Nogeorgiabelle : god doesn't save people from their greed. they must repent and go back to work rather than striking to try to force their demands on the rest of society.
@Nogeorgiabelle I don't know what you're talking about. What I do know, from your comment, is that you are anti-union. You're either a company stooge or some person stuck in a low-paying job but rationalizes that by criticizing anyone who is smart enough to get a better deal for themselves. My grandfather was a union organizer. At least he had the nerve to do something to better his situation, rather than buying into the lies of company stooges and their paid goons.
The unionized workers of Sudbury are being manipulated to fight non-union workers instead of the *real* problems. The city will be destroyed by this greedy international corporation. If the wages in Sudbury are dropped [a place where it is expensive to obtain goods due to location] it will turn Sudbury into the same kind of poverty ghetto that these corps created elsewhere in the country.
The secrecy with the feds s a distinct sign of manipulation, as well.
companies like Vale use as an excuse the increased costs of paying for environmental regulations is the reason why they are attacking miners working conditions, the climate change costs added is nonsense as climate change is a lie, and ficticious, but because most people accept the lie they cant win .. I see no argument against this from the union , they should bring this up ..
companies like Vale use as an excuse the increased costs of paying for environmental regulations is the reason why they are attacking miners working conditions, the climate change costs added is nonsense as climate change is a lie, and ficticious, but because most people accept the lie they cant win .. I see no argument against this from the union , they should bring this up ..
companies like Vale use as an excuse the increased costs of paying for environmental regulations is the reason why they are attacking miners working conditions, the climate change costs added is nonsense as climate change is a lie, and ficticious, but because most people accept the lie they cant win .. I see no argument against this from the union , they should bring this up ..
companies like Vale use as an excuse the increased costs of paying for environmental regulations is the reason why they are attacking miners working conditions, the climate change costs added is nonsense as climate change is a lie, and ficticious, but because most people accept the lie they cant win .. I see no argument against this from the union , they should bring this up ..
saying things like "unionization is good" or "i favor unionization" seem silly to me. sure, lots of things can be used for good: guns, knives, laws; but all of these things can also be used for evil, if you believe in such a thing. if a union is used to seize higher compensation than labor is worth to society then it is being used as an instrument of exploitation benefiting few at the expense of many. I am grateful for the "scabs" reminding us of economic reality through their desire to work.
saying things like "unionization is good" or "i favor unionization" seem silly to me. sure, lots of things can be used for good: guns, knives, laws; but all of these things can also be used for evil, if you believe in such a thing. if a union is used to seize higher compensation than labor is worth to society then it is being used as an instrument of exploitation benefiting few at the expense of many. I am grateful for the "scabs" reminding us of economic reality through their desire to work.
saying things like "unionization is good" or "i favor unionization" seem silly to me. sure, lots of things can be used for good: guns, knives, laws; but all of these things can also be used for evil, if you believe in such a thing. if a union is used to seize higher compensation than labor is worth to society then it is being used as an instrument of exploitation benefiting few at the expense of many. I am grateful for the "scabs" reminding us of economic reality through their desire to work.
@denmanistan: haha, i could recommend MANY good books to you, denman. let me know when you're ready to begin your economic education and rid your mind of your haughty pride.
@DubWoodcock if they don't take a stand on this, it's poverty for us all. Because in my town this stopped happening, poverty did happen for most of us and it's a forever state. It can be worse - starvation and poverty - or it can stay as it is, poverty with the occasional job that pays for bills (no savings).
it's not as black and white as you would like to believe. A foreign company has come in and decided to issue the rules instead of following those in place. And under Stephen Harper's Canada more and more of this will continue to take place. They don't refuse to work because of greed, they do it to maintain a standard of living, and so that their hard work, isn't going to the wallets and pockets of foreign shareholders. A mining town is what they are, they are the majority here.
@weazz: no one is above economic laws. if market conditions have changed to reveal that the workers' labor is not as valuable to society then they are being greedy by trying to cling to a standard of living that their contribution to society does not warrant. society cannot, in the long run, pay labor more than it is worth without unjustly burdening some with the profligacy of others.
And they are not above economic laws, but we have a National MINORITY government in Canada that is trying to placate the world and especially USA. What is best for CANADA is the real issue. And you really want to throw market conditions at me? A commodity resource is always fluctuating, and Nickle is at a higher price now than when both Vale bought Inco, and the strike began. So Vale Inco is only making money, they just don't want to return the wealth. End of story.
When a shareholder joins a company they recieve a vote and a dividend, when a worker joins a company the recieve a dividend only. Yet the labour supplied by the worker is just as essential to the survival of the company as the capital supplied by the share holder.
@Tapecutter59: no, without capital the labor would be worthless. it is capital that makes labor more productive, which makes it possible for laborers to earn more. capital not only benefits labor, at the cost of the entrepreneur, by making labor more efficient, but it increases the productive capacity of society, which raises the real wages of all of society. capital is a demonstration of humans' desire to work smarter rather than harder.
"History is a great teacher. Now everyone knows that the labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it. By raising the living standards of millions, labor miraculously created a market for industry and lifted the whole nation to undreamed of levels of production. Those who attack labor forget these simple truths, but history remembers them."
"With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character in men, than any other association of men."
"Capitalism, and capitalism alone, has rescued the human race from degrading poverty, rampant sickness and early death." -- Lew Rockwell
the "scabs," far from being demonized, should be praised for illustrating with their choice to work the true nature of the supply and demand of labor in that market. labor is only useful to the extent that it contributes to the satisfaction of a consumer want. artificially raising the price of labor is not a boon to society.
@sanchosteve : actually, it was organized labour who rescued the human race from degrading poverty, following the industrial revolution. Before that, most people were farmers. And they had only recently fought for "no taxation without representation".
@denmanistan: haha, denman, can you give any support to that assertion that "organized labor" rescued the human race from poverty following the industrial revolution? you seem to be ignoring the capital investment that preceded the industrial revolution and the revolution's effect on real wages. also, it should be pointed out that if labor unions are successful in raising the nominal wages of members this added cost will be borne by consumers. their real wages will be reduced. no free lunch
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
@joshua1auhsoj: without capital, labor would be far less productive, and therefore far less valuable. labor is certainly prior to capital, but not independent of it. labor is required, and then the laborer must save some of his resources to invest in capital. if consumers' interests are to be served, capital is a vital ingredient in providing them what they want at a value to them. capital makes labor more efficient, increases total production of useful goods, and thus increases real wages.
@ytgv3fc7: i don't think that would work, ytg, because the scabs exist because people want to work for less than the union workers are demanding. as long as people are willing to work for less, the company and the union will always be reminded of economic reality, and the union workers will not have their demands met. thank god for the scabs, reminding us of the true value of labor to society. there is no free lunch. none can escape economic law.
@sanchosteve your assinine comments are a sign of evil.
The scabs are only desperate because of manufactured poverty. Unions prevent it. The true value of labour is set by the worker.
Must be, always shall be. This is true economic law. We should shut down any company that believes otherwise and re-make it. Corporate power is evil and I will kill it with every second of my life.
@ytgv3fc7: as respectfully as possible, economic science tells us otherwise, ytg. far from being set by the worker, value is subjective and originates in the minds of consumers. value derives from the product of labor's ability to satisfy an actual want that exists in the minds of consumers. haha,my asinine comments.. you're hilarious. pay attention and you might learn something about economics. btw you spelled asinine wrong.
@sanchosteve Respectfully, economic "science" is a fraud. That's why so many people keep getting fooled and stolen from. I assure you I HAVE learned and what I've learned is that all the pro-capitalist bullshit is in fact bullshit through REAL LIFE experience and EXPOSURE OF FRAUDS.
Yes it is not easy to rule a country where 5% of the population tries to sabotage everything u do.
And I live in Norway, Socialist country with the best living conditions on the planet earth, so I can attest Socialism works fine if done right, unlike Capitalism.
I LOVE Norway. But I would not agree that it is a Socialist country, it has a mixed economy. It is not an example of pure Socialism. It is difficult to study the true effectiveness of any 'socialistic' system which interacts with capitalistic systems. For example, Norway is much more Socialistic than the US, but Norway exports its fossil fuels and in effect uses this money to buy technologies developed in Capitalistic countries. It imports the benefits of capitalistm.
@observer855 Well thats the part where ppl dont get it. Socialism i a broad system, and NOONE said u cannot have a marketplace in a socialist nation, just a regulated marketplace where the capital interests are not put before the rights of the consumer, like in capitalism. Yes we export Oil and Gas, by companies that are 50% owned by the government, we even put a philosophy proffessor in charge, because thats the kind of thing u can do when the government runs business.
@Ex0dus111"NO 1 said u cant hav marketplace in socialist nation, just regulatd marketplce where capital intrests not put B4 rights of consumr, like in capitalism"
Yes, it should be this way so that the resources of a nation R shared by all & all reap benefits from those resources. It only recent phenomenon that private property has been allowed to take over so much of the public domain. Private companies mine & oil land & keep profit rather than that profit go 2 ppl 2 make their lives better.
@observer855 you can't "import the benefits" you can only trade. Capitalism will not give up anything, it will always gain, but if you gain also in the interaction, at least it can be called fair, or fair as you can manage. Your "pure" socialism concept is perhaps non-factual. Any system re-investing resources into the people, the labour force, not for profit but for future preservation, is socialist, decentralized (better) or centralized (not so hot).
@ytgv3fc7 Well we can argue the particulars of Capitalism, but its too broad a concept.
The fact remains that Neo-liberalism, or modern capitalism, which is what we are currently living under, demands deregulation of all exportation from poor contries, which does nothing but keep their salaries in a constant race to the bottom, in competition which each other and even with lower class workers of our own nations. So in that regard Capitalism gives up A LOT!
@Ex0dus111 yes, I have been digging deeper to find out just what kinds of capitalism, what variable factors, do make it work and it seems to be rooted in equality of trade and any kind of profiteering that doesn't degrade or deprive others. In other words, not what "the market will bear" but what production will bear to do better for us all (all involved in the trade, investment, innovation). And no centralization - no central banks for example.
@ytgv3fc7 Oh we can have a centralized bank, just not a privately owned one, like in the US. In my opinion a workplace that is unionized will always be more fair, but since too many businesses can simply move to a poor country and avoid unions, unions are very hard to create and maintain. Which is why these miners are having their issues, the company doesnt understand that u cant move the mine to china, and suddenly 20+ years of corporate culture is challenged.
@ytgv3fc7 profits are the signal that consumers send to businesses that have forecasted consumer demands well. also, capitalists are re-investing resources into their labor force when they invest in capital to make their laborers labor more efficiently. the existence of profits and loss are symptomatic of precisely that system of social organization, capitalism, that has been demonstrated to put resources to their most valuable uses to society.
@sanchosteve wrong. Consumers have no idea of profits.
Profits are an internal indicator of how much money a company or person was able to take. Those which are excessive above need to continue business are no better than theft. It's a bad thing, a horrifying nightmare, and should be illegal.
The most profitable companies I've seen have the least efficient labour. It's because they make their profits by starving their workers and poor equipment.
@ytgv3fc7: who gets to decide when profits are excessive? you? without profits and loss, how would a company know whether it was doing a good job of satisfying consumers? profits and losses are the mechanism by which consumers, through their decisions to buy or abstain from buying, exercise their "consumer sovereignty" in a society that clings to a degree of capitalism. profits and losses are how consumers control what gets produced, in what quantity and at what quality.
@sanchosteve of course I decide, and so must everyone else. Anything else is fraud. Customer satisfaction would and is only determined by customer's SAYING they like the quality of a product and reasons why, or problems and reasons why. Pricing is INCAPABLE AT ALL TIMES of relaying this information. Even a decent approximation would require full refunds to unsatisfied customers but this lacks accuracy even so. Profits signal NOTHING. Your theory is based on fair tales.
@ytgv3fc7: rofl, ytg, you are hilarious. do you live in a nation that allows a degree of capitalism? some property rights, some equality under the law, a degree of consumer sovereignty? if so, you have capitalism to thank for the fact that you have plenty of decent socks to wear, no shortage of razor blades, a choice of an innumerable variety of breakfast cereals to buy at the store. capitalism has allowed you a standard of living only dreamed of in nations that have cast it aside.
@sanchosteve shame on your lies. I have socks to wear because someone made them and capitalism is not required. NOT REQUIRED. I have quite a few made by relatives. I thank capitalism for ensuring I will never have enough money to retire, never have a home I can own, never be sure that next year I won't be homeless and starving, all because the forces of theft and corruption via capitalism want to crush as many people as possible. Capitalism steals from me.
@Ex0dus111 Yup, you're right that socialism works fine if done right. People mistake socialism with communism that turned into totalitarianism. Even capitalism is a form of totalitarianism. Look how a few rich fucks in the USA have taken control of the government and through that control of the government, they control the masses. It's still totalitarianism but just more subtly & more covertly implemented. The people are just as controlled as in any openly recognized police state. No difference.
@Ex0dus111 Well, it's due to effective propaganda. Those in power have effectively brainwashed the sheeple, filling their heads with bogeymen that those in power create & so say must be fought against at all costs. There R 2 basic ways to control the masses. 1. With force & coercion (having a bludgeon over their heads) & 2. With propaganda (making the sheeple believe certain things R true & so they'll stay in line by their own minds of implanted ideas). Pretty diabolically ingenious if U ask me.
@Ex0dus111 well in Canada we typically know better but not always anymore, not the new generation. In America apparently almost everyone age 25 and under has no idea what is communism, fascism or socialism and will intermix the words without a clue. They don't even know what democracy is there anymore and I'm willing to bet they don't understand what capitalism does or does not do. period.
@observer855 sadly, no. Any time Americans open their mouths about what they think socialism is, and can't pick out pictures of Mussolini vs. Stalin vs. Lenin, my credibility is super-reinforced like diamond armour. Wish it wasn't the case, but there it is.
@JixMa: haha Jix, no, the moment a few "rich fucks" form a clever enough argument to convince voters to voluntarily adopt policies that benefit these "rich fucks" at the expense of many, at precisely this moment "the many" have just voluntarily diverged from capitalistic methods of social organization. this is not a feature of capitalism that you describe but a feature of society's divergence from it. capitalism is equality under the law.
@sanchosteve I'm not sure what you're saying in your comment to me. Are you FOR or AGAINST capitalism and likewise, are you FOR or AGAINST socialism? Then I'll reply.
@sanchosteve equality under the law is NOT capitalism. Capitalism must and always does include inequality from differences in ownership quantity and assets and saved capital. Capital ensures equality must not and can not exist except for brief, rare moments like 2 birds that happen to be flying in the same direction at the same speed. It never lasts.
@JixMa: haha, Jix, what you described is not capitalism but rather our divergence from it. government is not part of the free market, so how can you impute its corruption to capitalism? the fault lies with the morons who vote for these gangsters, these thieves, these clever politicians. again, you seem not to understand what capitalism is. you have mistaken it for something antagonistic to it.
@sanchosteve U don't know what capitalism is. Watch Michael Moore's excellent "Capitalism: A Love Story" & get more educated as 2 just what a fucking racket capitalism has become. In fact the capitalism practiced in USA can be summarized: "Privatize the gains & socialize the losses" IOW the rich want "hands off" from BigBadGovt when times R good, but want MommyGovt 2 make their boo-boos all better when times R bad. By right, bad companies R supposed 2 fail in a capitalist system, not propped up.
@JixMa The minute you quote Michael Moore as an expert, the validity of any argument you want to make is reduced to zero. Moore describes himself as a polemecist; this is a person who pitches a point of view and makes no effort at objectivity or balance. In other words, Moore is an ideologue; he twists data to fit his worldview, ignores contrary data, and deliberately misleads his audience. BTW, last I saw, the Dems were 100% onboard with socializing the losses.
No one has tried democratic socialism yet.. some of it in theory is practiced in cuba and venesuela, but their countries are civil war torn, and with cuba because of the sanctions have had a hard time rebuilding. If it were implimented within a community that is already well off with no civil war, and no sanctions there is no way we could say it works or not, we know one thing, capitalism was a giant fail.
@observer855: haha yea, if these striking workers are so valuable to society they should have no problem starting their own company, right? haha good point.
Canada is being led by a Right Wing Governemnt that wants to take Canada down the USA lapdog road while the country will suffer and wages will fall and the rich will get richer
@studape Yup, they feel we haven't been driven close enough to starvation and slavery by NAFTA, until we require 3 or 4 incomes at a time to support one dwelling (at BEST conditions) we will not have been pushed down enough. SO long as we speak out we are too strong for their liking and must be punished and starved more. This new recession is just another layer on top of the NAFTA recession that never stopped. We all know it. Media & government won't talk about it anymore. It's REALITY.
Cont, the union funds used to back democrat or republican elections, is money wasted. It should instead be used to support striking workers where it would be money well spent, and a great way of showing solidarity. The power for change, rests on collective action not by relying on promises from politicians. A link to how one can send money to this strikers, sure would help. I happen to be working minimum wage job now, but, even I may be able to come up with something.
Thank your real news for informing people about this strike that has been going on for nine months. It seems like, if it was not for you I may not have learned about it. BBC news had not covered it, to my knowledge nor mainstream media. I have to rely on RealNews, TYT, Russiatoday, and mainstream media for my information. Not anyone source is enough, it seems. I hope financial and moral support pours in from unions all over the world. I hope the time comes, when union funds are used for this.
@observer855 since it's Canadian resources being ruined for corporate profit I say that means we have the legal right to take it, it's called stopping theft and exploitation. Of course, our Conservative government is BUILT ON exploitation and lies, so we need to turf them too. The company is commiting theft and to take it back is not a theft, but I know that's what you were implying. We the people own it whether they like it or not, we make them , we break them.
@observer855 : I think you need to "observe" a little more, and perhaps learn something. The corporations and their hired political hacks have brainwashed you.
"the government would have stepped in if we were out of bounds". Dont make me laugh Mr. Ball. We all know who the government works for my sleezy friend.
It is extremely difficult to find a group that is devoted to serving your needs other than unions. The Governments, US in particular, and any corporation you can name claim to have your interests in mind, but in the end its all about money for them.
Once you recognize the government as a player that is allowed to "protect" your rights, you must recognize the rights of the corporation to seek out the same source of "protection". Corporations should answer only to the conscience of consumers by the power of their purchasing power, but it's too bad most people are too stupid to understand this concept.
@truefictions corporations can only answer to the power of profit, not consumers. That is their purpose. The very concept should be a crime, not ever allowed to exist. This structure is not required for small or large businesses to exist. It simply promotes evil. People can seek protection of government because we elect government, corporation should not and must not elect or be elected into government or we have Mussolini's Fascism. You "concept" is pure evil. Please stop.
Or those who are smart enough to understand, fail to understand when they choose places like wal-mart because of price friendly. Value is worth the extra money, but so many people care more about cheap and pennies than sound investments.
@Garrys300 "BAAHAHAHAHAHAHA you believe that bullshit?"
Yeah, I do, so go fuck yourself, U "company man", U cocksucker to the boss! And U know what, U little shit? Every decent thing in this rotten world came about through hard-fought struggles of people banding together against the companies & the boss -- from decent wages, to safe working conditions, to the 40-hour work week, to pensions when you're too old to work anymore, to vacations days, to health care, to min. wage, to no child labor!
@JixMa .....see its attitudes like yours( with the tirades thrown in) is exactly why unions are imploding,and contractors are filling the gap,the old days are gone buddy and they ain't never coming back.
Oh yeah, fuckface? It's (not "its", moron) attitudes like yours that's why people worked as serfs & as slaves for most of humanity's history before ppl banded together & demanded better working conditions & a fairer deal. Shitheads like U that just put up with whatever shit the Boss says U have to eat or U don't get to work for him is the reason that they, (the ones that own everything), get to call all the shots since fools like U won't make a stink.
STEVE BALL- look at this fuckn yuppy in loafers , hoop ur forehead u crook! oyea make sure u get his mansion in the background , dont worry workers im still living in my giant fuckn house ill even have in the background for the interview! hahahahh whata fuckn yuppy
milldabeast519 9 months ago
STEVE BALL- look at this fuckn yuppy in loafers , hoop ur forehead u crook!
milldabeast519 9 months ago
Is there an update to this?
ulty777 10 months ago
Unions are great at expanding wages/benefits for their members in the short run. However, over time, they leech so much capital out of their host that they run it into bankruptcy. The US' manufacturing base has moved oversees because our insanely high union wages/benefits CANNOT compete with hard-working Chinese and Indian who are willing to work for a fraction of our wages. If you want to live better today, increase union power. If you want your kids to live better tomorrow, ban all unions.
JohnR22926 1 year ago
Except corporatism, fascism, Nazism and even the USSR were based on severely limiting the power of trade unions. Free ride? Slackers? You obviously have an axe to geind and it seems to me he only one being childish is you.
Schniddo 1 year ago
Love Leo in the background taking notes.... typical cult-bully mentality. How do all you stikers feel now after fat old Leo promised you a one month strike ? Nice leader you picked. What a despicible bunch of clowns and childish, uneducatd morons. A bunch of slackers that have had a free ride for way to long. Reminds of a Nazi propaganda session. No one has enough brains or balls to voice their real opinion. Union freaks.
somesudburyguy 1 year ago
Please watch the real news previous coverage on this topic (posted july/august last year) to understand the situation better. It gives more detail about the mining company vale inco and its busniess around the globe. A big help in forming my opinion on this topic.
DubWoodcock 1 year ago
why dont you guys look at some facts before you make coments on thing. vale inco made 4.1 billion in 2 years and the workers are greedy because they wanna keep the same contract and not lose anything????? are you retarded? a bad year for vale inco is only making acuple hundred million profit. where not talking about a company that has any money problems.
grenade6666 1 year ago
therealnews is a propaganda outlet. it's not uncommon for "news" outlets to inject their biases into their reporting and therealnews is clearly no different.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
This wouldn't happen in a true democracy, so power to the people!
sinekonata 1 year ago
fuck the scabs, solidarity
soulinite 1 year ago
@soulinite: haha. yeah, fuck the people who are willing to work.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
Union represents the consumer market.
When the consumber market collapses, the economy will collapse.
When the strength of the unions at its peak in the 50s and 60s, the economy was booming.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19: you have provided no support for your assertions. watch out for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve
"you have provided no support .."
How about explaining to me using your own words?
I have seen many people agree with certain issues but no understanding of it. Prove me you are not one of those.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19: i would be happy to have a conversation about this with you, allgoo19, though youtube doesn't allow enough space to cover the amount of ground we'll need to cover, so i might have to send multiple responses.
maybe i'm misunderstanding what you're saying. when you say unions represent the consumer market, do you mean in the sense that union workers are consumers and their income affects their consumption?
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve
"that union workers are consumers and their income affects their consumption?..."
Yes.
Not only union workers wages but it keeps non-union workers wages up, though not to the same leve, because of the employee market.
Consumer spending accounts for 85% of economic prosperity, so they say. Sounds quite reasonable to me.
Multiple responses fine with me.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19
hm, interesting. i've never heard anyone argue that union wages keep non-union wages up. can you explain the reasoning behind it?
i'm 23. how old are you?
.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve
"union wages keep non-union wages up..."
It's called job marketing. You don't need to be explained. Go to a job hunting, get a job, change career, reapeat those over and over, you'll find it.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@sanchosteve : then you need to read a book. All wages have grown as a result of unionized worker's efforts.
denmanistan 1 year ago
@denmanistan
we'll have to take your word for that since you offer absolutely no support for your position. as an aside, i'd bet money that i am far more well read than you.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve : ok, so why don't you read a bit about the effect of unionized wages on non unionized wages and report back with a reference that counters my assertion. I'll bet you cannot find one. It is clear from your original post that you have not studied or read about the relationship of unionized on non-unionized wages.
denmanistan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sanchosteve
"you have provided no support ..."
What, no reply?
Does this mean you have no opinion of your own but only thing you can do is to show somebody else's vedio clip? 10 yr. old can do that and say " I like this video, you should watch it too." You don't need to to have any brain to do it.
How old are you?
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19
haha, you're feisty, i like you. well, are you going to answer my question?
it's true that union workers are consumers. they may consume some goods and services to which their own labor contributed in some way, but likely most of what they consume is produced without the aid of their labor. they would prefer the goods that they consume to be cheaper, while they would prefer that the good that they sell, their labor, to be valuable, expensive.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@allgoo19
so if, say, a steel workers union can be used to seize higher compensation for the workers' labor than the market has judged it is worth. in this case, the cost of steel and all products for which steel is a factor of production would be raised. the prices would rise for union workers as well as the rest of society. if consumers still chose to buy in their previous quantities, then however much the cost was raised by the union, consumers would have that much less.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@allgoo19
so consumers now have that much less money to spend on other goods and services, causing other industries to shrink commensurate with the increase in costs incurred by the union. one of the essential teachings of economics is that there is no free lunch. the higher wages of the union workers come from somewhere. someone loses. also, to the extent that unionization is used to raise the cost of labor in other industries, even the gains of the union workers may be negated.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve
"so consumers now have that much less money .."
All that long comment and you are talking about relation between wage increase and price of the products? Learn to make it short.
Google, "Engel's law"
Basically what he says is percent of necessity cost against the whole income don't rise as quick as the income increase. 10% increase in wage doesn't mean 10% increase in spending but far more.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 there is no free lunch. economics teaches that you can not get something for nothing. you can force one group in society to subsidize another, but you cannot magically bring about prosperity by forcing individuals to pay more for a particular good or service than they would otherwise. prosperity is brought about by increasing the productive capacity of society, which is possible through capital accumulation, which makes labor more efficient, and which capitalism encourages.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
If you have been spending 10% of your income to the luxury after food and all the necessity, it would be mean 50% increase in spending power. 10% increase in wage to the products cost, on the other hand, affects much less than 10% toward final price of the product unless the product you sell is a service (even then, still less than 10%). Even if the prices rise, it'd be far less effect to the whole economy than wage increase. History backs it up.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 no, the effect would not be far less. the effect would be exactly the same, except that the burden would be spread around on far more people than the benefits were concentrated on. since the group that benefits has such a direct stake in the success of unions propping up wages they will fight for the unions, but since the burden is spread on so many they have much less interest in fighting off the parasitic unions. i don't think history does back you up.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
I forgot to ask my question
Economy was boomin in 50s and 60s, when the union power was at its peak. Why it didn't affect negatively?
I won't be answering any more question until you answer this in clear way.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 you act as if the only thing going on in the universe was union power. without explaining your reasoning for asserting unions as the cause of 50s and 60s prosperity you are falling prey to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. we would have to study the monetary policies being pursued at the time, and we would have to take into consideration the massive influx of workers that occurred upon the conclusion of WWII, and many other factors. it is not my job to prove a negative.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sanchosteve
"you act as if the only thing going on in the .."
My point is union didn't hurt the economy like you said it would, in fact opposite happened.
Let me ask you this way, "What document, research or historical event convinced you that union hurt the economy?"
I don't make argument just to reject other opinion like you do. I'm trying to understand your view.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@sanchosteve
And what's your answer to this?
"Economy was booming in 50s and 60s, when the union power was at its peak. Why it didn't affect the economy negatively?"
It can't be one way, don't keep asking. You asked question, I answered. Now, you answer my question.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 I would also point to the fact that, during the 20s, when the conservatives were in charge in the US, labor was disempowered and eventually underconsumption occurred. The result: The Great Depression. This was the warning of many historians when Reagan took the same tack in the 80s: his "trickle down" and and union busting had been tried before and had not worked.
Nogeorgiabelle 1 year ago
@Nogeorgiabelle haha, is that how you explain the depression? monetary policy had nothing to do with causing malinvestments throughout the 20s that sowed the seeds for their own liquidation which resulted in the crash? how can you ignore monetary policy when explaining the boom of the 20s and the resulting crash? you will never be able to convince me that you can get something for nothing, that no trade-off is involved in paying employees more than their market worth, without good reasoning
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@Nogeorgiabelle
"I would also point to the fact that, during .."
Thanks for the info!
From what I hear, it was no co-incident, two different times in history had the highest divide between wealthy and poors.
People just don't learn from the history.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 there is no burden of disproof on me. if you make a completely unsupported assertion it is your job to support it. maybe the FED was pumping money into the economy, maybe the post war boom was responsible. i would have to study the era. but without studying anything, i can tell that you offer ZERO support for that assertion.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve
"there is no burden of disproof on me..."
Your way of saying you have no answer? That was predictable. And you say you are taking economics? If you can't back up your opinion in the history, it doesn't mean a thing.
According to you, unions make the economy slow down, not even keeping it on par. Why it was opposite?
Answer?
By the way, wars had negative effect on the economy more often. Look at before the French revolution. None of the wars Bushes started helped economy
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 i don't think this is the first time you have failed to grasp what i tell you. i didn't say anything about wars being good for the economy. i said the exact opposite. this tells me that either you're not listening to me or you're having difficulty understanding. it looks like English is not your native language. maybe that is what is making communication so difficult. are you trying to say that economic theory is worthless? haha, you're funny.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve
"i would have to study the era.."
This is your way, make your opinion first without learning anything. You should learn somehting then make up your opinion. Your way is borrowing somebody else's opinion without understanding nor having any knowledge of it. Learning economics by watching youtube... geeeez..
So much for you *opinion*.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 lol, you're going to have to pay me if you want me to do research and come back and give you lessons. if you want to go around making unsupported assertions that's your prerogative. haha, watching youtube videos? i read scores of books and essays relating to economics. i shouldn't have to tell you this but your personal attacks are not relevant to the discussion.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
you're the one going around making unsupported assertions! haha, i have tried to support everything i have said with REASONS. i'm sure i have not done so perfectly, but wow, how quickly you resort to irrelevant personal attacks.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@allgoo19
but we must also point out that not all consumers are union workers, so while the union workers may benefit even after considering the rise in living expenses caused by unions in other industries, some will see only increase prices and no benefits. they will purchase less of the higher priced goods, and the ones who do purchase the higher priced goods will spend less on other goods, so while jobs will certainly lost in other industries, the unionized industries may also shrink.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve except that historically the effect of unionized workers has been the opposite. If more labor is empowered, more people make better wages and thus have money to buy manufactured products. Underconsumption occurs when too many people do not make enough money to have the expendable income to do so.
Nogeorgiabelle 1 year ago
@Nogeorgiabelle you can't get something for nothing. sure, unions can raise the wages of their workers, but not without raising production costs, a burden that will be equal to the benefits bestowed on union workers and union bosses, but spread across all the rest of society. one of the fundamental lessons of economics is that there is no free lunch, and while some effects of certain policies may be difficult to trace and understand, these effects are no less real.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve Take a college-level history class. take a college level economics class. Take a college level economics history class. it is obvious that you are merely an ideologue who has done of those things. As someone who has done all of those things, the fact that you haven't is plainly obvious to me. Spew your ignorance on someone ignorant enough to believe it.
Nogeorgiabelle 1 year ago
@Nogeorgiabelle i am an econ major. i aced macro and intend to ace micro. i have taken college level history classes. the teachers were totally ignorant of economics and uttered a bunch of nonsense on the subject, the fallaciousness of which i was able to articulate in class. i study economics and read books and essays on the subject in my spare time. macro econ professors are teaching from within a flawed paradigm in many respects. they will stuff your head with lies in college.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve @sanchosteve Take a college-level history class. take a college level economics class. Take a college level economics history class. it is obvious that you are merely an ideologue who has never done any of those things. As someone who has done all of those things, the fact that you haven't is plainly obvious to me. Spew your ignorance on someone ignorant enough to believe it.
Nogeorgiabelle 1 year ago
@Nogeorgiabelle colleges perpetuate the reigning paradigm, for the most part. sure you can still learn lots from them, but if you're not careful you may be stuffing your head with lies, especially from macro econ. in macro econ they teach lots of ideas that were popular in nazi germany, ideas that have failed time and again in practice and have demonstrated to be flawed in theory as well. economics might be ready for another revolution, and the Austrian School will play a major role once more
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve LOL spoken like a true ignoramus trying to hide the fact that he is one. Go play elsewhere, ignorant little man.
Nogeorgiabelle 1 year ago
@Nogeorgiabelle your irrelevant name-calling and personal attacks do not support your positions or lend your words credibility.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@Nogeorgiabelle i would agree with you partially. it is true that workers consume less with less pay, but using unions to prop wages up above their market worth does not magically whisk new resources into existence. the main way to raise real wages is to make labor more efficient by investing in capital, which is one of the functions that capitalists serve. investing in capital increases society's productive capacity. artificially raising wages through unions comes at a cost.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@Nogeorgiabelle also, if you are talking about the sort of underconsumption that supposedly causes depressions and crashes, then i would disagree with you. Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains this phenomena much better, in my humble opinion. when the central bank, our federal reserve, pumps lots of new money into the economy, printing it out of thin air, so to speak, it causes an unsustainable boom that must inevitably result in a crash. i've read scores of essays and books on the topic
sanchosteve 1 year ago
God save these union workers!
Nogeorgiabelle 1 year ago 8
@Nogeorgiabelle : god doesn't save people from their greed. they must repent and go back to work rather than striking to try to force their demands on the rest of society.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve I'm glad I wasn't born a company stooge.
Nogeorgiabelle 1 year ago
@Nogeorgiabelle i'm glad the Mises Institute makes so much valuable economic literature available to everyone at no charge
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@Nogeorgiabelle I don't know what you're talking about. What I do know, from your comment, is that you are anti-union. You're either a company stooge or some person stuck in a low-paying job but rationalizes that by criticizing anyone who is smart enough to get a better deal for themselves. My grandfather was a union organizer. At least he had the nerve to do something to better his situation, rather than buying into the lies of company stooges and their paid goons.
Nogeorgiabelle 1 year ago
The unionized workers of Sudbury are being manipulated to fight non-union workers instead of the *real* problems. The city will be destroyed by this greedy international corporation. If the wages in Sudbury are dropped [a place where it is expensive to obtain goods due to location] it will turn Sudbury into the same kind of poverty ghetto that these corps created elsewhere in the country.
The secrecy with the feds s a distinct sign of manipulation, as well.
TVParkdale 1 year ago
in TEXAS we got Italians from Italy building the TOLL WAY Texas needs JOBS no Jobs in #Texas #MEDIA #LIES ! BIG AS #TEAXAS LIES ! NO #JOBS IN #TEXAS
nohealthcare62 1 year ago
in TEXAS we got Italians from Italy building the TOLL WAY Texas needs JOBS no Jobs in #Texas #MEDIA #LIES ! BIG AS #TEAXAS LIES ! NO #JOBS IN #TEXAS
nohealthcare62 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
companies like Vale use as an excuse the increased costs of paying for environmental regulations is the reason why they are attacking miners working conditions, the climate change costs added is nonsense as climate change is a lie, and ficticious, but because most people accept the lie they cant win .. I see no argument against this from the union , they should bring this up ..
plenty2see 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
companies like Vale use as an excuse the increased costs of paying for environmental regulations is the reason why they are attacking miners working conditions, the climate change costs added is nonsense as climate change is a lie, and ficticious, but because most people accept the lie they cant win .. I see no argument against this from the union , they should bring this up ..
plenty2see 1 year ago
companies like Vale use as an excuse the increased costs of paying for environmental regulations is the reason why they are attacking miners working conditions, the climate change costs added is nonsense as climate change is a lie, and ficticious, but because most people accept the lie they cant win .. I see no argument against this from the union , they should bring this up ..
plenty2see 1 year ago
companies like Vale use as an excuse the increased costs of paying for environmental regulations is the reason why they are attacking miners working conditions, the climate change costs added is nonsense as climate change is a lie, and ficticious, but because most people accept the lie they cant win .. I see no argument against this from the union , they should bring this up ..
plenty2see 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
saying things like "unionization is good" or "i favor unionization" seem silly to me. sure, lots of things can be used for good: guns, knives, laws; but all of these things can also be used for evil, if you believe in such a thing. if a union is used to seize higher compensation than labor is worth to society then it is being used as an instrument of exploitation benefiting few at the expense of many. I am grateful for the "scabs" reminding us of economic reality through their desire to work.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
saying things like "unionization is good" or "i favor unionization" seem silly to me. sure, lots of things can be used for good: guns, knives, laws; but all of these things can also be used for evil, if you believe in such a thing. if a union is used to seize higher compensation than labor is worth to society then it is being used as an instrument of exploitation benefiting few at the expense of many. I am grateful for the "scabs" reminding us of economic reality through their desire to work.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
saying things like "unionization is good" or "i favor unionization" seem silly to me. sure, lots of things can be used for good: guns, knives, laws; but all of these things can also be used for evil, if you believe in such a thing. if a union is used to seize higher compensation than labor is worth to society then it is being used as an instrument of exploitation benefiting few at the expense of many. I am grateful for the "scabs" reminding us of economic reality through their desire to work.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve really? I think you need to read a book, perhaps about the history of organized labour, before commenting. You have been brainwashed.
denmanistan 1 year ago
@denmanistan: haha, i could recommend MANY good books to you, denman. let me know when you're ready to begin your economic education and rid your mind of your haughty pride.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
that guy propally is a hobo or a low payed scab who is high and dosent know a god dam shit about this contract is shit
snoozer22229 1 year ago
So how long do we have to wait for part 2?
BbdHome 1 year ago
pick up a rifle
tsarvadim 1 year ago
Comment removed
DubWoodcock 1 year ago
@DubWoodcock if they don't take a stand on this, it's poverty for us all. Because in my town this stopped happening, poverty did happen for most of us and it's a forever state. It can be worse - starvation and poverty - or it can stay as it is, poverty with the occasional job that pays for bills (no savings).
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@DubWoodcock
it's not as black and white as you would like to believe. A foreign company has come in and decided to issue the rules instead of following those in place. And under Stephen Harper's Canada more and more of this will continue to take place. They don't refuse to work because of greed, they do it to maintain a standard of living, and so that their hard work, isn't going to the wallets and pockets of foreign shareholders. A mining town is what they are, they are the majority here.
weazz 1 year ago 2
@weazz: no one is above economic laws. if market conditions have changed to reveal that the workers' labor is not as valuable to society then they are being greedy by trying to cling to a standard of living that their contribution to society does not warrant. society cannot, in the long run, pay labor more than it is worth without unjustly burdening some with the profligacy of others.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve
And they are not above economic laws, but we have a National MINORITY government in Canada that is trying to placate the world and especially USA. What is best for CANADA is the real issue. And you really want to throw market conditions at me? A commodity resource is always fluctuating, and Nickle is at a higher price now than when both Vale bought Inco, and the strike began. So Vale Inco is only making money, they just don't want to return the wealth. End of story.
weazz 1 year ago
Thanks for this. Enjoyed the scope and depth of this story. Great source of alternative coverage of events. Keep it going RealNews!
docupeter 1 year ago
When a shareholder joins a company they recieve a vote and a dividend, when a worker joins a company the recieve a dividend only. Yet the labour supplied by the worker is just as essential to the survival of the company as the capital supplied by the share holder.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59: no, without capital the labor would be worthless. it is capital that makes labor more productive, which makes it possible for laborers to earn more. capital not only benefits labor, at the cost of the entrepreneur, by making labor more efficient, but it increases the productive capacity of society, which raises the real wages of all of society. capital is a demonstration of humans' desire to work smarter rather than harder.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
ABRAHAM LINCOLN:
The strongest bond of human sympathy outside the family relation should be one uniting working people of all nations and tongues and kindreds.
joshua1auhsoj 1 year ago
"The American Labor Movement has consistently demonstrated its devotion to the public interest. It is, and has been, good for all America."
-- John F. Kennedy
joshua1auhsoj 1 year ago
"History is a great teacher. Now everyone knows that the labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it. By raising the living standards of millions, labor miraculously created a market for industry and lifted the whole nation to undreamed of levels of production. Those who attack labor forget these simple truths, but history remembers them."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.,
joshua1auhsoj 1 year ago 5
"With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character in men, than any other association of men."
-- Clarence Darrow.
joshua1auhsoj 1 year ago 5
@joshua1auhsoj Hear hear, joshua1auhsoj! Great quote you posted! I very much agree with Clarence Darrow's quote.
JixMa 1 year ago
@joshua1auhsoj:
"Capitalism, and capitalism alone, has rescued the human race from degrading poverty, rampant sickness and early death." -- Lew Rockwell
the "scabs," far from being demonized, should be praised for illustrating with their choice to work the true nature of the supply and demand of labor in that market. labor is only useful to the extent that it contributes to the satisfaction of a consumer want. artificially raising the price of labor is not a boon to society.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve : actually, it was organized labour who rescued the human race from degrading poverty, following the industrial revolution. Before that, most people were farmers. And they had only recently fought for "no taxation without representation".
denmanistan 1 year ago
@denmanistan: haha, denman, can you give any support to that assertion that "organized labor" rescued the human race from poverty following the industrial revolution? you seem to be ignoring the capital investment that preceded the industrial revolution and the revolution's effect on real wages. also, it should be pointed out that if labor unions are successful in raising the nominal wages of members this added cost will be borne by consumers. their real wages will be reduced. no free lunch
sanchosteve 1 year ago
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
-- Abraham Lincoln.
joshua1auhsoj 1 year ago 4
@joshua1auhsoj: without capital, labor would be far less productive, and therefore far less valuable. labor is certainly prior to capital, but not independent of it. labor is required, and then the laborer must save some of his resources to invest in capital. if consumers' interests are to be served, capital is a vital ingredient in providing them what they want at a value to them. capital makes labor more efficient, increases total production of useful goods, and thus increases real wages.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
They better go Back to WORK,or the immigrant ,will take there Jobs
m00se321 1 year ago
@m00se321 we could just toss out all the scabs. And keep them out.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7: i don't think that would work, ytg, because the scabs exist because people want to work for less than the union workers are demanding. as long as people are willing to work for less, the company and the union will always be reminded of economic reality, and the union workers will not have their demands met. thank god for the scabs, reminding us of the true value of labor to society. there is no free lunch. none can escape economic law.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve your assinine comments are a sign of evil.
The scabs are only desperate because of manufactured poverty. Unions prevent it. The true value of labour is set by the worker.
Must be, always shall be. This is true economic law. We should shut down any company that believes otherwise and re-make it. Corporate power is evil and I will kill it with every second of my life.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7: as respectfully as possible, economic science tells us otherwise, ytg. far from being set by the worker, value is subjective and originates in the minds of consumers. value derives from the product of labor's ability to satisfy an actual want that exists in the minds of consumers. haha,my asinine comments.. you're hilarious. pay attention and you might learn something about economics. btw you spelled asinine wrong.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve Respectfully, economic "science" is a fraud. That's why so many people keep getting fooled and stolen from. I assure you I HAVE learned and what I've learned is that all the pro-capitalist bullshit is in fact bullshit through REAL LIFE experience and EXPOSURE OF FRAUDS.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
WHY DON'T these striking workers START THEIR OWN COMPANY?
observer855 1 year ago
Comment removed
YoungSpotUBrock 1 year ago
They're doing that in Venezuela right now. Workers are occupying the buildings and using the law to turn the business over to the public.
SocialistReign 1 year ago
@SocialistReign
You do understand that Venezuela is a complete disaster, right?
Most people point to Venezuela as proof that while Socialism sounds great in theory, in practice it is absolutely terrible.
observer855 1 year ago
Yes it is not easy to rule a country where 5% of the population tries to sabotage everything u do.
And I live in Norway, Socialist country with the best living conditions on the planet earth, so I can attest Socialism works fine if done right, unlike Capitalism.
Ex0dus111 1 year ago 3
@Ex0dus111
I LOVE Norway. But I would not agree that it is a Socialist country, it has a mixed economy. It is not an example of pure Socialism. It is difficult to study the true effectiveness of any 'socialistic' system which interacts with capitalistic systems. For example, Norway is much more Socialistic than the US, but Norway exports its fossil fuels and in effect uses this money to buy technologies developed in Capitalistic countries. It imports the benefits of capitalistm.
observer855 1 year ago
@observer855 Well thats the part where ppl dont get it. Socialism i a broad system, and NOONE said u cannot have a marketplace in a socialist nation, just a regulated marketplace where the capital interests are not put before the rights of the consumer, like in capitalism. Yes we export Oil and Gas, by companies that are 50% owned by the government, we even put a philosophy proffessor in charge, because thats the kind of thing u can do when the government runs business.
Ex0dus111 1 year ago 2
@Ex0dus111"NO 1 said u cant hav marketplace in socialist nation, just regulatd marketplce where capital intrests not put B4 rights of consumr, like in capitalism"
Yes, it should be this way so that the resources of a nation R shared by all & all reap benefits from those resources. It only recent phenomenon that private property has been allowed to take over so much of the public domain. Private companies mine & oil land & keep profit rather than that profit go 2 ppl 2 make their lives better.
JixMa 1 year ago
@observer855 you can't "import the benefits" you can only trade. Capitalism will not give up anything, it will always gain, but if you gain also in the interaction, at least it can be called fair, or fair as you can manage. Your "pure" socialism concept is perhaps non-factual. Any system re-investing resources into the people, the labour force, not for profit but for future preservation, is socialist, decentralized (better) or centralized (not so hot).
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Well we can argue the particulars of Capitalism, but its too broad a concept.
The fact remains that Neo-liberalism, or modern capitalism, which is what we are currently living under, demands deregulation of all exportation from poor contries, which does nothing but keep their salaries in a constant race to the bottom, in competition which each other and even with lower class workers of our own nations. So in that regard Capitalism gives up A LOT!
Ex0dus111 1 year ago
@Ex0dus111 yes, I have been digging deeper to find out just what kinds of capitalism, what variable factors, do make it work and it seems to be rooted in equality of trade and any kind of profiteering that doesn't degrade or deprive others. In other words, not what "the market will bear" but what production will bear to do better for us all (all involved in the trade, investment, innovation). And no centralization - no central banks for example.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Oh we can have a centralized bank, just not a privately owned one, like in the US. In my opinion a workplace that is unionized will always be more fair, but since too many businesses can simply move to a poor country and avoid unions, unions are very hard to create and maintain. Which is why these miners are having their issues, the company doesnt understand that u cant move the mine to china, and suddenly 20+ years of corporate culture is challenged.
Ex0dus111 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 profits are the signal that consumers send to businesses that have forecasted consumer demands well. also, capitalists are re-investing resources into their labor force when they invest in capital to make their laborers labor more efficiently. the existence of profits and loss are symptomatic of precisely that system of social organization, capitalism, that has been demonstrated to put resources to their most valuable uses to society.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve wrong. Consumers have no idea of profits.
Profits are an internal indicator of how much money a company or person was able to take. Those which are excessive above need to continue business are no better than theft. It's a bad thing, a horrifying nightmare, and should be illegal.
The most profitable companies I've seen have the least efficient labour. It's because they make their profits by starving their workers and poor equipment.
Capitalism fails every time. Epic fail.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7: who gets to decide when profits are excessive? you? without profits and loss, how would a company know whether it was doing a good job of satisfying consumers? profits and losses are the mechanism by which consumers, through their decisions to buy or abstain from buying, exercise their "consumer sovereignty" in a society that clings to a degree of capitalism. profits and losses are how consumers control what gets produced, in what quantity and at what quality.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve of course I decide, and so must everyone else. Anything else is fraud. Customer satisfaction would and is only determined by customer's SAYING they like the quality of a product and reasons why, or problems and reasons why. Pricing is INCAPABLE AT ALL TIMES of relaying this information. Even a decent approximation would require full refunds to unsatisfied customers but this lacks accuracy even so. Profits signal NOTHING. Your theory is based on fair tales.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@sanchosteve capitalism is only the most efficient way to make one person very rich by making thousands if not millions become very poor.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7: rofl, ytg, you are hilarious. do you live in a nation that allows a degree of capitalism? some property rights, some equality under the law, a degree of consumer sovereignty? if so, you have capitalism to thank for the fact that you have plenty of decent socks to wear, no shortage of razor blades, a choice of an innumerable variety of breakfast cereals to buy at the store. capitalism has allowed you a standard of living only dreamed of in nations that have cast it aside.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve shame on your lies. I have socks to wear because someone made them and capitalism is not required. NOT REQUIRED. I have quite a few made by relatives. I thank capitalism for ensuring I will never have enough money to retire, never have a home I can own, never be sure that next year I won't be homeless and starving, all because the forces of theft and corruption via capitalism want to crush as many people as possible. Capitalism steals from me.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@Ex0dus111 Yup, you're right that socialism works fine if done right. People mistake socialism with communism that turned into totalitarianism. Even capitalism is a form of totalitarianism. Look how a few rich fucks in the USA have taken control of the government and through that control of the government, they control the masses. It's still totalitarianism but just more subtly & more covertly implemented. The people are just as controlled as in any openly recognized police state. No difference.
JixMa 1 year ago
@JixMa Yeah, for some reason ppl think of Stalin when Socialism is mentioned, how a Fascist dictator has anything to do with Socialism is beyond me.
Ex0dus111 1 year ago 2
@Ex0dus111 Well, it's due to effective propaganda. Those in power have effectively brainwashed the sheeple, filling their heads with bogeymen that those in power create & so say must be fought against at all costs. There R 2 basic ways to control the masses. 1. With force & coercion (having a bludgeon over their heads) & 2. With propaganda (making the sheeple believe certain things R true & so they'll stay in line by their own minds of implanted ideas). Pretty diabolically ingenious if U ask me.
JixMa 1 year ago
@Ex0dus111 well in Canada we typically know better but not always anymore, not the new generation. In America apparently almost everyone age 25 and under has no idea what is communism, fascism or socialism and will intermix the words without a clue. They don't even know what democracy is there anymore and I'm willing to bet they don't understand what capitalism does or does not do. period.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago 2
@ytgv3fc7
Anytime you speak so broadly i.e. "nobody in America under 25 knows what socialism is" you undermine your own credibility.
observer855 1 year ago
@observer855 sadly, no. Any time Americans open their mouths about what they think socialism is, and can't pick out pictures of Mussolini vs. Stalin vs. Lenin, my credibility is super-reinforced like diamond armour. Wish it wasn't the case, but there it is.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@JixMa: haha Jix, no, the moment a few "rich fucks" form a clever enough argument to convince voters to voluntarily adopt policies that benefit these "rich fucks" at the expense of many, at precisely this moment "the many" have just voluntarily diverged from capitalistic methods of social organization. this is not a feature of capitalism that you describe but a feature of society's divergence from it. capitalism is equality under the law.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
Comment removed
JixMa 1 year ago
Comment removed
JixMa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sanchosteve I'm not sure what you're saying in your comment to me. Are you FOR or AGAINST capitalism and likewise, are you FOR or AGAINST socialism? Then I'll reply.
JixMa 1 year ago
@sanchosteve equality under the law is NOT capitalism. Capitalism must and always does include inequality from differences in ownership quantity and assets and saved capital. Capital ensures equality must not and can not exist except for brief, rare moments like 2 birds that happen to be flying in the same direction at the same speed. It never lasts.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@JixMa: haha, Jix, what you described is not capitalism but rather our divergence from it. government is not part of the free market, so how can you impute its corruption to capitalism? the fault lies with the morons who vote for these gangsters, these thieves, these clever politicians. again, you seem not to understand what capitalism is. you have mistaken it for something antagonistic to it.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
@sanchosteve U don't know what capitalism is. Watch Michael Moore's excellent "Capitalism: A Love Story" & get more educated as 2 just what a fucking racket capitalism has become. In fact the capitalism practiced in USA can be summarized: "Privatize the gains & socialize the losses" IOW the rich want "hands off" from BigBadGovt when times R good, but want MommyGovt 2 make their boo-boos all better when times R bad. By right, bad companies R supposed 2 fail in a capitalist system, not propped up.
JixMa 1 year ago
Michael Moore was for the bail out.
simontimon2 1 year ago
@JixMa The minute you quote Michael Moore as an expert, the validity of any argument you want to make is reduced to zero. Moore describes himself as a polemecist; this is a person who pitches a point of view and makes no effort at objectivity or balance. In other words, Moore is an ideologue; he twists data to fit his worldview, ignores contrary data, and deliberately misleads his audience. BTW, last I saw, the Dems were 100% onboard with socializing the losses.
JohnR22926 1 year ago
@observer855 total disagree.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@observer855
No one has tried democratic socialism yet.. some of it in theory is practiced in cuba and venesuela, but their countries are civil war torn, and with cuba because of the sanctions have had a hard time rebuilding. If it were implimented within a community that is already well off with no civil war, and no sanctions there is no way we could say it works or not, we know one thing, capitalism was a giant fail.
SocialistReign 1 year ago
@observer855: haha yea, if these striking workers are so valuable to society they should have no problem starting their own company, right? haha good point.
sanchosteve 1 year ago
Canada is being led by a Right Wing Governemnt that wants to take Canada down the USA lapdog road while the country will suffer and wages will fall and the rich will get richer
studape 1 year ago 2
That's called "New World order," and is in no way confined to the Canadian Laborer.
OLDCRAZYLADY 1 year ago 2
@studape Yup, they feel we haven't been driven close enough to starvation and slavery by NAFTA, until we require 3 or 4 incomes at a time to support one dwelling (at BEST conditions) we will not have been pushed down enough. SO long as we speak out we are too strong for their liking and must be punished and starved more. This new recession is just another layer on top of the NAFTA recession that never stopped. We all know it. Media & government won't talk about it anymore. It's REALITY.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
Cont, the union funds used to back democrat or republican elections, is money wasted. It should instead be used to support striking workers where it would be money well spent, and a great way of showing solidarity. The power for change, rests on collective action not by relying on promises from politicians. A link to how one can send money to this strikers, sure would help. I happen to be working minimum wage job now, but, even I may be able to come up with something.
franklikespolitics 1 year ago
Thank your real news for informing people about this strike that has been going on for nine months. It seems like, if it was not for you I may not have learned about it. BBC news had not covered it, to my knowledge nor mainstream media. I have to rely on RealNews, TYT, Russiatoday, and mainstream media for my information. Not anyone source is enough, it seems. I hope financial and moral support pours in from unions all over the world. I hope the time comes, when union funds are used for this.
franklikespolitics 1 year ago 2
"they're overpaid"
no fool you're underpaid!!!
dickNmaryjane 1 year ago
Canadians need to take the company away from these crooks
marniespeaks 1 year ago 2
@marniespeaks
You want the government to start seizing private property?! You know, they have a name for that.
If the workers are this unhappy, they should start their own company.
observer855 1 year ago
@observer855
it's a plutocracy now -
time for the scales to bounce back
marniespeaks 1 year ago
@marniespeaks
Touche'. But I think gov. seizure is a bad idea.
Either way, will be very interesting to see how this unfolds. Hopefully RN will continue their coverage.
observer855 1 year ago
@observer855
no justice
no compromise
marniespeaks 1 year ago
@observer855 since it's Canadian resources being ruined for corporate profit I say that means we have the legal right to take it, it's called stopping theft and exploitation. Of course, our Conservative government is BUILT ON exploitation and lies, so we need to turf them too. The company is commiting theft and to take it back is not a theft, but I know that's what you were implying. We the people own it whether they like it or not, we make them , we break them.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@observer855 : I think you need to "observe" a little more, and perhaps learn something. The corporations and their hired political hacks have brainwashed you.
denmanistan 1 year ago
"the government would have stepped in if we were out of bounds". Dont make me laugh Mr. Ball. We all know who the government works for my sleezy friend.
garvess 1 year ago 2
stop mining!
aerobique 1 year ago
Scabs will be dealt with. They will join the strikers.
I think unions suck but the alternative is a horror.
"Matewan" the film by John Sayles is a film I
will see again. Devastating movie. Likewise for
"City Of Hope" about Newark (a fictional Hudson
City or something is mentioned in the film)
is not about Cory Booker b/c it was made long
before he ran the 1st time, but it predicts
Cory Booker. Amazing movie.
danger0usknowledge 1 year ago
the dimwits below aguing about prosperity, how corporations should be held accountable for very few things, etc should SHUT THE FLIPPIN HELL UP!!
If your ideas were any good, you'd be in the news.
EOD!
timetraveler2006 1 year ago
Unions suck.........
futurerapture 1 year ago
I wonder is the mining in Canada as bad as here in America. Do they use MTR methods?
captcrais101 1 year ago
It is extremely difficult to find a group that is devoted to serving your needs other than unions. The Governments, US in particular, and any corporation you can name claim to have your interests in mind, but in the end its all about money for them.
freethoughtfanatic 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Ironworkers local 14, Spokane W.A you forge it we bolt it. Stand strong brothers best wishes.
SMASHER1099 1 year ago
Comment removed
SMASHER1099 1 year ago
Solidarity my Brothers & Sisters.
michaelmage 1 year ago
Once you recognize the government as a player that is allowed to "protect" your rights, you must recognize the rights of the corporation to seek out the same source of "protection". Corporations should answer only to the conscience of consumers by the power of their purchasing power, but it's too bad most people are too stupid to understand this concept.
Peace
truefictions 1 year ago
@truefictions corporations can only answer to the power of profit, not consumers. That is their purpose. The very concept should be a crime, not ever allowed to exist. This structure is not required for small or large businesses to exist. It simply promotes evil. People can seek protection of government because we elect government, corporation should not and must not elect or be elected into government or we have Mussolini's Fascism. You "concept" is pure evil. Please stop.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@truefictions
Or those who are smart enough to understand, fail to understand when they choose places like wal-mart because of price friendly. Value is worth the extra money, but so many people care more about cheap and pennies than sound investments.
weazz 1 year ago
@truefictions : you are aptly named.
denmanistan 1 year ago
Hear hear for unions! Stand strong, stand together, brothers and sisters! In unity there is strength! United we stand, divided we fall! 5*****
JixMa 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@JixMa BAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA you believe that bullshit?
Garrys300 1 year ago
Comment removed
JixMa 1 year ago
@Garrys300 "BAAHAHAHAHAHAHA you believe that bullshit?"
Yeah, I do, so go fuck yourself, U "company man", U cocksucker to the boss! And U know what, U little shit? Every decent thing in this rotten world came about through hard-fought struggles of people banding together against the companies & the boss -- from decent wages, to safe working conditions, to the 40-hour work week, to pensions when you're too old to work anymore, to vacations days, to health care, to min. wage, to no child labor!
JixMa 1 year ago
@JixMa .....see its attitudes like yours( with the tirades thrown in) is exactly why unions are imploding,and contractors are filling the gap,the old days are gone buddy and they ain't never coming back.
Garrys300 1 year ago
@Garrys300 "see its attitudes like yours"
Oh yeah, fuckface? It's (not "its", moron) attitudes like yours that's why people worked as serfs & as slaves for most of humanity's history before ppl banded together & demanded better working conditions & a fairer deal. Shitheads like U that just put up with whatever shit the Boss says U have to eat or U don't get to work for him is the reason that they, (the ones that own everything), get to call all the shots since fools like U won't make a stink.
JixMa 1 year ago