Workers trash Montréal City Hall to protest attacks on pensions

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
swallow swallow's picture

Which is a terrible violation of the principle of bargaining in good faith, as you should know.

Pondering

I do know. I also know that argument won't prevent Bill 3 from going through. Being right isn't good enough. How has being right served moderate progressives/leftists over the past frew decades?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

I do know. I also know that argument won't prevent Bill 3 from going through. Being right isn't good enough. How has being right served moderate progressives/leftists over the past frew decades?

You are right the struggle is too hard and not worth it.  We should all join the Liberal party and start brow beating and intimidating our neighbours who have better pay and benefits than us. Here are some slogans for you Pondering in your campaign to bring sense to the politics of pensions.

Beggar your neighbour for the good of us all.

Nothing for anyone unless I have it first.

The real public interest is self interest.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I do know. I also know that argument won't prevent Bill 3 from going through. Being right isn't good enough. How has being right served moderate progressives/leftists over the past frew decades?

You are right the struggle is too hard and not worth it.  We should all join the Liberal party and start brow beating and intimidating our neighbours who have better pay and benefits than us. Here are some slogans for you Pondering in your campaign to bring sense to the politics of pensions.

Beggar your neighbour for the good of us all.

Nothing for anyone unless I have it first.

The real public interest is self interest.

Just the opposite. I don't even belong to the Liberal party and progressives need to find a better way of educating people than trashing city hall because it's counter productive.

You need to know the frame of mind people are in in order to counter it effectively. You need to understand their belief system and their fears. Neoliberals learned those things to better exploit people, to manipulate them into supporting policies against their own best interests. Neoliberals have done a fabulous job in simultaneously confiscating the people's wealth while convincing them that neoliberalism is the only path to economic survival. The public is cowed to the interests of the wealthy and corporations for fear they will leave and it will impoverish everyone.

The one advantage progressives have is truth. The neoliberal mantra of personal responsibility rests on a whole body of theories that rest on false information and twisted morality. Even lies about the nature of man and woman support the neoliberal model although those will be the last to fall.

When you have the truth and the means of communication you may be David against Goliath but you have a rock and a sling-shot.

P.S. Sherpa-Finn, if you are reading this and you have the time you have mentioned international trade agreements as an avenue of exploration I think to support worker rights if I understood you correctly. I would love to read a thread on that.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You are not a progressive Pondering. Whne you figure our enugh of what the struggle entails then maybe you can dismiss the people on this board who have fought for decdes against the shit. To have you say see they are winning so put up or lose your pensions.

There is not a progressive part of your view on pensions. As for whether you are a Libera,l I don't care whether you are too cheap to send money to the party, but on this site you are clearly a right wing Liberal partisan who seems to try to pretend they are a progressive. I am willing to chalk that up to self delusion instead of guile but frankly your views on labour are right wing and anti-union.

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
You are not a progressive Pondering. Whne you figure our enugh of what the struggle entails then maybe you can dismiss the people on this board who have fought for decdes against the shit. To have you say see they are winning so put up or lose your pensions.

That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying, they are winning, we need to find another approach.

The "right" or "neoliberals" or whatever term you want to use has been targeting people like my sister for decades while the "left" or "progressives" have been targeting government.  The right even stole the "government is evil"argument and used it to their advantage. "Government jobs" have long been considered good jobs to get even back in the 70s. Now getting a government job is like winning the lottery because the private sector has so little to offer.

So now, everyone agrees, the government is evil. The answer from the right is then lets lower taxes and keep money in the pockets of hard working taxpapers who won't waste it. The answer from the left is then lets overthrow the government (or at least elect the NDP).

My sister is convinced that if we don't do something now the city will go bankrupt or be impoverished to the point where services can't be provided any more and the city goes into a deep decline. To her this is fact not theory. This is what will happen if we give in and honor the pensions.

If you genuinely believed that, would you support just continuing along until we walk off the cliff and Montreal becomes a wasteland like Detroit? The wiser course obviously is not to wait as long as Detroit did and tackle the problem now. Many city workers would lose their jobs too so they are being short-sighted or perhaps misled by their union. I don't believe that but what I believe doesn't matter. Telling her what I believe isn't going to change her mind.

Some very smart people have spent decades brainwashing the general public to believe countless lies. It's practically an alternate reality. In my opinion progressives are failing to see the forest for the trees. Progressives are madly throwing water on one tree at a time while the forest is burning and what's needed is a helicopter and fire breaks to prevent spreading.

Occupy was a helicopter but it didn't have enough fuel to stay airborne.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Cry

 

Pondering

The first step on the journey to a solution is recognizing the problem. It's good to try to manage the symptoms but the cure will only come with enlightenment and I don't mean the spiritual or religious kind.

lagatta

As in class consciousness?

Pondering

lagatta wrote:
As in class consciousness?

I hadn't thought of it in those terms but yes absolutely. That is another lie we have been sold, that we live in a classless society because people are free to move between them.

I'd like to discuss this further and I was going to touch on it in the Justin Trudeau thread but I think it more properly belongs in a fresh thread in the activist forum so I will get around to that in the next day or two.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This thread has gone into the absurd.

A Liberal partisan wanting to talk about class consciousness in a Trudeau thread.  I am having a really hard time typing as I laugh.

 

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
This thread has gone into the absurd.

A Liberal partisan wanting to talk about class consciousness in a Trudeau thread.  I am having a really hard time typing as I laugh.

Love your emoticons, I don't see them behind my happy face. 

I am a Justin Trudeau partisan not a Liberal partisan and that is as a result of NDP policy as much as it is his. This is the thread on Bill 3 not on Trudeau.

Slumberjack said everything I meant and don't have the words to express. Just because I don't speak Che Guevara doesn't mean I can't see the truth it just means I can't articulate it in activist language.

Ask firefighters and police if they think of themselves as middle class or working class.

Slumberjack

Just the other day I was discussing the concept of the valorization of work with a co-worker, and how the common view of the proletariat requires a significant update given that today there is significant material value, beyond that of an individual's labour value, in being an organized worker.  Essentially everyone with a stock market investment portfolio, including partial ownership of pension plan funds, is essentially a member of the petite-bourgeoisie who are traditionally recognized as a class that aspires to the status of bourgeoisie, which is Capitalism's ideal of upward mobility that everyone should be striving toward.  In capitalist societies the desire to attain bourgeoise status begins at the level of the proletariat.  In fact, capitalist propaganda continues to hold out to the proletariat the 'dream' of upward social mobility as an ideal that everyone should be continue to strive toward even in the worst economic situations.  If we're to talk about class consciousness and capitalist economies it can only be discussed in terms of an ephermeral proletariat that only ever existed as such, and which today more resembles a type of purgatory that workers would prefer to escape from.  Hence the popularity of lotteries.

A re-think of what should be thought of today as 'the proletariat' will likely help inform us about the re-direction of the NDP over the years, particularly when considering the NDP's tradtional base of support within established labour organizations.  Far less emphasis overall is given to the 'social' aspects, which have been replaced by questions pertaining to how capitalist development and growth is to be managed, and how a government in waiting can affect a seemless handover of all of the responsibilities entrusted to it, complete with shadow portfolios that more resemble mirrors of what already exists.

The proletariat's objective of obtaining a share of the capitalist pie and a 50 x 100 piece of bulldozed eco-system, no matter how such an effort is organized, essentially amounts to class unconsciousness.

Slumberjack

Pondering wrote:
Slumberjack said everything I meant and don't have the words to express. Just because I don't speak Che Guevara doesn't mean I can't see the truth it just means I can't articulate it in activist language.

Rats.  I was aiming for post-structuralist speak.

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Slumberjack said everything I meant and don't have the words to express. Just because I don't speak Che Guevara doesn't mean I can't see the truth it just means I can't articulate it in activist language.

Rats.  I was aiming for post-structuralist speak.

I'm not good with accents.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

I'd like to discuss this further and I was going to touch on it in the Justin Trudeau thread but I think it more properly belongs in a fresh thread in the activist forum so I will get around to that in the next day or two.

Pondering wrote:

 This is the thread on Bill 3 not on Trudeau.

Sorry for trying to respond to what you write. I'll try in the future to just guess what you mean instead.

Pondering wrote:

Slumberjack said everything I meant and don't have the words to express. Just because I don't speak Che Guevara doesn't mean I can't see the truth it just means I can't articulate it in activist language.

You are hilarious.  Did you actually read what Slumberjack wrote? You can start a group, "Post-Modern Revolutionaries for Trudeau." Here is a good quote from Che about the prospect of Trudeau leading us.

Che wrote:

Cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel!

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
You are hilarious.  Did you actually read what Slumberjack wrote? You can start a group, "Post-Modern Revolutionaries for Trudeau." Here is a good quote from Che about the prospect of Trudeau leading us.

That's very interesting. Seems more like you don't understand what Slumberjack wrote which is about the need for the NDP to do a better job of understanding who NDP target voters are in modern society in order to figure out how to reach them.

Canadian have also bought into the "American" dream of home ownership and pensions and maybe even their kids entering the class above them. They dream of joining the wealthy through winning the lottery not overturning the system. The basic model of society is accepted as normal and right along with the assumption that we basically live in a meritocracy even if some people are luckier than others. This "essentially amounts to class unconsciousness".

I may not have understood the entire message exactly right but I think I understood the basic message.

I will add that my sister is a worker too, she just never had the good fortune to get a union job. Being in a union industry/job is practically winning the lottery now.

Worker is pitted against worker. If my sister is your enemy then you have lost the war.

Slumberjack

Pondering wrote:
I may not have understood the entire message exactly right but I think I understood the basic message.

I can't deny that a lot of that has to do with the way its presented.  There's no particular insight there that couldn't be better articulated.  Che was actually quite good at it.

Slumberjack

Pondering wrote:
I'm not good with accents.

You mean with accents other than a Liberal one?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering it is the disconnect between posts iike this last one and your support of Trudeau that causes me to laugh at you.  The answer is not a Liberal government no matter what you think the problem is.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Pondering it is the disconnect between posts iike this last one and your support of Trudeau that causes me to laugh at you.  The answer is not a Liberal government no matter what you think the problem is.

That you think electoral politics is "the solution" to a problem is sweet. There have been NDP provincial governments in Canada and while they have instituted some great policies isn't Quebec the most socialist province of all? Surely the NDP have been in charge often enough provincially to have shown us the promised land by now.

Those NDP governments must be bastions of reform, paragons of open data,defenders of the scandinavian approach to government. Which ones have managed to pass proportional representation again?  Unions must be doing great in NDP provinces, why don't I hear more about that? Is the MSM keeping it a secret? Has there been a wave of progressiveness sweeping the nation that I missed?

Don't blame the liberals for the NDP's failure to convince people that they are the cure to what ails Canada.

While Mulcair is probably the better choice electorally, I would support the NDP if Linda McQuiag were leader, or if Mulcair supported what she says. It seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too. You can't be both Liberal lite and the undisputed party of social justice.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I am not a NDP partisan so please save your insistent Liberal talking points for someone else.  The NDP does not enter the equation. What you don't understand it seems is that the Liberals are a neo-conservative party and wil not govern in a progressive manner. That is what history teaches us.  If you feel the need to delude yourself that is your choice but I can't help the fact that your Liberal talking points are something to laugh at.

I find ridicule to be effective and fun response to right wing assholes who try to talk over any and all conversations so I thought I would give it a try on you even though you are merely a right wing twit.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I am not a NDP partisan so please save your insistent Liberal talking points for someone else.  The NDP does not enter the equation.

There are only three parties capable of winning the next federal election. I keep forgetting you support nothing so you can troll without opening yourself up to criticism.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I find ridicule to be effective and fun response to right wing assholes who try to talk over any and all conversations so I thought I would give it a try on you even though you are merely a right wing twit.

Trying to elevate your trolling is lame. You must have told your mom some whoppers. You have no respect for the moderators or this site or the people who are trying to have thoughtful sincere discussions. I'm sure you are just itching to make fun of that last bit.

In post 53 YOU raised the topic of the liberal party in this thread. In post 55 you went straight into full on troll mode. I repeatedly tried to bring the topic back to pensions and public support.

You come into threads, raise the topic of me and my support for Trudeau then berate me for defending myself.  In post 62 you said this:

"A Liberal partisan wanting to talk about class consciousness in a Trudeau thread.  I am having a really hard time typing as I laugh."

This was not a Trudeau thread until you turned it into one in your eagerness to bait me.

P.S. Your trolling started at least back on post #42 not #55 I just ignored it. Ooops, wrong again, your first post in this thread, #11, was about me.  I am not taking your BS and your trolling won't drag me into a flame war.

If you want to discuss me that badly just start a bash Pondering thread and have at it. I officially announce to  the mods I'm fine with it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Your anti-union animus started at the beginning of this thread. You continue to want to argue that public pensions have to be proven to be a good thing in society. That is a direct breach of the policy of babble. You are an anti-union, Liberal loving twit.

By the way the government in Quebec City is a Liberal government and that is why your Liberal bias is relevant to this thread as well.

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Your anti-union animus started at the beginning of this thread. You continue to want to argue that public pensions have to be proven to be a good thing in society. That is a direct breach of the policy of babble. You are an anti-union, Liberal loving twit.

By the way the government in Quebec City is a Liberal government and that is why your Liberal bias is relevant to this thread as well.

I vote Quebec Solidaire provincially and stop lying about me. Seriously, if you must talk about me request a thread. I won't oppose it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If you must post anti-union tripe please go to another chat site.

I don't believe anything you say about your past voting practices because I don't trust you. I only believe what I read and I read a hyper partisan Liberal.  The secret ballot is secret after all. 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If you must post anti-union tripe please go to another chat site.

I don't believe anything you say about your past voting practices because I don't trust you. I only believe what I read and I read a hyper partisan Liberal.  The secret ballot is secret after all. 

You have already admitted twice, in this thread and another, that you are trolling because it amuses you. If you must post personal attacks please request a dedicated thread where you can be a jerk without turning every thread into one about me. Your obsession is getting creepy. You are not going to drive me off this site.

I'm saving your comments on how you get your jollies from trolling. It probably wasn't a good idea to admit it twice. You may not be as clever as you think you are.

Bärlüer

Here's an op-ed published in Le Devoir arguing that there is a substantial case to be made that Bill 3 is unconstitutional because it violates section 2d) of the Charter, which protects freedom of association (which itself guarantees the right to collective bargaining).

cco

Would that apply to all back-to-work legislation as well?

Unionist

cco wrote:
Would that apply to all back-to-work legislation as well?

We may have to [url=http://nupge.ca/content/11643/supreme-court-hearing-today-whether-right-... until 2015[/url] to find out.

My uneducated guess/hope? Yes - except where a government can make a Section 1 argument:

Quote:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

E.g., strikes which have some big impact on the rights of others or on the "economy" etc. might be exceptions, on a case by case basis.

But Bärlüer will be better positioned to answer.

Thanks for that link, Bärlüer!

 

Bärlüer

Back-to-work legislation can be drafted in a number of ways and entail different consequences, so the analysis will vary on a case-by-case basis. (</standard lawyerly disclaimer>)

That said, Unionist is absolutely right that we'll have a much better picture once the Supreme Court renders its decision in the Saskatchewan case (which concerns the constitutional protection of the right to strike [the other issue is the process to obtain certification {in that case, abolition of card check}, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one...]).

Also of importance will be the decision of the Supreme Court in the Meredith case (which the Court heard before the Saskatchewan case). This case is about unilateral reductions of previously scheduled wage increases (whether through a government decision [Treasury Board] or through legislation — both are involved in this case).

Having heard part of the Saskatchewan hearing, I'm cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will recognize some form of constitutional protection for the right to strike — they very well might fashion some sort of relatively "circumscribed" protection. But you never know, of course...

In my view, Meredith should be an easier case to make than the Saskatchewan one, as it merely requires the application of already established case law (I'm referring here to the Health Services decision of the Supreme Court, which invalidated the prior jurisprudence of the Court, and recognized constitutional protection for collective bargaining). (EDIT: I should note however that the case is somewhat complicated by the peculiar negotiation mechanism that is in place for the negotiation of the working conditions of RCMP members, both on the employer side of things and on the union side. Another case heard together with Meredith in fact challenges the labour relations regime established for RCMP members.) And yet the Federal Court of Appeal, overturning the Federal Court and reading (IMO) the principles established in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence very narrowly and restrictively, didn't even find a s. 2d) violation... (So it didn't even get to the s. 1 analysis that Unionist evokes.)

So... we'll see...

Bärlüer

I should also note that one reason to entertain cautious optimism is that Justice Louis LeBel, who will quit in November because he will have reached the mandatory retirement age, was on the bench for all these cases. LeBel is the court's foremost labour law expert and wrote, with Chief Justice McLachlin, the seminal Health Services judgment (and subsequent Fraser decision). Even though he will quit in November, he will participate in the drafting of the remaining judgments for cases where he sat on the bench.

All the above-mentioned cases were heard with a (the same) 7-member bench. A favourable aspect is that Moldaver (part of the more conservative wing of the Court, with Rothstein and [to a lesser degree] Wagner) wasn't sitting. There's a strong chance that Rothstein and Wagner will dismiss the unions' submissions in the above-mentioned cases. There is a substantial chance that LeBel and Abella will grant at least part of the unions' submissions. McLachlin, Karakatsanis and Cromwell are harder to predict. However, it's not implausible that the McLachlin-LeBel pattern of co-authoring the Court's constitutional labour law judgments might be repeated.

We'll see...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In BC we know this one well.  It is the teachers our Liberal government are attacking currently.  They ripped up the collective agreements of teachers and health care workers and the SCC has told them twice it is a breach of the workers Charter rights. Apparently most people who support the Conservatives and Liberals think that ripping up contracts with civil servants is fine if it saves money. However that is anti-union and not progressive in the least. Hell even the SCC thinks it is wrong but I guess since some peoples sisters are worried about the budget babble should be a place to rehash the basics of labour rights in this countryt.

Tell me Unionist what is the QS postion on this pension debacle. I find it hard to believe that they support the position that Pondering is advocating. I can't read French and the English coverage on the QS is very limited.

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Apparently most people who support the Conservatives and Liberals think that ripping up contracts with civil servants is fine if it saves money. However that is anti-union and not progressive in the least. Hell even the SCC thinks it is wrong but I guess since some peoples sisters are worried about the budget babble should be a place to rehash the basics of labour rights in this countryt.

Tell me Unionist what is the QS postion on this pension debacle. I find it hard to believe that they support the position that Pondering is advocating. I can't read French and the English coverage on the QS is very limited.

Apparently some people are too bigoted to understand that the right is pitting worker against worker so they just get suckered into attacking non-unionized workers like my sister as though they are the enemy.

Apparently some peope are too bigoted to understand that I support honoring the contracts assuming it doesn't drive Montreal into bankrupcy. I just don't think the battle can be won by trashing city hall which some people think is an effective tactic for winning support for a cause.

Apparently some people are too bigoted to understand that the union battle is being fought on a stack of lies that people believe. As long as people believe those lies the war is being lost. I guess that's just too complicated a concept for a bigot to grasp.

I support QS even though they are separatist because they are genuinely devoted to social justice for all unlike some union workers who only care about themselves and don't give a shit about all the non-union workers like my sister who are frightened and struggling.

Ironic, both the wealthy and unions use the trickle down theory on the less fortunate.

Perhaps unions have forgotten that their power came from public support first not from the courts.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Let me know when you get past thinking that contracts need to be ripped up based on the assuption that it will cause the city to go backrupt. How the pensions are funded needs to change but on this board there is no way that going after the workers because of neo-con incompetence is supposed to be allowed. They are not the problem and you should be trying to educate your sister about that truth not coming here to debate the fundamentals of labour rights. It is a the Charter right for labour but you think that there shoud be caveats on it based on neo-con economics.  That is the problem I have with your drivel in this thread, you want to discuss when union workers should have their Charter rights ignored.

 

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 

Tell me Unionist what is the QS postion on this pension debacle. I find it hard to believe that they support the position that Pondering is advocating. I can't read French and the English coverage on the QS is very limited.

 

QS basically:

1. Condemns the Liberal government for its wholesale interference in free collective bargaining on pensions.

2. Demands that the hearings be conducted seriously and that conclusions not be "written in advance", rather than inciting needless confrontations with the unions.

3. Says that what's really needed is to improve the RRQ (our equivalent of the CPP) to benefit all, and points favourably to Ontario's stated intent to move in that direction.

It's [url=http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/les-conclusions-de-la-commission-parlemen... in French.

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Let me know when you get past thinking that contracts need to be ripped up based on the assuption that it will cause the city to go backrupt. How the pensions are funded needs to change but on this board there is no way that going after the workers because of neo-con incompetence is supposed to be allowed. They are not the problem and you should be trying to educate your sister about that truth not coming here to debate the fundamentals of labour rights. It is a the Charter right for labour but you think that there shoud be caveats on it based on neo-con economics.  That is the problem I have with your drivel in this thread, you want to discuss when union workers should have their Charter rights ignored.

You need to stick to expressing your own views rather than projecting views on me that I do not hold. Either you are trolling or severely lacking in reading comprehension. Your lies about me are completely out of line and are beginning to rise to the level of harrassment.

Stop attacking me.

lagatta

Merci, Unionist. You've saved me the trouble of looking that up. I'm just waking up (late for me, but I had a wonderful sleep - it turned quite cool last night and I pulled the duvet up, and had Renzo at my feet).

Actually, some of the most progressive legislation in Québec was under the PQ's first term.

Both Françoise and Amir voted NDP in the 2011 Federal Election. As the elected members in my ridings, Françoise David and Alexandre Boulerice are cooperating in a very interesting initiative to increase the rights of and improve the condition of those precariously employed, including (often "fake") freelancers. I'll probably still vote NDP because of my MP, but some friends in Outremont riding say they won't vote for Mulcair because of his far too "pro-Israel" stance (or perhaps better, uncritically pro-Israel in the face of the Gaza massacre).

Trudeau is even worse than Mulcair on Israel-Palestine, by the way.

It is rather funny to be discussing the "trashing" of City Hall when all the supposed "damage" has been cleaned up long ago.

Improving the RRQ would be necessary to combat poverty among pensioners, but the income supplement has to be increased as well. Moreover, I believe the latter is not payable outside Canada, making it impossible for poor pensioners to move elsewhere (often back to their home countries). A friend of mine would probably move back to Argentina if she could collect her income supplement there, as it would be worth more (and while Argentina is a country of the global South with all that entails in terms of neo-colonialism, it is a country with very good healthcare, at least in major centres).

More and better social housing is also a key factor in reducing poverty and insuring income security.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

You need to stick to expressing your own views rather than projecting views on me that I do not hold. Either you are trolling or severely lacking in reading comprehension. Your lies about me are completely out of line and are beginning to rise to the level of harrassment.

Stop attacking me.

Quote:

Secondly, public employees need to understand the many of the people paying for their salaries and pensions have a lower income and no pension at all. Public infrastructure needs work, low income housing, and city services in general are stressed. We are paying more and more user fees.

The argument I have heard that the contracts were negotiated in good faith and that pension benefits were accepted in lieu of salary increases. That it is true doesn't mean they were reasonable and if it isn't reasonable then it cannot continue in perpetuity and must be renegotiated. The government is claiming that people are living longer than expected which means it is more expensive than was foreseen therefore the funds simply aren't available. If that is true then pensions have to be renegotiated. If it's not true, then that is the argument the unions have to communicate to the public.

This is your first post in this thread and it is what what I continue to attack.  You can just admit you were wrong and out of line to call for the renegotiation of Charter protected contracts. As in all human rights issues, the fact that you don't believe that your words are anti-union is irrelevant.

There is no either or when it comes to Charter rights. You wouldn't say that if treaty rights cost too much money they need to be rewritten.  You fail to see that reopening union contracts is not on the table and should not be discussed on this board.  Why don't you do some reading on the funding options for pensions and report back on progressive ways of fixing the problem instead of demanding that union workers prove the unprovable or lose part of their pensions.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
This is your first post in this thread and it is what what I continue to attack.  You can just admit you were wrong and out of line to call for the renegotiation of Charter protected contracts.

And you need to pick up on your reading comprehension. I did not call for the renegotiation of contracts. I stated it was the argument being put forth to the people that needed to be countered, not what I believed, and you even quoted my last statement, apparently without reading it.

If it's not true, then that is the argument the unions have to communicate to the public.

Soon after you stated:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Dave W your scenario is illogical because it is based on the premise that there are available actions to be taken by the unions that could change the outcome once a neo-con government has decided on its course. 

The union denounced the trashing of city hall. You are saying workers might as well trash city hall because the union is helpless. So apparently you are pro-riot and think unions are helpless. That doesn't sound very pro-union to me.

I pointed out that with a majority the government can force through whatever legislation they want so the union needs public support which is not attained through trashing city hall.

My solution for countering a majority government is the union communicating with the public, your solution is riots.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
This is your first post in this thread and it is what what I continue to attack.

That's right because paying attention to subsequent posts that clarify my position would make it more difficult to ridicule me which you already explained is fun for you. Just don't expect me to cooperate with your vendetta or hobby or whatever it is.

You destructfully derail threads by making them about me instead of whatever topic they are supposed to be about because you want to drive me off the site or get me banned. I'm not the one talking over people. You are.

Instead of trying to justify your behavior just stop doing it. Discuss the topic at hand, not me. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

The union denounced the trashing of city hall. You are saying workers might as well trash city hall because the union is helpless. So apparently you are pro-riot and think unions are helpless. That doesn't sound very pro-union to me.

I have never said any such thing. The absurdity of that statement is boundless.

It is also the case on this board that one can not use sock puppets to argue against the fundamentals of workers rights so the fact that you use the third person voice is irrelevant.

Collective bargaining is a Charter right this is not a place to discuss why some people believe it is necesary to breach those rights. How many times do you have to hear the same thing.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The union denounced the trashing of city hall. You are saying workers might as well trash city hall because the union is helpless. So apparently you are pro-riot and think unions are helpless. That doesn't sound very pro-union to me.

I have never said any such thing. The absurdity of that statement is boundless.

It is also the case on this board that one can not use sock puppets to argue against the fundamentals of workers rights so the fact that you use the third person voice is irrelevant.

Collective bargaining is a Charter right this is not a place to discuss why some people believe it is necesary to breach those rights. How many times do you have to hear the same thing.

I think this is the perfect place to think about how to counter neo-whatever brainwashing. It's not up to you to decide what gets discussed. If the discussion contravenes policy alert the moderators.

Slumberjack called you on the same point in post #30 (that unions are helpless against a neo-con government therefore the trashing of city hall was justified). So, not so absurd. See how it feels now? You clarified in your next post but that doesn't matter by your standards does it. I should just double down on the original interpretation of your comments as the right one.

I was and am making the argument that with a majority government the legislation can be rammed through therefore convincing the public to support them is important. Trashing city hall undermines their ability to do that.I am not alone in that opinion in this thread.

I addressed the complexity of trying to convince people that the union is right because public opinon is resting on a whole pack of lies. Lies about how Detroit ended up bankrupt and lies about the free market and lies about international trade and even lies about the very nature of man and woman.

The people who have bought into the lies and are struggling to succeed are not the enemy. My sister is no sock puppet. Legatta said her neighbour doesn't understand her support for the workers because she doesn't have a pension herself. She has right-wing relatives that I assume are not wealthy oligarchs. She is highly knowledgable and yet she cannot even begin to get through to them.

There is nothing offensive about my perspective on this topic.

There is no reason for you to be attacking me in this sustained manner. You started in post 11 and you haven't let up since. I ignored a bunch of your early attacks in favor of conversations with others. At one point I tried to lighten it up by commenting on your emoticons.

I think maybe one of your posts wasn't about me in this thread. You have nothing constructive to add to the conversation but you think you should dictate what everyone else talks about. You made this thread toxic with your insistent attacks.

I wish you would stop reading my posts with an eye to what you can use to attack me with and try to understand what I'm actually saying instead.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Whatever Pondering. When called on the content of your posts you go sideways and never back down on any point in any thread. Your consistency is admirable. You claim you care about workers and your statements should not be taken at face value. From your posts you claim to be a female federal Liberal who supports the QS for the National Assembly.  Your posts do not read like a supporter of the QS. There is no doubt about your love for Trudeau and his fake brand of populism.

onlinediscountanvils

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Laughing

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Whatever Pondering. When called on the content of your posts you go sideways and never back down on any point in any thread. Your consistency is admirable. You claim you care about workers and your statements should not be taken at face value. From your posts you claim to be a female federal Liberal who supports the QS for the National Assembly.  Your posts do not read like a supporter of the QS. There is no doubt about your love for Trudeau and his fake brand of populism.

I never claimed to be a Liberal and as to the rest believe what you like. Who do think cares so much about what you think of me. You claim to be an adult and I pretend to believe that despite your behavior. Open up a thread where you can collect all your evidence against me in one place. If you don't do it I'll open one for you.

And while I am at it I was so shocked I didn't even respond to the following:

Unionist wrote:
Lagatta - do me a personal favour - do not respond to diversionary bs by someone who doesn't side with the workers' cause. Thanks.

Seriously, where do you get off asking people not to talk to me. Don't you think it's time to leave high-school bully tactics behind?

Neither of you has to like me, or believe a word I say. It doesn't give either of you the right to target and harass me.

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

LOL, I needed this laugh. Thanks ODA :-)

Unionist

alan smithee wrote:

We should support en masse our fire fighters and police officers.

Perhaps then they would change their perspective about anti-austerity protests in general.

It also exposes their bosses as heavy handed and overbearing.

This is one of the conversations I was hoping we could have. Of course I agree with alan. The answer to divide and rule is unite and fight back - no matter how difficult and unlikely unity may seem.

 

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/pension-protest-brings-out-thousa... demonstrate against attack on municipal workers' pensions[/url]

ETA: What a great demo! You can see 35 more photos of it [url=http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2014/09/20/grande-manifestation-contre-....

 

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-city-hall-fires-6-firefi... City Hall fires 6 firefighters for role in violent pension protest - Dozens of Montreal firefighters face charges of assault, unlawful assembly and mischief[/url]

And La Presse says the president of the union has been fired as well.

Though this is an action of Coderre and his gang, the provincial Liberals (minister Moreau) have already weighed in praising this move.

And I'd still be interested in hearing whether that Richard Bergeron character will stand with Coderre or with the workers. He hasn't done too well so far.

 

Pages