I wrote that the Cdn Revenue Agency and the Cdn Heritage Fd do NOT define whether or not a union creates a robust economy. Just because you say that the Cdn economy is good, does not mean that it is robust because of unions! And certainly, neither agency has made that claim!

My mixing up of ‘Article’ and ‘Amendment’ does not take away the substance of my comment that it is utterly invalid to compare a union to a national legislature.

Ahh, so now we come to what do unions do..and you come up with ’8 hour day, child labor law and work safety’ – none of which require a union and all of which are the result of legislative, not union, agendas and activities. So, now that we have such laws, what do unions do? Hmmm?

Again, article one refers to the institution of a governmental legislature and it is a false analogy to try to say that a union is comparable.

If, as you declare (and this is debatable) a company’s sole agenda is to make as much money as possible, then, this has to include a constructive and supportive workforce. Otherwise, the products and services would be subject to indifferent work. Therefore, a good management rewards its workers. NO need – absolutely no need..for a union.

You really don’t understand much about economics, do you? Using the definition supplied by the Immigration Dept is a valid means of defining ‘what is an investor’. It refers, as a description, to both immigrants and citizens.

And citing 23 billionaires is NOT a CLASS! Nor is the Investor Class made up only of billionaires. Read the Immigration stats again..and realize that very, very few Canadians can invest that kind of money. Canada does not have an Investor Class.

As for your remarks about Mexico’s lack of ‘organized labor’ – you wrote that, and you did NOT include the qualifier ‘in the private sector’. Read what you wrote in #12,and in 321 and #29 where you state that Mexico has no organzed labor..and this is without that qualifier of ‘in the private sector’. I didn’t distort your statements; you made them.

Oh, speaking of ‘lies’..

Please read your post #21, where you state that Mexico has ‘virtually no organized labor’. Please note the absence of the qualifier ‘in the private sector’. And also #12, where you again state ‘there is virtually no organized labor in Mexico’. Again, note the absence of the qualifier. hmm.

Oh, and you didn’t provide any evidence for your above noted opinion.

Defining a union as ‘providing representation’ as its only benefit is trivial. There is no need for a worker to pay the massive dues for ‘representation’. You can achieve the same result of representation with a shop steward, with participatory management. No need for the dues, no need for the development of massive parastic corporations that move into political lobbying, that force wages up, force prices up, result in lowering of the quality of work..etc.

And comparing a union to a legislature is an invalid analogy. A union does not act as the administration of the company, while a national legislature does. A national legislature defines the economic infrastructure of the ‘company’ (i.e. the nation); its internal and foreign relations and infrastructure. A union does none of the above and is supposed to represent only the factors of the workplace. Your analogy is weak and again, there is no need to set up a union to act merely as ‘a representative’.

Friedman and Sherk, among so many others, point out that unions DO harm the economy. You have nothing to say about their research that concludes how, exactly, unions harm the economy. By the way, are you, like them, an economist? Check out Sherk’s references to his article. He knows what he’s talking about.

Oh, and you provide no evidence for your conclusions that unions don’t cost jobs, increase costs etc..in Canada. Why don’t you provide this evidence?

The private sector unions in Canada cost jobs and increase costs of the goods- as evidenced by the loss of jobs in the auto industry in Ontario, in the forestry in BC, manfacturing in Ontario and Quebec, etc..and in the public sector, in health care, education.

The public sector tries to raise taxes to pay for its bloated staff..but..this eventually runs out (as in California).

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2009/12/c6633.html

The above is from the public sector union Executive in Canada, insisting that unless the govt comes up with more money, massive public sector job losses will result. More money? Is that because the unionized job wage increases are 3% more than the non-unionized private sector? Is that because of the cost of the extra benefits..which include such ‘goodies’ as banking your sick days and taking them as up to SIX MONTHS extra salary when you retire? Oh..and the fact that the unionized companies and the public sector..can’t pay the cost of the bloated pensions of these union workers?

Your ‘rebuttal’ to the experts of Friedman and Sherk, has been to provide only example (your Canadian example is invalid because of the large loss of jobs in Canada). And your example of Mexico is invalid because both the public and private sector in Mexico are unionized and you totally ignore that the poverty in Mexico is not related merely to unionization but to its late industrialization ..Europe, US and Canada were industrialized in the 19th c..not 1930..and its embeddedness within the US economy..and its corruption and its refusal to develop an economy outside of the main cities.

Again, how do unions benefit the workers? And your claim that they ‘provide repesentation’ is not merely weak but trivial. Further, your rebuttal arguments citing Canada and Mexico are filled with inaccuracies (no, I’m not calling you a liar;I’m an adult and I don’t play the schoolyard game of ‘liar, liar’).

Your sentence” If the vast majority of union members in Canada do not work in the economy how are they causing the harm to it’..is totally unintelligible. Obviously a ‘union member’ who is working IS in the economy. And my point is that a union harms the economy. Just because one is working within a union doesn’t mean that the union isn’t harming the economy..with its unequal wages, benefits, increase of costs.

On the issue of the benefits to a workforce that are provided by unions. It’s very simple, they provide representation. Just like a legislature. In both you elect your leaders to pursue an agenda. If they fail to deliver you elect new leaders or start a new union. Just like you would in a legislative process. In almost every rebuttal you’ve made on this point you have tried to change to subject and ask how a union benefits the economy. I’m not speaking to that at all. All I’ve ever stated is that unions provide a very important benefit to the workforce and do not harm the economy.

Now on your point that “employee input into company management” replaces the need for unions is absurd. If you really think that, do you also feel that the US Congress and all state legislatures should be disbanded and replaced with a “voter input into government management” agency?

On my view on Friedman and Sherk, you are once again misquoting me. They do state that unions cost jobs, reduce the workforce, increase the costs of goods and services, and create an elite sector of the workforce. My rebuttal to that has always been then why hasn’t the virtual absence of unions the Mexico’s private sector lead to increased jobs, increase in the workforce, decrease the costs of goods and services, and an the elimination of an elite sector of the workforce. I further confirm that conclusion by pointing out that the lost jobs, reduction in the workforce, increase in the costs of goods and services, and the creation of an elite sector of the workforce haven’t occurred in Canada. I never stated that F&S stated my rebuttals. I did state that their views are proven false by what has occurred in Canada and Mexico.

On your point that I denied Mexico has no organized labor is false. I never stated that. My specific statement was that there is virtually no organized labor in Mexico’s private workforce. The numbers you cited were not attributed to any government agency or confirmed by independent organization (like mine were). So if Mexico’s private sector is highly unionized what is the exact percentage? Where do you learn this? And why are these unions hiding these “facts”? It would seem counter-productive to hide that from potentially new members in their country wouldn’t it? As for the stats you cited for Canadian union membership where specifically to you learn this? And if Canada has almost 2/3 of it’s union members working for the government how do the unions in Canada “cost jobs, reduce the workforce, increase the costs of goods and services, and create an elite sector of the workforce”? That doesn’t make sense. So cite where you obtained this information. It’s ironic that if you are able to provide any such credible evidence, you will be undermining your opinion that unions are bad for an economy. If the fast majority of union members in Canada do not work in the economy how are they causing the harm to it that you claim? I await your response. Remember I’m interested in facts not myths.

Now, back to the Unions. What ‘inaccuracies’ did I state that you corrected? And again, what are the benefits of a union?

You haven’t provided any evidence – not a speck of evidence – that unions are beneficial to a workforce, and saying that they are, because the workers elect their union representatives, is a trivial irrelevance. It is not a value that provides any benefit to the workers. How does electing a union executive benefit the workers? And a union executive does not make laws. Establishing rules and regulations within a work environment does not require a union.

Most companies work closely with their workers and you could find that out yourself by googling such terms s ‘employee input into company management’. The practice is widespread and has been for years. Google that – and you’ll get about a million hits. These will show you how management regularly have staff and worker meetings to work on improving goods and services. But, of course, you don’t believe such collaboration has been ongoing for years and without unions. You could also try phrases like ‘performance management’, participative management; etc. Business programs in colleges and universities devote a great deal of time to this type of workplace collaboration. No unions are needed.

No, the views of Friedman and Sherk..and I hope you realize these are two different authors and two different books..are not contradicted by Canadian and Mexican realities. They do NOT state that the absence of unions should eliminate Mexican poverty or indeed, any poverty. They DO state that unions cost jobs, reduce the workforce, increase the costs of goods and services, and create an elite sector of the workforce.

When I’m speaking of an Investor Class, I’m hardly using the ambiguous general meaning of a Webster’s Dictionary. I’m using the economic meaning of a particular CLASS who can invest in the infrastructural economy of the country by paying for developing an industry, hiring workers etc. Sheesh.

My comment about the definition of an Investor Class is not a belief but a fact. I provided an example; it’s a part of the definition of an immigrant to Canada and the USA. If you want to immigrate to Canada within the term ‘Investor’, you must be prepared to invest that amount..Same with the US.

This is a credible definition of what it means to function within the Investor Class in each country. This definition applies not only to immigrants but defines your economic role as a citizen.

http://www.immigration.ca/permres-business-investor.asp

http://www.immigration.ca/us/investmentfaq.asp

You originally denied that Mexico had any unionization at all; but the reality is that it has a very high rate of unionization in both public and private areas (28%). And no, in Canada, the greatest percentage (about 60%) of unionization is in the public not private sector..which is only about 20% of the total of about 30%.

With your perspective of the benefits of unionization, then, Mexico ought to be as well off as Canada. But it isn’t.

Again, you haven’t provided any evidence for the benefits of a union – and claiming that workers can elect an executive, who make rules..is not, in itself, evidence of any benefit. The workers don’t need to pay dues for such a workplace arrangement (rules of work).