Summations Only

Of course it's a fact. That's why I agreed.The point wasn't to agree/disagree with you on if a union would die if it's income was reduced "sufficiently."The point was to understand what you think would be "sufficient" to kill a union.
Do you think once this law comes into effect that unions will all die in a week? A month? A year?
Maybe 85% die within 5 years?
Maybe only 10% in 10 years?The point was to get you away from some vague (and obvious) claim that a union will die if you remove enough of it's income... to understand the specifics you're warning against along the way.Is "any" reduction absolutely a death blow? Again, with vaccinations there are no alternative protections. With unions, there are many labour laws that exist now for alternative protection that will sustain worker rights without the existence of unions. So this use of the analogy is flawed.I agree that ignorance can become an issue.
I would propose that most workers are not flat-earther-level ignoramuses, though. I think they'll be just fine. I'm not sure if I agree with the word "need" (many businesses prosper and have very happy employees without unions).
However, again, I'm not attempting to get rid of unions. I'm merely okay with them not being able to force non-member employees to pay their fees. Right.
Does this mean you agree with me?
Because abuse of power is a problem everywhere... you agree that certain restrictions on the power of unions should be implemented to limit them?Or are you attempting to say that because abuse of power exists everywhere we shouldn't do anything about it in the case of unions? This all seems to lump into one idea: That you think I am against the existence of unions.Again, I don't have an issue with the existence of unions.
I have an issue with the existence of unions that are so powerful they can destroy the company.I am for restrictions on unions to limit their power.
I agree that unions should remain in order to balance the company's power over the employee.
I don't think any problem of worker exploitation is "solved" (for all time).I just don't see an issue with limiting unions by allowing non-member-employees to not pay union fees.It seems to me that this way the unions will gain strength when workers require help attaining industry-standard compensation, and lose strength when workers are content with the compensation they are currently receiving.Do you have an issue with that idea? Or just issues with wiping out the existence of unions? Because I agree with you that removing unions entirely can easily be a bad thing. I'm not arguing such a position and you seem unable to respond to the idea of limiting the power of unions while keeping them alive and well when required.Edited by Stile, : Fixing quotes

Okay.
Seems irrelevant since that's not the position I'm proposing.I'm saying that employer/worker relations is an issue that unions are required to support, just not by forcing non-union member employees to pay union fees.
You keep implying that a reduction in union power via non-union members no longer paying union fees is equivalent to the death of all unions.
I don't think that's true. Agreed. At least certain segments of "Hi-tech" anyway. Probably any where the workers want a union and are willing to pay fees to have one... which is entirely my point. That's not true though, it is?It has the potential to lead to the end of unions. (Must be admitted - I can't read the future)
And it also has the potential to lead to much healthier unions (ones that cannot be corrupted easily) as ones existing today.You seem to be arguing the former.
I seem to be arguing the latter. This seems naively inappropriate.
Why can't abuse of union power be used as a reason to target unions having too much power?
It can't because other people abuse power too?
Why not point out when power is being abused and attempt to prevent it everywhere and anywhere?
Why can't we focus on this one issue and see if it's possible to prevent power corruption? Have you missed the parts where I keep repeating that I am not against the existence of unions?
If you do read those parts... how is your conclusion fair?Again, I am in support of a policy that allows non-union-member employees to not pay union fees.
In order to give power to unions when it's desired by workers, and lower the union's power when it's not desired by workers. Where do you get this idea from?
Again, you seem to imply that all unions are going to die as soon as this regulation starts.
I think you're overstating your case. Or, at least, you have yet to describe why such a thing would happen.I agree they would weaken.
But I also don't think they will all dissolve in the next 12 months.
You do think all unions will be completely gone a year from now? This is incorrect.
I do think they should pay for the representation.I think that when the majority of workers want a union to represent their desires... they should pay the fees and grow the union's strength.
And when the majority of workers do not want a union to represent their desires... then they should be free to stop paying the fees and the union's strength will then weaken. This only makes sense if you equate union's getting fees from all employees to the union's existence.
If 2% of employees do not pay the union fees. I'm sure the union will survive just fine.If 80% of employees do not pay the union fees... it's highly likely that the workers are content with their current compensation plan and do not require a union's services right now... so they don't care if the union weakens (but doesn't entirely die).And if the company progresses in a way that begins to take advantage of the workers again... leading to the workers desiring a union to defend their rights to proper compensation... then they can pay the union fees and grow the union again.The union survives throughout this entire balancing act as it goes back and forth.It doesn't make sense that you imply I don't want to give unions "the means to survive" when I am specifically for allowing the workers to control exactly how much they want the union "to survive."If the union is wonderful... if the workers love it, and feel it's required for their continued levels of compensation... then nothing should change. Union fees would never go down. Can you explain why a union is an insurance policy and not a provider of current, continual service to the worker?
I think most unions would disagree with you...It's more like I'm saying a union shouldn't be able to force employees to pay them when the employees do not require their current, continual service.It's like not paying a plumber a forced, yearly fee after he's already replaced the deteriorating pipes.Pipes will always deteriorate.
But you don't always need a plumber. So what, specifically, is it about unions that you think they are more like insurance policies covering possible future issues... and less like plumber's required to fix issues as they arise?I fully agree that if unions are easily disbanded... and/or difficult to re-instate or revive, then other problems occur. But perhaps then the solution is making unions difficult to disband and easy to re-instate and revive instead of forcing a majority of workers to pay for a service they deem as currently unnecessary?Edited by Stile, : Adding another portion of the message.Edited by Stile, : Adding remainder of message.

Meh. This doesn't seem to be progressing anywhere new and I'm losing interest.Thanks for the discussion.

Makes me wonder if Trump and Kim Jong-un ever played against each other.Make it happen and put it on TV!!

So are you implying that there are pretty much 2 options:There will be some crazy-impeachment-thing at some point, Trump will cease being president and get taken to court.OrTrump will last out the rest of his term, but as soon as he "naturally" ceases to be president... then he'll get taken to court.I suppose I'm asking, in your law-experienced-view, is there any way Trump could end up not being taken to court?I mean, I'm sure there's always "a way" in the sense that no one can read the future and super-surprising things happen every now and then... but I'm just asking in the realistic sort of sense based on the information available to us today.

Extremely possible.But I wouldn't discount the possibility of Trump's idiocy.
I think it's possible he's so dumb he could just be a fan-boy of Putin.
So into personal financial improvement that he would do anything for Putin's approval because he thinks Putin is some sort of person to be idolized.I would bet that your proposed reasoning is more likely.
Just sayin'... Trump's a bit of a dumbass and it's possible his idiocy could extend to such ridiculous levels...

Generally, Canada has had a "brain drain" problem.That is, many of the smartest and brightest of us in various areas (doctors, scientists, engineers, programmers...) learn and grow in Canada, but eventually move to the US in chase of higher $$$.It's always something that's referred to and mentioned whenever a report shows a few people leaving Canada and going to the US.
It's never been (or turned into) a critically issue or criple any industry or anything like that... - but it certainly does exist and can sometimes rise to the level of "significant to mention."This all seems to have been reversed for certain tech industries somewhat due to the current USA immigration policies. Canada is becoming a tech hub. Thanks, Donald Trump!

quote:

---

US companies are going to keep hiring foreign tech workers, even as the Trump administration makes doing so more difficult. For a number of US companies that means expanding their operations in Canada, where hiring foreign nationals is much easier.

​

...

​

CompeteAmerica, a pro-immigration coalition of employers whose members include Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, wrote to Homeland Security last fall saying that Trump’s immigration policies were bad for business and their employees.

​

Business Roundtable, an association of top US CEOs that includes Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Apple’s Tim Cook, and IBM’s Ginni Rometty, expressed a similar sentiment in a letter to Homeland Security last year.

---

So, thanks 'merika! Making Canada Great Again!

I think Trump's a buffoon, too.But this could just as easily be written as:

quote:

---

All countries are constantly oscillating between fighting the virus and reopening the country, and these two simple points explain why:

• If the country reopens more people will get sick and more people will die, killing many people.
• If the country does not reopen the economy will tank, many will go without money/food and an increase in things like riots/theft, killing many people.

---

So - which should we do?Destroy many lives by letting the virus run rampant?
or
Destroy many lives by letting those unable to get government support perish?I think all countries are fighting this same battle, and all are coming to the same conclusion:
-the measures in place must be held for as long as possible (according to economic conditions.)
-as the economy demands it (before too many die from inability to obtain money/food)... they must re-open the economy, slowly
-try to play a balance as much as possible between opening up the economy and keeping the virus-related-issues as minimized as possibleThere will be deaths.
Many from the virus.
Many from families unable to get food/money from government support (have you seen the line outside government buildings lately??)The idea is to attempt to minimize both as best as possible for everyone... so that the largest number of people can survive through this.Choosing "the virus is the most important thing! We mush keep the economy shut off for years until this is taken care of!!" is just as silly, and deadly, as "the economy is the most important thing! We must open the economy fully tomorrow and let the virus run rampant!!"It must be a combination of both - because there is no answer to this where "everyone lives" and "everyone is safe" - there is simply no country, anywhere, that is in a position to do this.If you read behind the political bullshit - you can see that this is exactly what all countries are doing, as well...
All countries have a plan to "open up the economy soon.. with a very careful throttle... not all at once... relaxing restrictions in a very controlled manner."Not all countries have Trump as a leader.
So why are they all planning the same (basic) thing?Because they have to.For finer points - I think you're absolutely correct. Trump can certainly be doing "better."
But you don't seem to be going for "better" - you seem to be going for the extreme position on the other side (keeping everything shut at all costs until the virus is fully eradicated.) This isn't possible/safe in itself - and the economy needs a plan for re-opening, slowly as such a solution is (in a practical sense) too far away to be helpful.Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

One good thing is so many countries taking so many varied approachesWhat they did in the beginning...
What they're doing during the "re-opening" phase...This sort of virus, in this technological anyone/everyone travelling age, is unprecedented.But, eventually (a year or two from now?) we will be able to compare varying strategies.It will be interesting to compare tactics like Sweden (basically - don't shut down anything at all, even in the beginning) - to tactics like some of the hard-core communist countries with harsh/strict punishments on breaking curfew/shut-downs.Are the COVID-19 deaths significantly similar in the end?
If so - then more should follow tactics like Sweden and lessen the damage caused by the economic shutdowns.Are the COVID-19 deaths higher, but a harsh economic shutdown causes economic deaths on it's own?
If so - then more should follow tactics that balance the two as much as possible.Are the COVID-19 deaths significantly lower and economic damage is negligible?
If so - then more should shut down harshly and for longer.These are questions that do not have answers yet (they won't have answers for at least another year or two.)
-Anyone pushing for one over the other with blatant disregard that one of the other "non-favourites" could quite possibly be better - is pushing a personal bias, not looking at reality in order to help the most people through a difficult situation.It is difficult to make the "best decision possible" in an unprecedented event (and it's easily arguable that if anyone does make the best decision - it was mostly lucky.)
-Due to this, it's hard to blame anyone in charge for any decisions that were made
-sure, some are against "COVID-19 doctor recommendations"
-but COVID-19 doctor's do not understand how the economic shutdown, and other health-realated shutdowns (new cancer patients are being delayed treatment...) will also be killing some and how to balance such factors into the equation to make the "best decision."

What will not work (regardless of it's truth/validity
-insulting Trump
-insulting Trump followers
-implying that liberals are better
-anything and everything else that's happened over and over again for the last 20 yearsThe only thing that will work:
-hold politicians accountable
-the last 5 Presidents (or Prime-Ministers, if talking about Canada... which is in the same boat) all deserve jail time for this or that screwing of the people and funneling money away from the country where it should be.
-until rules/regulations/laws are enacted that will jail/punish politicians appropriately, we will be stuck with the corrupt leaders on all sides that currently exist (some more than others, but this is irrelevant at this point.)
-if such regulations were in place the country would fix itself, it would return to where it doesn't really matter if liberals or conservatives are in power... maybe this minor detail or that minor specification would be altered... but nothing country-destroying could happen because then the politician would habe to answer for their crime
-being a politician carries a lot of responsibility and power - maybe even the most responsibility and power; how is it not the job with the highest repercussions for failure???
-people should be scared to become a politician - because if you mess up, you'll be in a heap of trouble
-"oh... but then no one will ever be a politician!!" - not true, only no more corrupt people will be politicians. Good, honest people will not have a problem, and they'll know that.
-what being a politician should not be: is a place for corrupt people to become rich. Which is what it is now. And there's one way to stop it that is easy to do and will fix everything really quickly: hold politicians accountable.Without that "heap of trouble" possibility looming, corrupt politicians will continue to grow worse and worse.If such tools are not enacted, Trump will not be the worst for long. Just wait another 4, 8 or 12 years.