# Would you like fries with that?



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

This just made me laugh out loud and almost fall off my chair.
The temerity of these guys just blows my mind away.

*CAW urges government to protect auto sector; reduce loonie, change trade policy*

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/art...auto-sector-reduce-loonie-change-trade-policy

_The proposals also include all levels of government agreeing to purchase vehicles from automakers that have made manufacturing commitments to the country. This would include Crown corporations and vehicles used by government-financed public services such as education and health care, it said.

The union also suggested the loonie should be brought back down to a "fair-value" level. Possible moves could include an intervention from the Bank of Canada or the government preventing foreign takeovers of resource assets, the union said._

Nice, so the auto unions will now dictate fiscal policy to the Ministry of Finance, monetrary policy to the Bank of Canada, foreign and trade policy to the Federal Govt. and of course their traditional bastion - labour laws/policies to all levels of govt.

What else would you like served with that?
Perhaps a 1983 Bordeaux?


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

They are doing this because they know their labour contracts are no longer competitive and it's just getting worse. As companies are squeezing for profits and business is changing, labour costs are being looked at as a better choice in the competitive free market. (ie no union) There is a non-support shift starting against unions by companies and governments. The trend is continuing this way and they see it getting worse for them. (unions)


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Unions were made to protect workers from their basic rights, discrimination, abuse etc. Now we are in the 21 century and there are codes and laws set out so we are all treated equally on that level. 

Unions trade productivity for job security and member's pay a fee for this. For businesses this is bad as there is no incentive to reward based on a fair performance scale. In the competitive, union free labour market, everyone is forced to become competitive which benefits employees and employers with appropriate pay and jobs, based on skill and performance. This provides value to both parties- employers gets good workers and employees get job security by being valuable to the company. 

Union members can then save their $25 per cheque and invest the money back into companies to seed further growth, allowing more expansion and hiring. Unions cause companies to not reach their potential of higher profits and growth. This in its self is more valuable to everyone, rather than just the union workers contract.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

They are basically just asking for welfare.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

If it is welfare, fine, just say so.
We did it once (actually several times) and can do it again.

Why hatch such a complicated and sophistcated looking scheme?

These guys were on the Lang O'Leary Exchange tonight - about an hr. ago.
I guess they got what they wanted - 3 mins. of TV time.

I fell out of the chair for a second time - these guys seriously want the Bank of Canada to _lower_ interest rates to weaken the CAD against other currencies just so that they can sell their stupid cars cheaper.
For a second I thought today was 1st April, but no it is the 16th.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

The union leadership want to go back to 1988. Those were the glory days of unions.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

The CAW is and has, so blatently, had only the CAW's best interests as their only concern, that I think most Canadians with any intelligence have stopped listening to what they have to say.

Perhaps they will gain some traction and support outside of their own people, when they start looking at the big picture and make some sacrifices.


----------



## mart (Apr 2, 2012)

I'm definitely not a fan of unions but I agree with this: "The proposals also include all levels of government agreeing to purchase vehicles from automakers that have made manufacturing commitments to the country."


----------



## canadianbanks (Jun 5, 2009)

Four Pillars said:


> They are basically just asking for welfare.


Exactly. I don't believe they had the nerve to ask for that, but honestly what other options do they have?


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

mart said:


> I'm definitely not a fan of unions but I agree with this: "The proposals also include all levels of government agreeing to purchase vehicles from automakers that have made manufacturing commitments to the country."


Why stop at cars? What not every single item and service that we consume? We don't need the outside world, we can support ourselves. *rolls eyes*


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

mart said:


> I'm definitely not a fan of unions but I agree with this: "The proposals also include all levels of government agreeing to purchase vehicles from automakers that have made manufacturing commitments to the country."


As a tax payer, I have serious and deep objections to this.
I want the govt. to buy whatever vehicle meets the durability and price constraints, regardless of where it was manufactured.
The tax payers have already contributed enough to the "Detroit Iron" auto manufacturers over the years by bailing them out approx. every 10 years.
Not to mention the various subsidies, grants, tax breaks, etc. that we give all of them on a routine basis.

Their standard argument justifying this nanny-ing is no longer valid i.e. one of providing jobs.


----------

