HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:53:07 GMT

In article <5ycuXB5w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>Democracy does not mean that everyone can do as he pleases. Democracy 
>means that decisions are made by a majority of voters, or by persons 
>elected by a majority of voters in an election. Just because you don't 
>agree with the result is no reason not to respect the outcome of a 
>particular vote.
>

No, democracy does not mean that ALL decisions are made by a majority
of voters...democracy means that MANY decisions are made by the majority
of voters so long as these decisions don't interfere with the rights
of individuals or minorities.  Unions are at best majoritarian...they
are certainly not democratic entities....democracy is a limited form
of governance which respects individual rights.

>From my own experience in labour unions, I can tell you that unions spend 
>a LOT of time at conventions debating various policy issues, and 
>democratically deciding whether or not to support them. 
>

There is more to democracy than voting!

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:34:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.020040.6051@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

[ regarding Bob Rae ]

>labor laws. maybe it is the result of subconscious repression; they made
>me almost literally ill when i first read about them. and then he wonders
>why businesses are leaving the country. the man is the biggest
                                                        ^^^^^^^
>ass ever to hold office. ( -10 pts, misuse of superlatives)

Bob Rae is not the biggest ass ever to hold office. In fact, there
is no upper limit to how big an ass (thief, liar, cheat, moron, crook) 
any given politician can be, so there can be no *biggest ass*.

:-)

>
>--
>charles


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:11:18 GMT

In article <kkelly.8.0@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca> kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.014114.1347@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
>>Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
>>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:41:14 GMT
>>In article <93020.174629SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan19.174121.4480@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim
>>>Robinson) says:
>>>>Just out of curiousity, do you support doing away with the secret ballot
>>>>that was used for union certification purposes? This was one of Harcourt's
>>>
>>>Automatic certification exists in Ontario. It seems to me a waste
>>>of money to run a vote when almost 50% of the possible voters have
>>>already committed themselves to vote for one side.
>>>
>>
>>Democracy is never a waste of money...and a secret ballot is essential
>>to protect the rights of the individual.  But then the labour movement
>>has never been interested in democracy!
>
>On what do you base this pearl of wisdom. What is your experience of 
>Unions? Have you ever belonged to one? Or are you one of these "I know 
>people in Unions and...". Or do you base this statement on what you read in 
>the press?

the problem is not the people in the union. they are mostly good
workers, who have been betrayed by their leaders. *most* (not all)
unions are headed by entrenched leaders who care more about their
hierarchy than their supporters. the unions are supported by a slew
of antiquated and unnecessary legislation, and they have the NDP
in their back pocket.

some union workers have become fat and lazy due to the ridiculous
over-protection provided by the union. i blame not them for this,
but rather the adversarial nature of their leaders: union and management.

my comments are based on many years of reading and two years in a
master's program in manufacturing. unions are dinosaurs and will soon
be fossils, if we are smart--to be buried alongside authoritarian
management.

--
charles
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:04:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.080838.17629@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>that's fine and dandy. So the union provides a service, and members pay
>a fee. All nice and capitalist, EXCEPT you are forced to join the union;
>if you don't you get sacked. 'Democracy you say' So what. Democracy
>is not an excuse to impose your views on others, even if we do agree
>to that, in a constrained way, with GOVERNMENTS. See, unions are not a
>government, and they have no right to CONSCRIPT people, just because 51%
>of the workers think it is OK to do so. If I work for someone else, that
>is a contract between me and the employer. If I choose to let a union
>negotiate on my behalf, fine, but don't force me, and tell me it's
>for my own good.

You are presently forced to be represented by your MP, whether you
want to be thusly represented or not. Your other options: representing
yourself, having another person represent those of your ilk from that
same geographical area, are options you are presently not allowed to
exercise.

-- 
    Michael MY Hui    Ottawa Ontario Canada    ~{~}
From: ddjohnson@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: On minimum wages
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:34:36 -0800
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <1993Jan27.034716.12266@ee.ubc.ca>, jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
> I'm awaiting a well thought out, Socialist response to this:
> (I hope to be pleasantly surprised)

Minimum wage is a matter of fair wage, nothing more, nothing 
less. Recently the BC NDP Government raised the minimum wage 
0.50 $/hr. Outragous, shocking, small business bankruptcy!

Get real... to all those who are ready to criticise, imagine your 
life if the value of your labour was the lowest possible legally 
allowed. So you pay an extra 0.15 $ for a burger. Eat it.
(BTW, I'm not bitter).

DDJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Johnson			"Injustice anywhere is a threat
Smithers, British Columbia	 to justice everywhere."
CANADA				 Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-68
This Account: DDJOHNSON@GALAXY.GOV.BC.CA
Direct Mail:  DJOHNSON@SMITHERS.ENV.GOV.BC.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.general
From: greg@organia.sce.carleton.ca (Greg Franks)
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Organization: Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University.
	<1993Jan27.173453.7131@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:51:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.173453.7131@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
   yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
   >- cross-border shopping has increased.

   Read your newspaper.  It has gone down, due in large part to better
   domestic marketing and internal streamlining in the private sector
   (leaner and meaner).  If you have to, get last Wednesday's NYT.

Cross border shopping has gone down because our dollar has also gone
down.  Needless to say, prices here will go up because of the low
value of the dollar which will, in turn, eventually increase cross
border shopping (a bold prediction!).

--
Greg Franks, (613) 788-5726               | "The reason that God was able to
Systems Engineering, Carleton University, | create the world in seven days is
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1S 5B6.         | that he didn't have to worry about 
greg@sce.carleton.ca  ...!cunews!sce!greg | the installed base" -- Enzo Torresi
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:48:39 GMT

I was asked to explain how Bob Rae was responsible for the transfer payment
decreases - I never said he was responsible since it was the federal
government that decreased them. However, I did say the federal government
did it because it had no choice and that the Liberals or NDP would have done
the same. 

If one looks at the federal deficit, about 35% of spending goes to transfers
to the provinces, about 35% to interest on the debt, and the remainder to
federal programs. The interest payments cannot be cut without reniging on
the debt itself. Program spending by the federal government has been
contained since 1984 so that it is now in a surplus position. That leaves
payments to the provinces. There the cut has been in the escalation clause,
not in the basic payments and Rae and Harcourt (and before him the Social
Credit in B.C.) have been complaining that it passes the debt problem to the
provinces.

Where Rae is being untruthful is when he blames the federal government for
the economic malaise in Ontario. He has the ability to stimulate investment
(which is the most volatile part of the gross provincial product) by
spending an effort at creating an atmosphere which is attractive to business
through tax breaks, etc. Instead, he has driven investors out in droves, as
well as citizens which then lowers the revenues from income taxes etc. which
then causes the deficit to grow even more. With 500 people leaving the
province per day and more who would like to leave but are looking for a job
before they do, it is not hard to figure out why Ontario is in financial
trouble.

Rae is less than honest here since he blames the federal government but
except for those people who leave the country, most of those people who are
leaving are staying in CAnada, just not in Ontario. That tells who is to
blame - but even if you do accept the fact that the deficit in Ontario
results from the $3.2 billion Ontarion claims is owed it by Ottawa, that
does not make up the $26 billion that has accumulated in deficit since RAe
has taken office (I am using projected figures for 1992-93 plus the deficits
for the previous two fiscal years) and it certainly does not mean that if
there had been another PM the situation would have been any different.

In my original post, I had said that I thought RAe had found a new way to
get Mulroney elected. It is my reading that people like RAe even less than
they like Mulroney so if Rae is against Mulroney people will see through
Rae's campaign to see how untruthful it is. That is all I said. Now, since
it is clear that I like Rae less than I like MUlroney, I might even be
tempted to vote against Rae in the federal election. Now, I wish I had a
better choice federally but I don't yet!

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (was Re: Political system 'axes')
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:56:38 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1288

From article <1993Jan22.180639.23952@seachg.uucp>, by chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask):
> 
> [.....]
>
> I get the impression from following the issue for the last fifteen years
> that it is largely political bullshit, that while the average Quebecer is
> rightly concerned about the integrity of his/her culture, most of them
> agree that the sign law is silly, and that many of the restrictions are
> ridiculous ....
>
> Unfortunately, the media only reports interesting and striking events and
> issues, so the impression of someone outside the province is that 'those
> French people want everything, and they won't let anyone speak English.'
> which is also b.s.  Not the media's fault, really, but the disinformation
> needs to be dealt with.

One more time? > There are more than 10,000 English speaking children who
are denied access to publicly funded English schools in Quebec!

That isn't disinformation. That is a serious denial of fundamental
human rights and freedoms.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 21:30:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.192822.14341@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.182008.11320@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>
>>As Doug already mentioned, equalization payments amount to
>>approximately one third of the Federal budget.
>
>Technically federal to province transfers comprise about a third
>of the federal budget...equalization payments represent only
>about only a portion of federal transfers to provinces...about
>20% +/- 10% of total federal transfers to provinces.
>
>Equalization payments are only a part of federal transfers
>to provinces.

Which means that my terminology was off.  I simply should have called
them "transfer payments."  A payment by any other name still is
painful...

>>Those payments have
>>been increasing by between 10% and 15% per year, for quite a while
>>now.  In order for the Feds to be able to continue this increase, YOUR
>>TAXES have to rise by between 3% and 5% every year, just to cover
>>transfer payments.  That ignores any growth in costs at the Federal
>>level.

This conclusion doesn't change based on the name change.
-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER)
Subject: A new twist
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:44:12 GMT

I read in the paper the other day that according to the latest poll, the
Bloc Quebecois has lost 15 points and now now trail the Liberals in
Quebec, who have 40 points (to the BQ's 31). A Liberal victory in Quebec
can almost ensure the Liberals a majority government. We'll see if the
latest poll is just a fluke, because the shift seems rather drastic, or
a real reflection of how Quebec's going to vote in the next election. 
Xref: sparky can.politics:11641 soc.culture.canada:10302
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:38:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: alchemy.1993Jan24.163830.24517
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <93024.0053342893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>How is Rae responsible for the cut in transfer payments?
>

Transfer payments were not cut by the Tories...
...the rate of increase in transfer
payments was cut...but at a rate of increase still greater than
that of inflation...and the rate of increase was greater than
the Tories increased their own program spending...i.e. the Tories
tightened their own belts harder than they were asking the provinces
to tighten theirs.

Now, let's look at Bob Rae's provincial transfers to municipalities
where he has offerred them a rate of increase less than inflation, and
less than the provincial NDP has increased their own program spending...

...do you understand the meaning of the word hypocrite...because that
is what Bob Rae is and demonstrates over and over.

Bob Rae is a hypocrite on ethics policy, and intergovernment transfers,
and he is arguing against equalization now.

>Less than honest? Again, how is Rae to blame for the cut in federal transfer
>payments? Do you deny this has a direct impact on the provincial deficit?
>You only say the feds had no choice, you don't explain how Bob Rae is
>responsible for the cut or how the cut isn't the cause of the deficit increase.
>IE, you're playing a shell game. PhD or not.

Municipalities in Ontario are wondering where Bob Rae's alleged
commitment to fairness in transfer payments is...he talks one game
with the federal government and talks the exact opposite game with
the municipalities.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Followup-To: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:52:56 GMT

Kevin Kelly (kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca) wrote:

>The secret ballot on certification is a bit of red herring. If an individual 
>does not wish to join a union or have one in the workplace they do not have 
>to sign a card. Its as simple as that. 

If a person refuses to sign the card, she does so with the knowledge that
the union will know this. Now don't you think that person is going to
wonder just a bit if the union (or some members of it) is not going to hold
something of a grudge against non-supporters? I would.

The secret ballot totally eliminates the possibly of intimidation &
retribution. It thus allows the worker to vote entirely by conscience. How
this could not be considered a "good thing" is beyond me.

>And dont bother with responding with the "union intimidation" defense used 
>by opponents of unions. Usually the intimidation comes from the company not 
>the unions. I know I was there. 

Just because intimidation *may* come from the employer (and a secret ballot
does not make it any more likely) doesn't excuse making it easier for the
union to intimidate if it so desires. The two are related, but *separate*
issues.

By this logic it is not necessary to hold elections. We'll just let the
Tories get signatures of support until they reach the 50% mark. As well,
let's make sure the Tories have a record of each person who refused to
support them - I'm sure they wouldn't think of having Revenue Canada give
these people some extra scrutiny.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:18:49 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: On minimum wages
 <93027.133549SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <1993Jan27.203017.6434@csi.uottawa.ca>

In article <1993Jan27.203017.6434@csi.uottawa.ca>, cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
(Christopher Browne) says:

>If (as you suggest), we ought to deny that the "value" of human labour
>can be determined using economic means, then that suggests that there
>is NO valid evaluation of wages, and that a robber baron's guess at
>the correct wages is as good as whatever you might propose.

This does not follow.

Each human being deserves a basic respect. People who fail to accord
others this basic respect do not deserve (and often do not get)
respect themselves. Thus, all our relations (even our economic ones)
must include this basic respect. And wage disparities beyond a
certain amount can not but convey a deep disrespect. How can you
respect someone when you say their time, their lives, have less
value than the minimum they need for basic subsistence?

In this way, we make an important decision: we subordinate the
power of the marketplace to our respect for individual lives. This
does not mean we completely deny the right of the marketplace
to set wages. Minimum wage laws do not demand that computer
programmers and street sweepers be paid alike; they simply set
a floor. They say that to dispose of an hour of a human life,
you must pay at least enough money to indicate your respect for that
person.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jstewart@bertrand.carleton.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:26:03 GMT

In <1993Jan24.170732.25135@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>Ontario is still a have-province compared to anyone else but Alberta
>and BC.  From the onset of the Peterson-Rae coalition in the
>mid-eighties, spending in Ontario has been increasing at 10-15% per
>year, and really has not slowed...all the fat added in the good times
>just needs to be cut...Ontario is to blame for its own problem because
>it didn't restrain spending and taxation in the good times (the other
>half of the Keynesian cycle), so there was room for deficit spending
>and stimulus during the bad times.

Ontario was certainly not the only province that accumulated a lot of
debt in the 80's.  The NDP have made tough cuts to hospitals and 
universities (which were already receiving the lowest funding per 
student of any province).  The deficit is not due to fat, but is mainly
caused by 
   1) A shortfall on the revenue side (in spite of significant tax
      increases) due to the recession.
   2) A large increase in the bill for social services due to the
      increase in the number of people on welfare (now over 1 million).
      The Federal government has not done anything to help foot this bill
      whereas in other provinces they will provide make work programs
      to keep people eligible for UIC (saves the province money since 
      welfare is a provincial responsibility whereas UIC is paid for by
      the Federal government)
      or special assistance (eg. billions
      of dollars for fisherman in Newfoundland until the fish stocks recover).

   I doubt that Ontario's deficit would be very much different if we had
elected a Liberal or Conservative government.  Ontario has been blindsided by
the recession and the Federal government.
-- 
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
"The average middle income family with two parents and children pays $2,945
more in Federal taxes than they would have under the tax policies in place
before the Tories first came to power in 1984."
Newsgroups: can.politics