http://bit.ly/wNcPwC
"So the first lesson of the London massacre: Ottawa must be vigilant about vetting foreign investment and retaining jobs, but also mindful of valuing — and anchoring — our homegrown intellectual property. Why underwrite our companies if we willingly sell off our embedded brainpower to foreign bidders who leave Canada cash-rich, patent poor and jobless?"
10 comments:
That plant was losing money. People in Indiana are more than happy to take jobs for 16 an hour. The people in London wanted to keep their 35 an hour jobs.
I wouldn't start playing war with American companies because if they all closed up here in Canada, there wouldn't be any employment here.
People in Canada should be overjoyed with all the American companies giving Canadians a living.
ancouver billionaire David Ho has pleaded guilty to possessing an unlicensed firearm and forcibly confining a sex trade worker, who called police to his mansion in the middle of the night three years ago.
The 60-year-old, who founded the now-defunct Harmony Airways, entered his plea Thursday at Vancouver Provincial Court. Ho stood and made an apology to his victim, though the woman was not in court. The person he addressed was actually CTV reporter Lisa Rossington.
Justice Thomas Gove sentenced Ho to one year probation and issued him a $5,000 fine.
THIS GUY GOT NO JAIL TIME FOR HAVING AN ILLEGAL GLOCK.
Again, Morton I ask, how is this possible?????
Um, the plant was NOT losing money. The plant has a back-log of locomotives on order.
So, why to buy it to shut it down?
Simple. Caterpillar has over 50 years of anti-union attitude: they will even forgo profits in the short-term to kill union efforts. They also plan 3-4 years ahead. They started pressuring the Indiana state government for "right-to-work" legislation, when they bought Electromotive in Canada.
When that got passed, the count-down for Electromotive started.
Caterpillar bought Electromotive to get the Electromotive design and patents.
G.E. is #1 in locomotives in North America.
I'm anti union.
Why should the guy who comes to work drunk and stoned get paid the same amount as me when I work harder and produce more?
Answer that question.
Why should all people be paid the same and get seniority when no two people are or work the same.
Figure that one out.
There's also Inco that got bought out in a foreign takeover with the permission of the federal government. Then they just shut down the operations in northern Manitoba. Why? Because those operations were competing with the ones back in Brazil.
Why should the guy who comes to work drunk and stoned get paid the same amount as me when I work harder and produce more?
Answer that question.
Because that's what unions are. In every 100 people at a union shop there is a single heroic hard-working right-winger that keeps the entire operation afloat, and 99 lazy drunk stoned soshulists that sit around doing nothing. Each of those 100 people makes $40k a year. The boss that does nothing but own the joint makes $400k a year, but lets not talk about him.
Does a union do nothing but keep the lazy drunk stoner from being fired? Would you rather work for an operation where it's whoever the manager likes least gets fired instead? Do you think that the guy that gets stuff done but nobody ever sees has a chance against the shmoozers and the ass-kissers that spend all their time yakking and being visible?
"The boss that does nothing but own the joint makes $400k a year, but lets not talk about him."
The owner can make whatever he wants to make, it's his company.
Who the hell are you to decide what an owner makes?
You sound like a Marxist.
Without an owner , there is no job.
The owner will always have a job, even without workers as he can always work for himself.
Quit being jealous of people that are more successful than you are.
"Would you rather work for an operation where it's whoever the manager likes least gets fired instead?"
I would rather work for a company that rewards me for the hard work I provide.
The company I work for owes me NOTHING.
If I don't produce I get fired. sounds pretty fair to me.
Without an owner , there is no job.
Incorrect. This is a mistake that self-professed free-marketers make all the time. (see: "job-creating" corp tax cuts that create no jobs) Without demand, there is no job. As long as there's demand, there's opportunity for someone to work at serving that market.
A smaller business with an actively involved owner seems to be what you're thinking of, and that model generally works pretty well, but there are others. Worker cooperatives are one example. Publicly traded corporations are yet another. The absentee owners of most of those corps could be replaced with statues and the only real difference would be that the corp would have one less way of raising funds. (selling new shares)
If I don't produce I get fired. sounds pretty fair to me.
No... it's if management wants to fire you, you get fired. Some managers might be strictly technocratic, scientific and merit based, but then the rest aren't.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/06/caterpillar-electro-motive-diesel/
It was never "our" property.
It was always American owned, we had previously taken jobs away from the US.
The Toronto Star never did its homework. The article written by a Ignatieff voter speaks for itself.
Post a Comment