Commentary

Why Doesn't the CFIB Support Me?

If the Canadian Federation of Independent Business's lobbying efforts were fully successful, far more of us would live precarious lives that dictate more tightly constrained economic choices.

By Sean Hurley
Published March 10, 2014

I go out of my way to support local, independent business. It isn't because I want to save money. If my only interest within my community was to save money, I would shop at chains, eat processed food and clip coupons. I do none of those things.

I pay the premium to park my car, walk into a business, and pay for a product or service such as a fair trade, organic coffee that may even be roasted locally. I do it as a very deliberate political and economic choice to support my neighbours with my income.

I support a lot of my neighbours. I am able and happy to do so because I am paid fairly, at a union rate, employed by a publicly supported institution. It is because I'm paid fairly I can make choices in the economy to support my neighbours who are in business for themselves.

I appreciate not everyone can do that. Too many of my neighbours are living in more dire economic circumstances. All of their economic choices are informed by necessity and price. They can seldom afford to be good neighbours in their economic choices.

So why doesn't small businesses support me?

When I see a small, local business sporting the sticker for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), I see a business actively engaged in lobbying against my economic best interests.

The CFIB lobbies:

Traditionally, the CFIB has lobbied against welfare benefits, employment insurance, public heatlh care, and other aspects of the social safety net.

If the CFIB's lobbying efforts were fully successful, far more of us would live precarious lives that dictate more tightly constrained economic choices.

To be clear, the lobbying efforts of the CFIB are geared at reducing the marginal costs of maintaining viable social and physical infrastructure at the expense of the prosperous market economy that directly benefits the independent small business community. By working against my interests, many small businesses work against their own economic best interests.

To me, my street, my neighbours, my block, my neighbourhood, my city, are extensions of my home. I want to care about them. I want to walk safely and securely through them. I want there to be parks, fountains, pools, libraries, schools, and community centres. I want there to be public transit, good roads, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and the supporting infrastructure.

I want my hungry neighbours to be fed. I want the homeless to be warm, comfortable, and safe. I want the jobless to find meaningful work that can provide them with something more dignified than subsistence or less. I want my neighbours who take risks by investing in my city to succeed.

Not only am I prepared to pay for those things, I do pay for those things through both my taxes and my personal purchasing decisions.

It is perplexing and disappointing to me that so many small businesses prefer to lobby against those values and in favour of some cold and cruel spartan society where every choice is the lowest investment for the lowest return.

It occurs to me that if small businesses won't support me, I can't and won't support them. I am looking for the CFIB sticker so I can walk on past.

56 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 09:24:59

Greed, pure and simple.

If we were all a little less greedy, what a wonderful world this would be.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 11:12:12

Talk about a sense of entitlement! The CFIB is a lobby group for businesses and are paid by them. What makes you think that they should be "supporting" you? There are plenty of groups out there that lobby for the things you are harping about, including the union that represents you.

"I support a lot of my neighbours. I am able and happy to do so because I am paid fairly, at a union rate, employed by a publicly supported institution."

You have it all wrong. If you are employed by a publicly supported institution then it is your neighbours that are supporting YOU through their tax dollars.

Permalink | Context

By granny2 (anonymous) | Posted March 13, 2014 at 14:40:43 in reply to Comment 98335

Capitalist, You provide a perfect example of a business attitude I would not like to support in my community that you choose not to contribute to. Alienating potential customers with such hostility is just bad business. Remember to put a sign in your window to say "Money from government employees and benefit recipients not welcome here." lol

Permalink | Context

By ViennaCafe (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 14:01:52 in reply to Comment 98335

You should address your own sense of entitlement beginning with imposing yourself into topics you likely haven't read.

The headline is not mine. I do not ask nor do I want any support from the CFIB. If you had read beyond the headline you would have come across the relevant question I did ask: "why doesn't small businesses support me?" The question is asked in the context of financially supporting an organization that would prefer small business customers enjoy no disposable income with witch to patronize their establishments.

If you are employed by a publicly supported institution then it is your neighbours that are supporting YOU through their tax dollars.

There in lies the myopic ignorance of small 'c' conservatism in a nutshell. An economy is an interconnected ecosystem. We all support each other. My taxes contribute to a wide array of public infrastructure and services upon which commerce in this city absolutely depends.

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 12:07:24 in reply to Comment 98335

If you are employed by a publicly supported institution then it is your neighbours that are supporting YOU through their tax dollars.

By 'supporting' you mean they are paying the author to perform a task. Its not the same thing as welfare, [Oscar].(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIj-q9No1ao#t=163)

Permalink | Context

By DissenterOfThings (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 11:29:13 in reply to Comment 98335

The fact that you can't see that the nature of all support is circular speaks volumes regarding your level of ignorance.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RobF (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 11:13:19

It's important to know the enemy ...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tax livestock (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 12:08:12

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 20:53:44 in reply to Comment 98339

"Taken from your fellow citizens"? Where do you think money comes from in the first place?

Hint: Jesus held up a Roman coin and asked the question "Whose image is this? And whose name is written here?" The exact same questions can be asked today. And the answer has not changed.

Money is a 100% government invention. And giving to the government what belongs to the government is just as relevant today as 2,000 years ago.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2014-03-10 21:02:08

Permalink | Context

By ViennaCafe (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 14:05:57 in reply to Comment 98339

You're a product of that system, are you not? Do you use the roads? Do you drink the water and flush the toilets? Did you avail yourself of public education and subsidized post-secondary education? Were you vaccinated? Let me know when you've relocated to the (shrinking) wilderness where you enjoy not one of the comforts of modern society and then I'll take you seriously, But of course, you wouldn't have Internet with all the regulated and subsidized infrastructure, would you?

Comment edited by ViennaCafe on 2014-03-10 14:06:26

Permalink | Context

By Tax livestock (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 19:11:21 in reply to Comment 98342

By your argument any prisoner in jail having been wrongfully convicted or slave should starve themselves to death in the service of the good rather than eat the meal their captor provides them.

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 13:30:20 in reply to Comment 98339

I'm sure that if I were to explicitly threaten you with force you would not hesitate to call upon publicly funded institutions to defend you.

Permalink | Context

By Tax livestock (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 19:25:55 in reply to Comment 98340

You would have to be pretty stupid to do so in a way that would give me time to do that.
I have had the good fortune to only have had to deal with such things a few times in my life, and so far neutralizing the threat by myself has been fairly straight forward.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 14:35:11

Having been self employed for 30 years (2/3 rds of my life ) , never had a paid vacation or sick day in my life, its really great that a government paid employee, thinks we should have more government for benefit of the rest of us.

For the record a small business is defined as <500 employees. So in reality those are some pretty big businesses…

Perhaps you should walk thru the international village and boycott each place with a 'no bus lane sign' in the window .. you'll notice there is nowhere to shop.

How's your pension plan invested? Yes you have one, my pension plan consists of 'live fast die young, cause their is nothing for you once you stop working'. Do you agitate for ethical investing there? Does your union?

If it's so easy to start and run a business take the plunge, you sound young, plenty of time to give yourself an ulcer!

And if your paying for parking in downtown hamilton YOU are supporting the demolishers of the inner city.

You only need to look Ehealth, The gas plants and Orange to understand why so many people want less government not more!

Permalink | Context

By granny2 (anonymous) | Posted March 13, 2014 at 14:59:13 in reply to Comment 98343

No pension? No way. You'll get government OAS & GIS like every Canadian. You could also plan ahead and take advantage of government suplorted RRSP & TFSA's. All together, that's about $500k in public support in your lifetime.
Enjoy!

Permalink | Context

By ViennaCafe (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 14:59:36 in reply to Comment 98343

I had been self-employed for almost ten years. I found no need to be engaged in class war with my customers.

Perhaps you should walk thru the international village and boycott each place with a 'no bus lane sign' in the window .. you'll notice there is nowhere to shop.

I do walk through it. All the time. I bought two rugs down there, I visit the Ornje Cafe, bought Christmas gifts at the book store, had Carribean food from across the street, and visit the Jet Cafe regularly. If I see "No Bus Lane" signs in any of the windows I will keep walking, thanks.

You chose to be self-employed as I once did. There are costs and benefits to doing so. Clearly the benefits outweigh the costs or you wouldn't be doing it. Let's not pretend it all some sort of altruistic sacrifice for the betterment of mankind.

The gas plants, e-health, and other grievance have nothing to do with what I'm addressing.

P.S. I don't work for the government.

Comment edited by ViennaCafe on 2014-03-10 15:03:04

Permalink | Context

By rednic (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 14:39:44 in reply to Comment 98343

BTW before you call me anti union.. I'm a card carrying member of http://www.iww.org SO DON'T.

Permalink | Context

By ViennaCafe (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 15:05:09 in reply to Comment 98344

If you're funding the CFIB, you're funding an anti-union agenda. It is that simple.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By alhambra (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 15:25:46

a public union worker is angry at an employer's association for doing exactly the same kind of lobbying the unions do every second of their existence?

Unions are based on myopic self-interest, ie do everything for their members no matter how incompetent, wrong, or socially malevolent the member in question happens to be. That gets on my nerves most of the time, ie when you see the police union fighting against some thug getting leave with pay for a 6-year police brutality investigation. But if you see a point to advocacy then surely it goes both ways.

Permalink | Context

By ViennaCafe (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 15:37:15 in reply to Comment 98347

I am not a "public union worker".

It is fascinating that people would rather argue their prejudices and ignorance.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By scrap (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 18:57:56

I found this article fair analysis and the writer asked some fair questions. When we study the past, the battles that occurred between labour and masters,we have a deeper understanding of deeper understanding of the current battle ongoing today. With the growth of precarious employment,many have been affected,their health pays a toll, as one losses one job, the stress fighting EI,the stress of finding work and if you do not find work, then dealing with the meagre amounts on welfare
I know this battle well and it has played into my current health issues. It is sad that for the most part people do not care and walk on by. We are moving back to a time where no one will receive any help, a very draconian state of affairs.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted March 10, 2014 at 19:54:45

I am a small business owner and member of CFIB - Unfortunately it is difficult to create an organization that is 100% philosophically aligned with 100% of its members, when the membership is so diverse. While not every fight may be agreeable to all, the CFIB does give a stronger voice to small business owners who would otherwise be a squeaking mouse in a stadium full of screaming big-business interests.

For the very small businesses (for instance, I have 1-3 employees depending on season) there are huge financial burdens that make it difficult to operate beyond merely scraping by. As the business owner, I pay EI on behalf of my employees but I have no capability of making a claim myself. The CFIB fights large financial institutions' fees. The CFIB fights credit card companies' insane charges. They fight for elimination of wasteful paperwork burden and general government inefficiencies. Instead of raising taxes, we SHOULD be asking for more efficient government processes so that our collective contributions to society are more efficiently spent.

The smallest businesses pay disproportionately higher taxes compared to big business. I'm not sure you are fighting the right enemy here - huge corporations, banks and politicians are filtering enormous amounts of money away from the collective public good. Being angry at the smallest storefront businesses for wanting a united voice seems counterproductive, when that voice often speaks out against these much larger social drains.

You chose to be self-employed as I once did. There are costs and benefits to doing so. Clearly the benefits outweigh the costs or you wouldn't be doing it. Let's not pretend it all some sort of altruistic sacrifice for the betterment of mankind.

Saying "the benefits outweigh the costs" downplays the real challenge of the small business owner. I'm not saying that we shouldn't all pay our share, but many businesses are at a precarious point where a small extra burden could put them out of business, and that's not good for anybody. In a world where a minority have SO MUCH MORE than everyone else, we need to focus on correcting that, not squeezing a tiny bit more out of the little guy.

I don't agree with all of the CFIB campaigns, including some you mentioned and especially their recent stance against minimum wage increases. But I want to be part of a collective voice for small business owners' issues and rights. Is there another group that I should be looking at instead of the CFIB that represents the smallest businesses? I'm open to suggestions.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 20:43:11 in reply to Comment 98352

Sean wrote:

"The smallest businesses pay disproportionately higher taxes compared to big business..."

Kevin's comment:

And not just tax breaks. How about big corporations getting huge government payouts, such as the $13.7 billion paid by the governments of Ontario and Canada to GM and Chrysler to bail them out. Or the Hamilton Airport boondoggle. They are called "Corporate Welfare Bums" for a reason.

Meanwhile, small businesses going bankrupt get bailed out approximately zero percent of the time.

As a professional accountant I can attest to the game being rigged by big businesses and their corrupt crony politicians writing nice tax loopholes into the Income Tax Act.

Corrupt crony politicians such as Brian Mulroney getting a suitcase full of cash that he insists is a legitimate payment for services rendered that he just simply "forgot" to declare on his income tax. Looks like he is so used to receiving suitcases full of cash that one slipped his mind.

Or Jean Chretien handing multi-billion dollar tax write-offs to oil companies, retiring from politics, and being handed lucrative seats on the board of directors of... but we all know how this ends.

Notice how I picked one corrupt politician from each party. That's because it is totally non-partisan to play the game of handing big corrupt favors to big businesses and then retiring from politics and taking jobs, "consulting" contracts and seats on the boards of directors of the same companies.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 20:12:24

And who of the CFIB's members do you think has the spare time to spend on the CFIB's committees that prepare their lobby positions, hob-nob with politicians, etc, etc? Hint: Its not the shopkeeper who is working 60 hours a week.

This organization, while claiming to represent small businesses, is largely controlled by rich fat-cats who have made their pile of gold, are now semi (or all the way) retired and have time on their hands. Time that they use to promote their agenda of 100% selfishness and all greed all the time.

Permalink | Context

By greg (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 22:39:50 in reply to Comment 98353

Your totally wrong kevinlove..cfib takes it direction solely from its members who vote on the issues. Each member no matter how big the business or how much money they make has the same amount of votes. One.
Get your facts straight.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 11, 2014 at 13:06:23 in reply to Comment 98358

And how do you think items get on this agenda for members to vote for? Putting these items forward takes a lot of work. Hint: it is not the shopkeepers working 60 hours a week.

Permalink | Context

By sean cb (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 21:31:14 in reply to Comment 98353

So who can I turn to who will represent *me*? Because the system is not working for the little guy.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By scrap (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2014 at 20:27:20

While the small business owner pays into EI, so does the worker. The worker may or may not get access to EI. Not every small business operator is ethical which leaves workers in a corrosive battle between EI and OW,if the employer fails to issue ROE.So why do small business owners fight against the working class, which they are part of?


Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted March 11, 2014 at 10:18:19 in reply to Comment 98354

Wow - this is a gross generalization based on the illegal actions of a few unethical business owners.

Permalink | Context

By scrap (anonymous) | Posted March 11, 2014 at 21:35:39 in reply to Comment 98369

Sean, not sure of your reply and what your intention is. As the saying goes,walk in my mocassins.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted March 12, 2014 at 09:03:49 in reply to Comment 98380

The worker may or may not get access to EI. Not every small business operator is ethical which leaves workers in a corrosive battle between EI and OW,if the employer fails to issue ROE.

^^^ As far as I know it is illegal for an employer to a)not contribute to ei and b)not issue roe - what percentage of small business owners act in this illegal fashion? Surely not the majority.

So why do small business owners fight against the working class, which they are part of?

^^^ This is a gross generalization based on the illegal actions of a few unethical business owners.

I don't understand what's unclear about my reply.

I'm not defending all of the CFIB's mandates, nor am I defending bosses who don't play by the rules. It's certainly not fair to lump all small businesses into lawbreaker categories, nor to boycott those who want to fight against a system that's stacked against them.

Comment edited by seancb on 2014-03-12 09:06:04

Permalink | Context

By scrap (anonymous) | Posted March 12, 2014 at 17:14:11 in reply to Comment 98384

Sean,I did not lump all small businesses together, you misread my words. Yes, employers are suppose to do payroll deductions, that is the law, however some do not, think cash payments and self employment which happens more then you think. Workers do have difficulty accessing EI and the rise of stolen wages.If you have no union, and cannot afford legal help, as the legal clinics do not help you or does one get access to legal aid, you are left alone to fight at times a losing battle. So the only group that helps workers for stolen wages is Steel City Solidarity, however there are a host of other issues for unorganized workers.

Permalink | Context

By sean cb (anonymous) | Posted March 12, 2014 at 17:58:07 in reply to Comment 98392

I only misread your words because your statement that "small business owners fight against the working class" has a very strong implication that everyone is lumped in with the few. Law breaking bosses should not be held up as a reason for the majority law abiding business owners NOT to fight for a level playing field.

Permalink | Context

By scrap (anonymous) | Posted March 13, 2014 at 00:03:24 in reply to Comment 98393

Sean,my meaning which maybe not so clear was to say,small business is the working class,same as workers considered the working class. It seems that we should be fighting for the same thing,yes? I know sometimes lines get cloudy and there is discord.Question,what evidence can you bring forward to prove that good employers are the majority?

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted March 13, 2014 at 08:31:31 in reply to Comment 98398

I don't have time to research this on your behalf. I do know that the WSIB does routine fraud checks and actively prosecutes the bad guys. This is the correct path to correcting the problem of bad employers: http://www.wsib.on.ca/en/community/WSIB/...

Boycotting the smallest retail shops (as this article recommends) is not going to achieve anything for fair labour practices.

Permalink | Context

By scrap (anonymous) | Posted March 13, 2014 at 09:19:22 in reply to Comment 98403

WSIB,OK well that is the only thing any employment centre, job centre checks to see if the wsib remittances are being paid. Ask about legislation under ESA or OH & S Act, they do not check for violations, period. You say boycotting is not the answer, well I disagree with you if it is a bad employer. If our labour laws are not enforced,how do you fight back then. Steel City Solidarity has helped several workers,thru protest,direct action when the process of going thru the Ministry of Labour has failed them, to win back their stolen wages. Besides why are injuried workers being denied long term benefits thru WSIB and having to wallow on the inadequent amounts of OW? Why did the worker die at his job due to no fall training or equipment? Why is the WSIB model put all the onus on the worker and very,very little on the employer?

Permalink | Context

By sean cb (anonymous) | Posted March 13, 2014 at 10:59:39 in reply to Comment 98404

You are taking this down a completely different path. This article advocates boycotting small retail shops who are members of the CFIB. That is what I was responding to.

The "little guy" paying into EI and having absolutely zero access to EI benefits is just one example I presented as why we need a unified voice. You have used that as a springboard to launch into a discussion about health and safety violations which have almost nothing to do with my original point. If you're upset that it's hard for some people to get EI because their employers don't play by the rules, surely you can understand that small business owners are upset that it's not legal for them to apply at all.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jeff R (anonymous) | Posted March 11, 2014 at 01:13:58

Kevinlove - you clearly have no idea how the CFIB works, it is 100% supported by independent business and each member has a vote regarding their lobbying activities. If they lobby something the majority of their members are for it. Can't say the same for the public sector and their agenda. Do some research before you post on a public forum, unless you have a hidden agenda...

Jeff

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Anonymous Coward (anonymous) | Posted March 11, 2014 at 03:09:14

Their ideology actually makes quite a lot of sense once you discover that two of their eight seniormost staff used to work at the Fraser Institute (an anti-regulation, pro-big-business 'think tank' and Reform Party/Canadian Alliance/Conservative Party proving ground). From the CFIB's Contact Us page:

Laura Jones, Executive Vice-President: Former Director of Environment and Regulatory Studies at the Fraser Institute
Satinder Chera, Vice-President, Communications: interned at the Fraser Institute

One would almost think that this is just a front organisation for the Fraser Institute.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JC (anonymous) | Posted March 11, 2014 at 04:28:05

Gotta love the lamentations of a tax eater.

Far from supporting your neighbours, you extort them via your public sector union gig that is funded at gun point.

You are a creator of unemployment, poverty, and hunger, not a solution through your narcissistic, Politically Correct posturing and pontificating.

Thanks for the refresher on why the CFIB does not go nearly far enough in its demands to be free from you people.

Permalink | Context

By granny2 (anonymous) | Posted March 13, 2014 at 15:07:07 in reply to Comment 98361

Small businesses are welcome to operate without customers paid by unions or government! Just make sure your sign in the window explains clearly whose money you are not willing to take. lol

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By scrap (anonymous) | Posted March 11, 2014 at 09:35:17

Well of course,it is those unionized workers who have caused all the poverty and unemployment,no blame on the big business types,once known as masters.It is like saying we live on a democratic society,yet looking around I see that we do not,it is an illusion.

Permalink | Context

By JC (anonymous) | Posted March 12, 2014 at 04:23:29 in reply to Comment 98364

Unionized workers are the beneficiaries of legislated over payment for their labour which sucks money out of business and the economy accounting for a large percentage of unemployment.

Then unions use their legistlated reveneu stream (dues) to pay for propgaganda demanding various soical welfare programs designed to look after the unemployed and poor they have created so those people don't wise up and demand an end to union privilege.

So business is forced both to over pay its union workers then pay to look after the unemployed and poor. The union protection racket is one of the greated evils at work in our society and economy today.

Permalink | Context

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted March 12, 2014 at 12:50:59 in reply to Comment 98382

Unionized work has always been, and still is, a check on the excesses of capitalism. Poverty has always risen as countries have become wealthy. I believe it was the Italian economist Giammaria Ortes who first noticed this correlation. What is interesting is that the labour movement grew simultaneously and independently in different countries as wealth and poverty increased. The response to the exploitation of capitalist forces was the same whether one was in Victorian England, the 3rd republic of France and Bismarck's Prussia.

As for the claim that unions create poverty. This is not supported by the evidence. In the U.S., where unionization rates have fallen to levels not seen since the gilded age (6-7% in private sector), half the population lives in poverty or near poverty. Unions have been systematically dismantled there ever since the Taft-Hartley legislation in the late 40s that was the antithesis of our Rand Formula.

I am not sure how business is forced to over pay for union work. It seems that any company can bid on jobs that go out to tender. It is just that some union companies have better skilled employees and do a better job for the money. Besides, this is only an issue in weak economic times. When the economy was booming in the late 80s and non union trades were raising their labour rates to capitalize on the increased demand, union labour rates stayed flat as determined by collective agreements. Now that a larger proportion of people are poor and we are looking at a prolonged period of stagnant growth, it is easy (but incorrect) to say that union workers are over paid.

Permalink | Context

By samuel (anonymous) | Posted March 12, 2014 at 19:31:15 in reply to Comment 98389

Unions arose pre EI, pre WSIB, pre minimum wage, pre overtime, etc etc. How can you compare the economies of the 19th century with those of today? Unions create perverse incentives by protecting bad workers; these people should be supported by the state not private entities.

Permalink | Context

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted March 12, 2014 at 23:04:11 in reply to Comment 98394

EI, WSIB, minimum wage, overtime, safety standards, 8 hour work days, weekends, all arose as a result of pressure on government from organized labour. Nixon was the last president to actually defend the rights of the working class. He did it for similar reasons as Mackenzie King. They wanted to keep organized labour at bay. But then again, what can 20th century political decisions have on the working conditions of the present day?

Permalink | Context

By scrap (anonymous) | Posted March 13, 2014 at 00:27:00 in reply to Comment 98397

One that comes to mind is the rise of temp work.In 2001,legislation changed in regard to stat holiday pay and the 3 month probation period,which was eradicated.Temp companies have you sign away your rights,I know as I have questioned this at a temp company and was told,this is our policy,in which I replied your policy is against the law. So why is this temp company still operating? Where are our so called leaders and their voices? I have not got into the draconian legislation of the OW Act of 1997, which impedes workers,which is enforced by the not for profits. Stand up and fight for your rights and they threatened to have you cut off.Oh,the poverty industry.

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted March 12, 2014 at 10:07:21 in reply to Comment 98382

But, if not for unionized workers "sucking money out of business", that money would be distributed to the businesses owners, who tend to be wealthier and generally invest a greater proportion of their income, taking it "out" of the economy.

By paying workers (even assuming you are correct that we are "overpaying them") those workers spend their salaries on goods and services, which through the multiplier effect, have an even greater impact on the economy.

I guess the real question between us is: Who is more likely to spend the money and stimulate the economy: The workers, or the owners?

Permalink | Context

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted March 13, 2014 at 21:31:39 in reply to Comment 98386

How does investment take money out of an economy?
To answer your question, I would say, The workers.

Permalink | Context

By DissenterOfThings (registered) | Posted March 12, 2014 at 08:06:45 in reply to Comment 98382

Please stop smoking crack it's not good for your health.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By get your facts straight (anonymous) | Posted March 11, 2014 at 19:37:47

Wow, you are right out to lunch!
Cfib is funded and driven entirely by its board if governors who are all small business owners themselves.
Cfibs membership is 48% 5 employees or less.
Its you public sector workers draining the tax payers of their hard earned money!
Do some research regarding the 40% wage/ppension gap between private sector and public sector employment!

Unbelievable!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By scrap (anonymous) | Posted March 11, 2014 at 21:24:05

Yes,get your facts straight,do some research and not just the rhetoric from one source. Your view speaks volumes of your ignorance of reality.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted March 13, 2014 at 21:29:31

This is an ancient debate, pitting private- against public-sector workers, and it does little to advance humanity. As seventy-one percent of the public sector and sixteen percent of the private sector (see StatCan's Jul 2009 Perspectives on Labour and Income) is unionized, there remain clear gains to be part of a union. Both classes of workers should join hands to form One Big Union (a hat-tip to the Wobbly, above), don't mourn, and organize.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted March 13, 2014 at 21:33:18

I have to admit some surprise at reading anti-union rhetoric on a Hamilton news site. This is a labour town, after all.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 14, 2014 at 21:14:01 in reply to Comment 98423

Alas, the rich are always with us.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted March 18, 2014 at 20:39:20

I learned how to ski at Chedoke and King's Forest. I skied with a lot of buddies from school who could never have afforded a trip to Glen Eden let alone Aspen. I learned enough at these two little hills to race varsity in University. I love to ski but there is no way, growing up, I would have been able to ski without Chedoke.

Then the hills were closed - not for lack of interest, but becasue we had the highest paid lift attendants in the world. Becasue it was run with a closed shop union, no party interested in taking over the lifts could afford to operate them and so now we do not have a ski hill in Hamilton. Non-affluent kids who otherwise would never have been exposed to the sport, are not exposed to the sport. To me that is a shining example of the economic reality of closed shop unionism.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds