• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Canada demands U.S. end ‘right to work’ laws as part of NAFTA talks

JANFU said:
Do you think labor standards, drop the unions should be raised?
Click to expand...

Can you articulate the question a little better? I'll answer but want to make sure I understand what you're asking.

Yes_Minister said:
The problem is, you know that 1950s manufacturing economy so many Trump supporters want to return to? Part of the reason there was so many low skill high paying jobs back then was due to unions.
Click to expand...

What-caused-what back in the 1950s is highly arguable and debatable. Tax rates and unions didn't cause the postwar economic boom. The global economic environment of the 1950s allowed the entire nation to thrive, unions included, without any risk of capital flight or other adverse effects on investment or labor. Even with super high tax rates and unions that have the nation by the balls, it was still way easier to get rich here than anywhere else in the world. Thriving unions didn't create the economic environment. Outsourcing and automation were not options back then. It was the most rapid advancement of petroleum energy development the history of the world will ever see. Conditions were unique and overwhelmingly in our favor. No combination of policies can recreate that period of time. The 1950s aren't coming back. Appealing to that fantasy is an act of mass deception.

Frankly the US conservative movement is fractured, I don't think they have a good plan or defined goals in terms of these NAFTA talks.
Click to expand...

I don't think conservatives really have a movement, and I don't think the GOP has a good plan or defined goals in terms of much of anything. There are a few positive developments the GOP could help bring about and they're dead on with a few things, but otherwise not much cohesion in their message or goals. But that doesn't make unions good, it doesn't make Right To Work "bad," it doesn't justify public sector unions, it doesn't legitimize Canada's desire for the U.S. to engage in self-harm and reinstate closed shop unionism, and it doesn't make anything that Democrats and/or liberals do or say infallible. Say what you want about the GOP and conservatives, I might agree with you, but I sling mud at the left too.

You may not like Canada's demands or tactics in these talks, but I think Canada would have a better vision of what it wants then Trump does.
Click to expand...

Whatever Canada's vision, the stated desire for the U.S. to return to closed shop unionism is insane. So insane that I really believe it is only a stunt to turn union households back against the GOP so that Democrats retake the White House in 2020, because Canadians are quite fond of our Democratic Party. That's the reason for this nut-job "demand." Pure politics, "surface bargaining" if you will.
 
RetiredUSN said:
My family is from Canada........duh!

NFLD.....PEI.........NS
Click to expand...

Ha! I knew you sounded like a Newfie... ;) haha

(Sorry, totally taking shots now, can't help it, call me something filthy so the mods know we're good...hehe)
 
VanceMack said:
Your perceptions are so ****ed is scary. The only thing that makes sense is you have never owned a business or hired an individual and have zero grasp of the economics of business.

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be careers. You have to be just...really not grasping reality to presume that a minimum wage job flipping burgers should be paid at a 'livable wage'. And what is REALLY just a head scratcher is watching people like you think you can jack up a minimum wage job to a 'livable wage' career and then not expect the goods and services costs to skyrocket, thus making your livable wage job just minimum wage at a higher rate.
Click to expand...

I have managed businesses and owned my own business. I plan starting another business when I retire.

The plumbing business I managed paid helpers with no experience $10 to $12 an hour back in the 80's. Once they gained some experience they were making around $15+. That was a livable wage at that time. Plumbers were making $18. to $20. an hour plus commission. The plumbers were making 60k to 80k a year. The helpers were making 25k to 35k a year. The company also paid health care, dental, and eye care plus sick days and vacations. Plus we were competitive with the other pluming companies in Houston and a lot less than the unions on our prices. The business is still doing great and still pays top wages for all it's employees. The owner of the plumbing company was averaging 8 to 10 million a year.
 
RetiredUSN said:
And yet.......immigrants come to America 20 times the number they do Canada?

Another farce reply.
Click to expand...


You are mistaken at least when it comes to legal immigrants

The US accepted 1 million immigrants in 2015

Canada accepted around 220 000 the same year. The US accepted roughly 5 times the number of legal immigrants, yet has 9 times the population
 
VanceMack said:
Your perceptions are so ****ed is scary. The only thing that makes sense is you have never owned a business or hired an individual and have zero grasp of the economics of business.

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be careers. You have to be just...really not grasping reality to presume that a minimum wage job flipping burgers should be paid at a 'livable wage'. And what is REALLY just a head scratcher is watching people like you think you can jack up a minimum wage job to a 'livable wage' career and then not expect the goods and services costs to skyrocket, thus making your livable wage job just minimum wage at a higher rate.
Click to expand...

Sorry Vance, stagnant wages and job competition has driven a lot of jobs towards poverty level all over the country. Its not just flipping burgers, that's a narrow point of view that's just not seeing the big picture.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Oh boy....



https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...-laws-as-part-of-nafta-talks/article36160015/


I think that these Nafta negotiations are not going to be pleasant.
Click to expand...

That's not the only SJW issue that Canada is making demands about.

The Canadian objectives outline about 10 core NAFTA objectives — from boilerplate trade goals such as cutting red tape, to a push for “progressive” chapters on the environment, labour, gender rights and Indigenous relations.

NAFTA negotiations: Canada brings list of demands to first round of talks today - National | Globalnews.ca
Click to expand...

One thing for sure, though, is...if they get any of their demands met, Trump will exact a very high price for them. They are probably better off just sticking to trade issues.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I have managed businesses and owned my own business. I plan starting another business when I retire.

The plumbing business I managed paid helpers with no experience $10 to $12 an hour back in the 80's. Once they gained some experience they were making around $15+. That was a livable wage at that time. Plumbers were making $18. to $20. an hour plus commission. The plumbers were making 60k to 80k a year. The helpers were making 25k to 35k a year. The company also paid health care, dental, and eye care plus sick days and vacations. Plus we were competitive with the other pluming companies in Houston and a lot less than the unions on our prices. The business is still doing great and still pays top wages for all it's employees. The owner of the plumbing company was averaging 8 to 10 million a year.
Click to expand...

Dear sweet baby hay Zeus.

Plumbing is no a minimum wage job. When you are billing customers at 69 an hour for a house call and 100$ for emergency calls you can afford to pay an apprentice 12 an hour. Do you honestly believe most small businesses are clearing 8-12 million a year?????????




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
Sorry Vance, stagnant wages and job competition has driven a lot of jobs towards poverty level all over the country. Its not just flipping burgers, that's a narrow point of view that's just not seeing the big picture.
Click to expand...
Try working with some better examples then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yes_Minister said:
I think Canada does understand, Canada has been sending trade missions to states and talking to governors and mayors lately.

This is likely a barginning chip, ask for the moon and settle for something less, Canada can drop this demand, in exchange for something else. Hey if Trump can make any demands he wants, why shouldn't Canada do the same?
Click to expand...
I haven't mentioned Trump at all. He's not really relevant to Canada's approach to this, unless you're trying to make the argument that Trump somehow made the Canadians make a stupid demand.
 
Moon said:
I haven't mentioned Trump at all. He's not really relevant to Canada's approach to this, unless you're trying to make the argument that Trump somehow made the Canadians make a stupid demand.
Click to expand...

What's stupid about asking for a law which is a throwback to the 18th century to be scrapped in place of a more civilised employment milieu?
 
cuban smokes said:
Canada & Mexico will give 'Little Hands' Donnie Trump the ****ing 'Big Bird' and it won't be the one from Sesame Street ................
Click to expand...

It is pathetic how giddy people get at the idea of "getting Trump" even though the people that are really going to be hurt are common every day Americans... but you guys don't give a **** about the people as long as you "get Trump". :roll:
 
Manc Skipper said:
What's stupid about asking for a law which is a throwback to the 18th century to be scrapped in place of a more civilised employment milieu?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? That question doesn't even make sense.
 
Neomalthusian said:
No need to be cryptic, just clarify what's being asked.
Click to expand...


When the British first invented capitalism, they did it by throwing all the serfs off of the land their families had lived on for hundreds of years. Forced them into the cities and hired them into extremely horrid conditions. Any attempt by the lower classes to negotiate for better wages was stamped out, sometimes violently. Families had to hire out their children just to be able to afford to feed them. If you got injured, you were fired. If you died, oh well. The working class had no rights, and the nobility used many of the same arguments conservatives do today to justify keeping those rights from them.

In comparison, right to work laws allow companies to hire out temp agencies for low wages and no benefits. A job that your dad had that paid well, gave him insurance, and a retirement plan would be given to a temp kept on for 90 days paid half as much and no benefits. If the temp gets injured, they get replaced.

He's asking what's so bad about wanting to end a law that goes in the face of everything the lower classes have fought for over the last 200 years. And when I say fought, there are battle fields in the US, where company towns security force would fight with workers. Who only wanted better wages and working conditions. These companies, would move into a rural area and build towns around factories and rent out housing to workers and pay them less than what they charged. Ever heard the song 16 tons? 'I owe my soul to the company store" is a line talking about this. It was a long, hard, bloody fight to get labor unions and then and even longer harder fight for those unions to gain us the liveable wages and benefits many of our parents and grandparents enjoyed and made our lives so happy. Right to work attacks the progress we made. It's setting future generations up to be debt slaves, like in first days of capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Moon said:
I haven't mentioned Trump at all. He's not really relevant to Canada's approach to this, unless you're trying to make the argument that Trump somehow made the Canadians make a stupid demand.
Click to expand...

I am just saying the US team has made demands, so why can't Canada and Mexico?

The US doesn't have to agree to such a demand and Canada will drop it, in exchange for something, if the US team will ask for the moon and settle for something less, why wouldn't Canada and Mexico do the same?

Did you think Canada and Mexico would not have their own demands, if you didn't to want to entertain them, then maybe US should have bern more wary before wanting to renegotiate NAFTA.

Its naive to think Canada or Mexico would instantly knuckle under.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Dear sweet baby hay Zeus.

Plumbing is no a minimum wage job. When you are billing customers at 69 an hour for a house call and 100$ for emergency calls you can afford to pay an apprentice 12 an hour. Do you honestly believe most small businesses are clearing 8-12 million a year?????????




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In the 80's we were charging $32.50 an hour. There are helpers and there are apprentices. They are two different things. An apprentice is training to be a plumber a helper is not and will most likely never be a plumber. Most apprentices work in new construction and usually become plumbers in a very short period of time. A couple of years at most. Most of our helpers had been helpers for years even decades. Helpers come and go with whoever is paying the best at the time. We would lose our helpers for a while then when the big paying job was over they would be back.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
In the 80's we were charging $32.50 an hour. There are helpers and there are apprentices. They are two different things. An apprentice is training to be a plumber a helper is not and will most likely never be a plumber. Most apprentices work in new construction and usually become plumbers in a very short period of time. A couple of years at most. Most of our helpers had been helpers for years even decades. Helpers come and go with whoever is paying the best at the time. We would lose our helpers for a while then when the big paying job was over they would be back.
Click to expand...
:lamo

FFS

Its not the 80s. In the 80s, minimum wage was like 2.10 an hour and the only people working minimum wage jobs were high school kids, college kids, and people trying to pick up a second income. Unskilled labor has traditionally been minimum wage. Skilled labor has seldom if EVER been minimum wage. And even those minimum wage jobs seldom STAYED minimum wage of the employees were worth a damn.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Can you articulate the question a little better? I'll answer but want to make sure I understand what you're asking.



What-caused-what back in the 1950s is highly arguable and debatable. Tax rates and unions didn't cause the postwar economic boom. The global economic environment of the 1950s allowed the entire nation to thrive, unions included, without any risk of capital flight or other adverse effects on investment or labor. Even with super high tax rates and unions that have the nation by the balls, it was still way easier to get rich here than anywhere else in the world. Thriving unions didn't create the economic environment. Outsourcing and automation were not options back then. It was the most rapid advancement of petroleum energy development the history of the world will ever see. Conditions were unique and overwhelmingly in our favor. No combination of policies can recreate that period of time. The 1950s aren't coming back. Appealing to that fantasy is an act of mass deception.
Click to expand...

I think its a bunch of different factors, but that doesn't change the fact that the idealized economy Trump supporters want to return to, had a lot of union involvement in it, so they really are cherry picking which elements of the past they want to return to.


Neomalthusian said:
I don't think conservatives really have a movement, and I don't think the GOP has a good plan or defined goals in terms of much of anything. There are a few positive developments the GOP could help bring about and they're dead on with a few things, but otherwise not much cohesion in their message or goals. But that doesn't make unions good, it doesn't make Right To Work "bad," it doesn't justify public sector unions, it doesn't legitimize Canada's desire for the U.S. to engage in self-harm and reinstate closed shop unionism, and it doesn't make anything that Democrats and/or liberals do or say infallible. Say what you want about the GOP and conservatives, I might agree with you, but I sling mud at the left too.
Click to expand...

The problem is the US started these talks and the US is currently controlled by Trump and the Republicans, but Trump and the Republicans can't seem to agree to an economic vision, so their goals are not clear, which dealing with them if you are one of the other parties a exercise in frustration.

I think Trump bashes NAFTA, Canada and Mexico for easy points at some rally, but has no real clue about how he wants to change trade relations between these 3 countries.

He just plays grievance politics, blaming Canada and Mexico for things which are the fault of US companies and the US government.


Neomalthusian said:
Whatever Canada's vision, the stated desire for the U.S. to return to closed shop unionism is insane. So insane that I really believe it is only a stunt to turn union households back against the GOP so that Democrats retake the White House in 2020, because Canadians are quite fond of our Democratic Party. That's the reason for this nut-job "demand." Pure politics, "surface bargaining" if you will.
Click to expand...

You over estimate the desire of the Canadian government to get involved with the US' internal political affairs, this is a bargaining chip, Trump likes to say Mexican wages are unfair, so Canada can say American wages are unfair and then only drop this demand in exchange for something else.

If the US didn't want to entertain the demands of Canada or Mexico in these talks, they should have been more wary before deciding to go forward with these talks.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
When the British first invented capitalism, they did it by throwing all the serfs off of the land their families had lived on for hundreds of years. Forced them into the cities and hired them into extremely horrid conditions. Any attempt by the lower classes to negotiate for better wages was stamped out, sometimes violently. Families had to hire out their children just to be able to afford to feed them. If you got injured, you were fired. If you died, oh well. The working class had no rights, and the nobility used many of the same arguments conservatives do today to justify keeping those rights from them.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for a history essay.

In comparison, right to work laws allow companies to hire out temp agencies for low wages and no benefits.
Click to expand...

No, right to work laws state that union security clauses are illegal.

A job that your dad had that paid well, gave him insurance, and a retirement plan would be given to a temp kept on for 90 days paid half as much and no benefits. If the temp gets injured, they get replaced.
Click to expand...

This ridiculous rhetoric doesn't interest me. If a job that provided all those things to your dad could be done just as well by some random untrained temp, then it should have been given to the temp a long time ago. There is usually no good reason to pay career type compensation with full benefits for brainless grunt labor that any random dude can do with virtually no training. And injuries have squat to do with Right To Work laws.

He's asking what's so bad about wanting to end a law
Click to expand...

A law? Which law is that? Just be specific.

that goes in the face of everything the lower classes have fought for over the last 200 years.
Click to expand...

Lower classes don't fight for union security clauses. Union security clauses establish coercive privileges for unions over their own membership. That's all it is. Have you noticed that unions continue to exist in Right To Work states?

And when I say fought, there are battle fields in the US, where company towns security force would fight with workers. Who only wanted better wages and working conditions. These companies, would move into a rural area and build towns around factories and rent out housing to workers and pay them less than what they charged. Ever heard the song 16 tons? 'I owe my soul to the company store" is a line talking about this. It was a long, hard, bloody fight to get labor unions and then and even longer harder fight for those unions to gain us the liveable wages and benefits many of our parents and grandparents enjoyed and made our lives so happy.
Click to expand...

And we're back to the history essay. Look, no one was fighting for union security clauses. You're talking about unions in general. Right To Work is about union coercion. Unions are not inseparable from security clauses. Right To Work doesn't abolish unionism. It just says unions can't coerce people into their membership by getting employers to agree to fire employees for not paying dues.

Right to work attacks the progress we made.
Click to expand...

No it does not.

It's setting future generations up to be debt slaves, like in first days of capitalism.
Click to expand...

No it does not. These are ridiculous hyperbolic lies that unions tell you. Right To Work means something very specific and much less dramatic than what you're implying it means. It doesn't mean the crap unions and union-backed websites tell you it means. It means unions and employers cannot write a clause into their contract that says the employer will fire whoever doesn't pay dues. Unions continue existing in Right To Work states, in case you haven't noticed. Some are showing signs of strength in Right To Work states. And if Hill v. SEIU and/or related laws unravel unions' so-called duty of monopoly representation, unionism can be members-only, and unions can then focus exclusively on serving the needs of their voluntary members without any additional so-called burden to represent or serve workers who don't pay for the privilege.
 
Yes_Minister said:
I think its a bunch of different factors, but that doesn't change the fact that the idealized economy Trump supporters want to return to, had a lot of union involvement in it, so they really are cherry picking which elements of the past they want to return to.
Click to expand...

As does anyone thinking or talking as though we can simply return to the supposedly idealized economy of the mid-20th century.

The problem is the US started these talks and the US is currently controlled by Trump and the Republicans, but Trump and the Republicans can't seem to agree to an economic vision, so their goals are not clear, which dealing with them if you are one of the other parties a exercise in frustration.

I think Trump bashes NAFTA, Canada and Mexico for easy points at some rally, but has no real clue about how he wants to change trade relations between these 3 countries.

He just plays grievance politics, blaming Canada and Mexico for things which are the fault of US companies and the US government.
Click to expand...

That could be, but it still begs the question, if Canada doesn't like how its unionism makes it non-competitive next to its southern neighbors, perhaps it should second-guess its tactic of giving unions such broad influence over its country's policies.

You over estimate the desire of the Canadian government to get involved with the US' internal political affairs, this is a bargaining chip, Trump likes to say Mexican wages are unfair, so Canada can say American wages are unfair and then only drop this demand in exchange for something else.
Click to expand...

I recognize it as a simple bargaining chip, and really just a poke in the eye to Trump. But this would be easy to flip back on Canada and suggest they stop letting unions run their show if they don't like how non-competitive it's making them.

If the US didn't want to entertain the demands of Canada or Mexico in these talks, they should have been more wary before deciding to go forward with these talks.
Click to expand...

It's common in any negotiation that some proposals are worth entertaining and others are worth ridiculing. This falls in the latter category. In actual labor negotiations, non-serious proposals intending only to frustrate negotiations are considered surface bargaining.
 
washunut said:
Does anyone else find it shocking that people on this site openly root for America to fail. I only hope that these are kids who will learn better when they grow up.
Click to expand...

Like you probably were a year ago under Obama?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Neomalthusian said:
As does anyone thinking or talking as though we can simply return to the supposedly idealized economy of the mid-20th century.



That could be, but it still begs the question, if Canada doesn't like how its unionism makes it non-competitive next to its southern neighbors, perhaps it should second-guess its tactic of giving unions such broad influence over its country's policies.
Click to expand...

Except Trump constantly bashes Mexico for its cheap labor, why is that okay then? This does come off as a double standard.


Neomalthusian said:
I recognize it as a simple bargaining chip, and really just a poke in the eye to Trump. But this would be easy to flip back on Canada and suggest they stop letting unions run their show if they don't like how non-competitive it's making them.



It's common in any negotiation that some proposals are worth entertaining and others are worth ridiculing. This falls in the latter category. In actual labor negotiations, non-serious proposals intending only to frustrate negotiations are considered surface bargaining.
Click to expand...

Trump's been poking Canada and especially Mexico in the eye for a while now (Canada did get off a more lightly then Mexico did), if Trump wants a bunch of grand standing and overt unpleasantness in these talks, then don't be surprised if the other parties decide to play his game.

This demand is nothing compared to the scorn Trump has heaped on the other parties in these talks and a demand for a one sided deal where Canada and Mexico have to open their markets completely, while Trump can impose tariffs on a whim. Don't blame Canada for playing every card it can, when Trump made these talks far more contentious then they had to be.
 
Last edited:
Canadian negotiators are demanding the United States roll back so-called "right to work" laws
Click to expand...

Yeah.....that's not going to happen. Don't hold your breath, Canada.
 
Yes_Minister said:
Except Trump constantly bashes Mexico for its cheap labor, why is that okay then? This does come off as a double standard.
Click to expand...

Trump says crazy things constantly. I'm not defending him.

Trump's been poking Canada and especially Mexico in the eye for a while now (Canada did get off a more lightly then Mexico did), if Trump wants a bunch of grand standing and overt unpleasantness in these talks, then don't be surprised if the other parties decide to play his game.

This demand is nothing compared to the scorn Trump has heaped on the other parties in these talks and a demand for a one sided deal where Canada and Mexico have to open their markets completely, while Trump can impose tariffs on a whim. Don't blame Canada for playing every card it can, when Trump made these talks far more contentious then they had to be.
Click to expand...

I don't blame Canada, but just on the merits, this proposal is absurd. I get the political intentions behind it, which are very partisan by the way, but the notion that more handouts and coercive privileges should be given to unions specifically is absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom