Canada's Supreme Court Penalizes Walmart for Closing Store After Workers Unionized
Canada's Supreme Court ruled Friday that Wal-Mart must compensate former workers at a Quebec store that was closed after they voted to become the first Wal-Mart store in North America to unionize.
Directive 10-289 or what?
Tell them to pound sand, and tell them in French.
And then let them deal with the consequent unemployment.
When government controls corporations, that's called Communism. But what do you call it when corporations control government?
The reason that regulations often give power to corporations and inhibit competition from small businesses is not because that's just the inherent nature of regulations, because it isn't. Rather, it's because the corporations are the ones writing the regulations, and they write them in a way that favors them. If the regulations were written differently, they could just as easily favor the small businesses over the large ones.
Remember, the issue is never about whether we have too much regulation or too little regulation, but whether or not we have the RIGHT regulations.
For the 3rd, ONE of the issues is about whether we have too much/too little regulation. There is no way a country can possibly have the number of regulations we do, and have them be "right."
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/independent_...
describing WalMart and its abuse of eminent domain.
Meanwhile, without Wal-mart... prices will go up...
It's win-win for everybody... /sarc
Is dignity an individual right? Meaning, it exists for all individuals without any services required from other individuals. And, you are not to violate that right against any individual, not just the ones you are currently working with. And, any violation of this right is morally wrong and may be punishable.
If dignity is not an individual right, does dignity supersede individual rights?
I'll continue this on a new topic if you so choose to create it.
Should both individual rights and "dignity of the individual," be respected by everyone?
How would have Saul Alinsky answered these?
"Not everything is about rights."
Here is a simple "mind exercise":
If there were only two people on an island, which of these two basic philosophies would be more ethical?
Respect each others individual rights? You can do anything else you want.
Or
Respect each others dignity? You can do anything else you want.
You keep talking about Saul Alinsky's philosophy, but I have to ask, have you ever read his books?
It isn't
No, I'm not going to point you in the right direction to find out.
Nevertheless, arrrrrgggggh.
I don't know. Maybe an Objectivist here will answer that question. What I know is that they only need government force for three fundamental purposes. I'm sure you can Google it.
If you're still not convinced, drive through Aliquippa & Ambridge, PA and Stuebenville, WV. Unions destroy. Period. So much for 'the little guy, the economy & the children' and any other leftist non-sense slogans I may have forgotten.
This would NOT include those unions that actually respected individual rights.
Can you guess what happened after Prohibition was lifted? Well, in Chicago, Al Capone and his minions (Saul Alinsky worked with his henchmen) infiltrated into...can you guess?
Unions. And so did the communists. It's never been the same since.
My take on unions is this: if you (the angry union member/boss) think you can do a better job AND provide better benefits than the company/corporation boss, then PROVE IT by STARTING YOUR OWN COMPANY. Show us how it's done. Otherwise, STFU or QUIT.
But don't give this BS excuse 'But you can fire anyone at any time for any reason...we gotta have a union to protect against that!' Because IF you are one of the best employees who really knows his/her stuff AND is a MENTOR to JUNIOR employees AND is reliable: WHY on earth would I (as a company boss or manager) be stupid enough to fire you, just so you could go to my COMPETITION and assist them in putting my dumb arse out of business??? Western PA knuckleheads simply didn't understand that. If you're guessing that's where I'm from ~ you guessed correctly! NO UNIONS!! PERIOD. EVER. Kas sa saad aru? Comprende?
Like if I stated, then asked,
If all your enemies were dust beneath your feet, you would be free.
Don't you want freedom?
We'll don't you?
Don't you want freedom?
You ask, “Don't you want freedom?”
Packaging the two together as if they should or must be packaged that way.
Agreeing that a person wants freedom does not in any way mean the person would automatically agree to Saul Alinsky's idea of freedom or methods required to obtain it.
Saul Alinsky may say he was for freedom but he was not for the type of freedom most individuals would voluntarily choose to have or in the way they would voluntarily choose to have it.. He and now his followers condone and justify seriously questionable morals to arrive at their ends.
A simple, yes or no question:
When working torward his goals for a free society, would Saul Alinsky tell all his followers to respect everyone individual or natural rights?
If you respect the dignity of the individual you are working with, then his desires, not yours; his values, not yours; his ways of working and fighting, not yours; his choice of leadership, not yours; his programs, not yours, are important and must be followed; except if his programs violate the high values of a free and open society. For example, take the question, "What if the program of the local people offends the rights of other groups, for reasons of color, religion, economic status, or politics? Should this program be accepted just because it is their program?" The answer is categorically no. Always remember that "the guiding star is 'the dignity of the individual.'" This is the purpose of the program. Obviously any program that opposes people because of race, religion, creed, or economic status, is the antithesis of the fundamental dignity of the individual.
It is difficult for people to believe that you really respect their dignity. After all, they know very few people, including their own neighbors, who do. But it is equally difficult for you to surrender that little image of God created in our own likeness, which lurks in all of us and tells us that we secretly believe that we know what's best for the people. A successful organizer has learned emotionally as well as intellectually to respect the dignity of the people with whom he is working. Thus an effective organizational experience is as much an educational process for the organizer as it is for the people with whom he is working. They both must learn to respect the dignity of the individual, and they both must learn that in the last analysis this is the basic purpose of organization, for participation is the heartbeat of the democratic way of life. We learn, when we respect the dignity of the people, that they cannot be denied the elementary right to participate fully in the solutions to their own problems. Self-respect arises only out of people who play an active role in solving their own crises and who are not helpless, passive, puppet-like recipients of private or public services. To give people help, while denying them a significant part in the action, contributes nothing to the development of the individual. In the deepest sense it is not giving but taking—taking their dignity. Denial of the opportunity for participation is the denial of human dignity and democracy. It will not work."
~ Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals," In The Begining, pages 122-123
If you don't have the initiative to make things better for yourself, but see others striving to make things better for themselves....don't bitch about 'things are not fair' and other communist tripe
An exception here is: a tornado just wiped out your town & community. Everybody lost everything. The Gov't can GTFO. Ok, now we can all pull together. But once things are no longer in a state of chaos (Saul Alinsky's utopian wet-dream) THEN it's back to individual initiative.
---
'Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "Does the End justify the Means?" but has always been "Does this *particular* end justify this *particular* means?"'
~ Saul Alinksy, Rules for Radicals, Of Means and Ends, page 47
Did a master race for the greater good of the Fatherland justify another World War?
What particular means were justified? Who decides?
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
— Warren Buffett
Several media outlets on both the right and the left have recently reported that the United States is no longer either a Republic or a Democracy, but rather has become a Plutocracy. Did you think that just happened by accident?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/27...
There's a documentary called "The End of Poverty?" which you can watch for free on YouTube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktOXJr1...
Skip ahead to 1:12:00 for the part where they talk about the dam being built and destroying the farmland of the local population.
People can claim the sky is green. That doesn't make it true.
The country was remarkably free of class warfare until the communist agitators began waging it.
"Unions have given employees entitlements above and beyond what the market bears"..."... that they have. Benefits packages, double-digit-per-hour wages for doing menial, mindless, work bearing no responsibility.
One can find examples for virtually every union out there.
A large company can do better without some employees.
Union employees qualify as "parasites", as they always suck away more than they contribute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_and...
If so, that seems like a slightly difference situation, as a power generation company can typically relocate almost anywhere without consequence, whereas a grocery store cannot relocate without removing itself from the market of that particular area.
I hear they're going to relocate Hoover Dam soon...