Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You mean an incentive like having a job that pays well that a worker would want to keep as opposed to minimum/low wage jobs that they can easily find another one of and therefore don’t have incentive to do more than the bare minimum at?

Apologies for jumping in your discussion with Mel. My first job was flipping burgers for McD's while in HS in the late 70's. The minimum wage at that time was an ungodly $1.90 and hour. My incentive back then was to do the best job I could regardless of the pay or job and not just the minimum. My work efforts weren't based on what I was paid. It was what my parents installed in me growing up.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Dion

Apologies for jumping in your discussion with Mel. My first job was flipping burgers for McD's while in HS in the late 70's. The minimum wage at that time was an ungodly $1.90 and hour. My incentive back then was to do the best job I could regardless of the pay or job and not just the minimum. My work efforts weren't based on what I was paid. It was what my parents installed in me growing up.

Curious, do you remember what a quarter pounder cost back then in Canada? Wondering relatively how minimum wage and QP relate then and now, with a local example.

[Dion]

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Curious, do you remember what a quarter pounder cost back then in Canada? Wondering relatively how minimum wage and QP relate then and now, with a local example.

A quarter pounder was 5 cents and a house could be had for $100, a handshake, and a promise to keep on truckin.

He walked up hill both ways to school, for they had not invented the vehicle.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Curious, do you remember what a quarter pounder cost back then in Canada? Wondering relatively how minimum wage and QP relate then and now, with a local example.

IIRC it was 70 cents.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Dion

IIRC it was 70 cents.

So for minimum wage back then you could buy 2.7 QP's. Today you can only buy 1.67. So if the pay was ungodly then...well...

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So for minimum wage back then you could buy 2.7 QP's. Today you can only buy 1.67. So if the pay was ungodly then...well...

But...but...but the quality of the burgers was far better back then than the crap you get today. Hot off the grill, freshly grilled burgers

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So for minimum wage back then you could buy 2.7 QP's. Today you can only buy 1.67. So if the pay was ungodly then...well...

It appears that in 1979 the price of a quarter pounder with cheese was $0.95 in the US. I don't know how that translates into Canadian prices though.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Then there’s the matter of dues and pensions……

But I shall be Grand Poobah for Life!!

Originally Posted by Dion

Apologies for jumping in your discussion with Mel. My first job was flipping burgers for McD's while in HS in the late 70's. The minimum wage at that time was an ungodly $1.90 and hour. My incentive back then was to do the best job I could regardless of the pay or job and not just the minimum. My work efforts weren't based on what I was paid. It was what my parents installed in me growing up.

Was that in shekels or those ones they carved out of stone?

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Curious, do you remember what a quarter pounder cost back then in Canada? Wondering relatively how minimum wage and QP relate then and now, with a local example.

In the 70’s taking my wife and a toddler to McD’s for a Big Mac, 2 junior cheese, large frys and one drink was less than $5.00. Also less than 2 hours wages for me so it was considered a good deal.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Heaven forbid this type of thinking moves over to the hockey side.

we would have zero trade proposals to speculate on

The hockey analogy is a good one.
There's certain posters who make incorrect proposals and can own it. They don't tell everyone else on the board they're absolute idiots for disagreeing with them and understand you'll get some right, you'll get some wrong.
You're doing that.

Then there's posters who make incorrect proposals (all the time), engage only in insulting others who disagree with their proposals, and just double down every time they're proven incorrect anyway.
They troll the board 99% of the time and squirm when they're proven so terribly wrong, even though they will of course never admit it.

Same proposals; 2 very different ways for engaging on the board.

[FlamesAddiction]

Fast food went from being a cheap option to a being a luxury item for a lot of people. Any time I go for fast food, which isn't often, it's me treating myself and not because it's something cheap and quick to get on the fly.

A big reason why things like fast food are more expensive is because wages rise and the chain of production got a lot bigger and more broad. Plus things like worker safety, demand for benefits, and environmental concerns add to the costs that weren't there in the 1970s. I am not saying regulations and better standards aren't good, but they add costs that didn't exist before. Not to mention higher energy and fuel costs.

And let's face it, most jobs in the 1970s and before were probably a lot harder and took more effort. Technological advancements have made things easier it a lot of ways in most industries, so if you peg buying power to actual work and effort, people in the 1970s were probably underpaid relative to today.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The hockey analogy is a good one.
There's certain posters who make incorrect proposals and can own it. They don't tell everyone else on the board they're absolute idiots for disagreeing with them and understand you'll get some right, you'll get some wrong.
You're doing that.

Then there's posters who make incorrect proposals (all the time), engage only in insulting others who disagree with their proposals, and just double down every time they're proven incorrect anyway.
They troll the board 99% of the time and squirm when they're proven so terribly wrong, even though they will of course never admit it.

Same proposals; 2 very different ways for engaging on the board.

I get what you’re doing here but even the closest examples of the second form don’t come anywhere close to the level of commitment to the bit you’re describing, so it comes off as needlessly dramatic.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So for minimum wage back then you could buy 2.7 QP's. Today you can only buy 1.67. So if the pay was ungodly then...well...

Minimum wage is 15 bucks is it not? QPs are about 6 bucks I think. So think your math is a little off.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Patek23

Minimum wage is 15 bucks is it not? QPs are about 6 bucks I think. So think your math is a little off.

Minimum wage is also not a federal issue.

[Acey]

Tough to justify a fast food burger for $8 when an entire rotisserie chicken is $8.87 at Wal-Mart.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This sounds much more fun. Why have conversation and theorizes on the why or how of things regardless of whether you agree with them when you can just scream into the void.

I’m gonna go with: the USUAL SUSPECTS have FAILED once AGAIN to predict the POPULARITY of DEAR LEADER. Finally the ADULTS IN THE ROOM have STEPPED UP and PENSION PETE will RULE this THIRD WORLD COUNTRY!

We are living in a POOL OF CESS propped up by PSYCHOPANTS! All the SCUMBAG LEFT has is INSULTS! TRIGGERED!

Yeah this rocks.

You’re finally starting to make sense

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by GGG

Calling Jagmeets bluff. PP really wants to face Trudeau rather than a new liberal leader.

Think he’s just trying to make sure people don’t forget who Trudeau’s lap dog is.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Patek23

Minimum wage is 15 bucks is it not? QPs are about 6 bucks I think. So think your math is a little off.

$8.99 now.


https://mcdonalds-menu.ca/mcdonalds-...r-with-cheese/

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ped

Alright, I witnessed this from a few different points of view. Union came in, promised the workers all sorts of stuff that there was no way they were going to get, and was based on what the company was being paid to complete the work. Union came in, first contract came in, and the wages were way lower than what the union had promised, and no paid days off, either.

Any employees looking to unionize that are being given promises of specific wage or benefit increases by a union organizer should immediately look to a different union to go with for help.

That union stumbled and bumbled and eventually got replaced by a bigger union. A union I was actually a member of previously, although a different local, and had good experiences with.

Glad to hear they didn’t let a bad experience overshadow the other benefits, and that they made the adjustments to get into a better situation.

The seniority list was master, and also broken up into classifications. Let's say one of the classifications lost half their work to a different company. But the other half of hte work still existed, so people within that classification should have maintained that seniority. After 3 years, they got back the work they had lost. So those people who had remained with in the classification should have had rights to go back and work their previous posts. But the union leadership and the company both got together and decided that previous classification never existed. That it ended 3 years previously, when they lost, even though they maintained some of the work that was there. There was no memos or notices or votes from the union, and nothing from the company. They just decided that the classification never existed in that manner - not arguing that it changed when they lost the work, which would have been a legitimate argument - but that it never existed in that manner, even though I knew for a fact it did, and had seen the seniority lists, and in fact had been one of the ones working on the seniority lists. They just... ceased to exist. Just to screw over about 10 people who had high seniority.

I really don’t like commenting on specific situations like this when I have no way of getting the other side’s story or any other facts that lead to a decision like this.

I will say this much though: Seniority and layoff/recall rules are part of the collective agreement. The employees vote on their collective agreements so they know what is in them. If a union misrepresents employees, those employees can file charges against them through the labour board, and they should if they were misrepresented. The ability to challenge the actions of your employer through your union, and the actions of your union through the labour board are what generally ensure your collective agreement is adhered to. The reason why it’s important to have an enforced collective agreement is because without it the company would be able to do literally everything in your example that you and I’m assuming the terminated employees disagreed with them doing, with no recourse for employees at all.