Famous Players Cineplex Odeon Projectionists Update
colin newell
92% Income Reduction
New Demands by Theatre Chains
Famous Players (Viacom) and Cineplex Odeon (Sony) reacted to the
governments recently appointed Industrial Inquiry Commission (I.I.C.) by
demanding locked out
projectionists take up to a 92% income reduction.
"Its absurd," said B.C. Projectionists' Union President Damon Faulkner.
"These arrogant corporations are thumbing their nose at the Provincial
Government, organized
labour, and workers in B.C. They are an embarrassment to B.C. companies
that pay fair wages."
In an effort to resolve the nine-month-old dispute, the Union presented a
proposal through I.I.C. appointee Stephen Kelleher. "The Unions proposal
was intended to bring
an end to this dispute," stated Faulkner. "Our offer was very close to
answering demands of these employers that locked the Union out last
December."
The Union contends it is now absolutely clear that the theatre chains are
intent on Union busting. Apparently the almost bankrupt Toronto/Ontario
Projectionists' Union was
forced to accept a similar proposal. In bargaining, the B.C.
Projectionsts' Union has no relationship or affiliation with any other
Projectionists' Union. "Ontario and the
International (I.A.T.S.E.) Union do not negotiate contracts for
projectionists here or set patterns acceptable to living conditions in
British Columbia," commented Faulkner.
The Union has not given up, and will work with the B.C. Federation of
Labour and other Unions to escalate pressure against the companies.
Damon Faulkner
President
Jeff Tang
how?? They were making like $25/hr last year. So a 92% income reduction
= $25*(0.8) or just $2/hr ? isn't there something called minimum wage in bc?
i think it is a story made up by the bad union people in an attempt to
make headlines.
colin newell (rne...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote:
: MEDIA RELEASE
John Corman
>MEDIA RELEASE
>
>92% Income Reduction
>New Demands by Theatre Chains
>
>Famous Players (Viacom) and Cineplex Odeon (Sony) reacted to the
>governments recently appointed Industrial Inquiry Commission (I.I.C.) by
>demanding locked out
>projectionists take up to a 92% income reduction.
=====================================================
You know, I get pissed off enough that when I read this garbage of
yours, I wish it were true.
Grow up for Christ sake and find a life where you earn what you're
worth. If you don't like, it make your self more valuable. You can
probably start find learning what 92% means.
John Corman ****** @server home.com
Graeme Hiebert
Tang) wrote:
> how?? They were making like $25/hr last year. So a 92% income reduction
> = $25*(0.8) or just $2/hr ? isn't there something called minimum wage in bc?
> i think it is a story made up by the bad union people in an attempt to
> make headlines.
They've also reduced the maximum number of hours per week from 40 down to
10 (or something like that). That would mean a maximum of $80/week for
the union worker, then they bring in the non-union projectionists.
-g
Bad Daddy
>MEDIA RELEASE
>
>92% Income Reduction
>New Demands by Theatre Chains
Break free of the chains. Get a new job. You ain't gonna win.
>
>Famous Players (Viacom) and Cineplex Odeon (Sony) reacted to the
>governments recently appointed Industrial Inquiry Commission (I.I.C.) by
>demanding locked out
>projectionists take up to a 92% income reduction.
>
snip
Rod Rempel
Old income: 40 hrs/wk * $60/hr = $2400/wk (~125K/yr)
New income: 10 hrs/wk * $18/hr = $180/wk
Reduction = ~92%
Sure, if projectionist are worth $125,000/yr (more than most
doctors make after expenses, and more than 9x% of the
population, for a job than can have a movie theater manager
trained to do in 2 days...).
Sure, if cutting hours of work by 4 is a fair comparison.
Sure, if you ignore the "after tax" effect (and don't get
another job in the free 30 hrs/week).
Then you can come up with "92%".
Of course this is all crap to try and produce sympathy for
grossly overpaid, semi-skilled union workers...
--
Rod Rempel
r...@wavemakers.com
colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:7pcoa8$3mi$1...@sylvester.vcn.bc.ca...
> MEDIA RELEASE
>
> 92% Income Reduction
> New Demands by Theatre Chains
>
> Famous Players (Viacom) and Cineplex Odeon (Sony) reacted
to the
> governments recently appointed Industrial Inquiry
Commission (I.I.C.) by
> demanding locked out
> projectionists take up to a 92% income reduction.
>
Bad Daddy
wrote:
>On 17 Aug 1999 22:39:04 GMT, colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>>MEDIA RELEASE
>>
>>92% Income Reduction
>>New Demands by Theatre Chains
>>
>>Famous Players (Viacom) and Cineplex Odeon (Sony) reacted to the
>>governments recently appointed Industrial Inquiry Commission (I.I.C.) by
>>demanding locked out
>>projectionists take up to a 92% income reduction.
>=====================================================
>You know, I get pissed off enough that when I read this garbage of
>yours, I wish it were true.
>Grow up for Christ sake and find a life where you earn what you're
>worth. If you don't like, it make your self more valuable. You can
>probably start find learning what 92% means.
>
>John Corman ****** @server home.com
Gee colin, better go to the union hall for some support. Your not
going to get much here. Just S&A or actually, a dose of non-union
reality.
colin newell
John Corman wrote in message <37baea3c.8294699@news>...
>You know, I get pissed off enough that when I read this garbage of
>yours, I wish it were true.
>Grow up for Christ sake and find a life where you earn what you're
>worth. If you don't like, it make your self more valuable. You can
>probably start find learning what 92% means.
Calm down John-john!
I am not a projectionist.
I am merely an advocate for strong labour in B.C.
Colin -
colin newell
Bad Daddy wrote in message <37b9f938...@news.pinc.com>...
>Gee colin, better go to the union hall for some support. Your not
>going to get much here. Just S&A or actually, a dose of non-union
>reality.
>
As I have said " Daddy", I am not a projectionist,
merely a labour supporter.
I get plenty of satisfaction from my posts and
your responses..... So...
Give us a kiss!
Colin
colin newell
Bad Daddy wrote in message <37b9f27b...@news.pinc.com>...
>Break free of the chains. Get a new job. You ain't gonna win.
>>
Power to the people!!
Daddy: You're bad!!
Colin -
colin newell
Rod Rempel wrote in message ...
>Of course this is all crap to try and produce sympathy for
>grossly overpaid, semi-skilled union workers...
>
Pavel Bure is overpaid.
Cinema projectionists are not.
You have been hypnotized by the corporations.
Colin in Victoria
Devin Redlich
> I get plenty of satisfaction from my posts and
> your responses..... So...
Are you at all familiar with the expression "troll"?
foamy
"colin newell" <rne...@home.com> wrote:
>Pavel Bure is overpaid.
Hey ! When you or your buddy union pea-heads
can score back to back 60's, then you can mouth
off. Pavel generates revenue, I've yet to hear of
anyone attending a movie because some union
moron was was feeding the projector between
farts.
>Cinema projectionists are not.
If they are paid--they're overpaid.
>You have been hypnotized by the corporations.
Sorry, brainwashing troglodytes is a union specialty.
Jim
samw...@my-deja.com
(depending on your beliefs). You have to be gifted to be a hockey
player. You don't have to be gifted to be a projectionist (Am I
wrong?).
Bure is NOT overpaid if there are employers willing to pay him that
salary. Are there teams seeking Bure's services at his salary? You
bet there are. Florida for one.
You are overpaid if NO employers want to pay you at your existing
salary. Are there any employers willing to pay the Projectionists
their desired salaries?
Simple Economics of Labour apply here. If you wish to throw these
basic laws and principles out the door then basically you can say
whatever you wish and believe it to be true. However, few people will
believe or sympathize with the illogical.
How do you define overpaid and what references do you use? I get my
definition from textbooks in case you are curious. The principles are
obviously a little more complicated then what I wrote but I don't want
to get into the supply and demand of labour. It'll definitely screw
people up. So let's keep it simple. You'll probably say that textbook
definitions don't apply in the real world.
In article <toou3.2650$Kh.1...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
"colin newell" <rne...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Rod Rempel wrote in message ...
>
> >Of course this is all crap to try and produce sympathy for
> >grossly overpaid, semi-skilled union workers...
> >
>
> Pavel Bure is overpaid.
>
> Cinema projectionists are not.
> You have been hypnotized by the corporations.
>
> Colin in Victoria
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Darren Barefoot
perplexed by this term "union busting." If someone is capable and willing to
do the job for less money than the unionized worker, why shouldn't they?
Statistics teach us that, given current labour trends, we'll be at (the
impossible) -13% (that's negative) unemployment. There will be a lack of
skilled labourers, so workers will be able to command their price. One need
only look as far as the high-tech industry to observe this supply and demand
gap. Over 22,000 high tech jobs went unfilled in Canada last year because of
a lack of workers. Do these people need a union? Hardly. Furthermore, the
growth of small business is exploding across North America. That can't be
helping the unions' position.
Unionized workers in skilled and respected positions--nurses, police
officers, bus drivers--they will receive the pay they deserve, or go
elsewhere (out of the province or country). Unionized workers in relatively
unskilled or shrinking fields--projectionists, fishermen, foresters--should
be replaced by cheaper workers if they're available and competent. As far as
I can tell, in the case of replacement projectionists, they are. Those in
these fields should consider retraining, or another field entirely.
I'm reminded of the uproar some time ago caused when it was revealed how
much the city's (I don't recall his title) Sewage Supervisor. People said
$90,000 (or whatever) was too much, until he said "well, basically, I stand
in sh*t all day." I'll drink to him and his salary for that.
So, pay people what they're worth. Simple as that. DB.
colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:7pcoa8$3mi$1...@sylvester.vcn.bc.ca...
> MEDIA RELEASE
>
> 92% Income Reduction
> New Demands by Theatre Chains
>
> Famous Players (Viacom) and Cineplex Odeon (Sony) reacted to the
> governments recently appointed Industrial Inquiry Commission (I.I.C.) by
> demanding locked out
> projectionists take up to a 92% income reduction.
>
Ken Flanagan
>Famous Players (Viacom) and Cineplex Odeon (Sony) reacted to the
>governments recently appointed Industrial Inquiry Commission (I.I.C.) by
>demanding locked out
>projectionists take up to a 92% income reduction.
Wah. All I can say to that is:
"You snooze, you lose!"
>"Its absurd," said B.C. Projectionists' Union President Damon Faulkner.
>"These arrogant corporations are thumbing their nose at the Provincial
>Government, organized
>labour, and workers in B.C. They are an embarrassment to B.C. companies
>that pay fair wages."
Operative word here: "fair". What projectionists do these days hardly
warrants the wages they WERE getting paid.
>projectionists here or set patterns acceptable to living conditions in
>British Columbia," commented Faulkner.
Since when is a PART time job supposed to pay a living wage?
>The Union has not given up, and will work with the B.C. Federation of
>Labour and other Unions to escalate pressure against the companies.
Oh great, more violence and racist comments coming to a theatre near
you!
Ken Flanagan
wrote:
>I am not a projectionist.
>I am merely an advocate for strong labour in B.C.
So you advocate union organizers using stalking to try to get
employees to sign up?
Graeme Hiebert
Flanagan) wrote:
> Operative word here: "fair". What projectionists do these days hardly
> warrants the wages they WERE getting paid.
Perhaps, but I think it's worth a lot more than $8/hour. There's more to
it than selling candy bars, and they do provide the services that allow
their employers to generate such huge revenues in the first place.
I really don't understand why everyone's so down on the projectionists;
it's not like a huge portion of the ticket price goes towards the
projectionist's wage. Even if the projectionist earned $30/hour to sit at
one projector eating donuts, that's $60 for a two-hour movie. If 100
people are sitting in the theatre -- they'll get rid of the movie if it
gets much less popular than that -- it's still only $0.60 of each ticket
that goes towards the projectionist's wage.
When you consider that there are typically more customers there, that the
projectionists haven't been paid $30/hour for years, and the same
projectionist is minding several theatres at once, the cost per customer
is even less. Why the heck does everyone get so irate towards the
projectionists?
> Since when is a PART time job supposed to pay a living wage?
It doesn't have to be a part-time job. The big multiplexes are open far
longer than eight hours a day. (But just because a job is part-time,
that's no reason to devalue the hourly wage. Work is work.)
-g
Michelle S
> You have to be gifted to be a hockey
> player. You don't have to be gifted to be a projectionist (Am I
> wrong?).
Well, why don't you just hump your ass in the booth and provide the over
charged consumer with a great product that can actually not tak away from an
already shitty movie plagued with Hollywood morals and shit!!!!?
>
> Bure is NOT overpaid if there are employers willing to pay him that
> salary. Are there teams seeking Bure's services at his salary? You
> bet there are. Florida for one.
If my employer is willing to pay me disgusting amounts of cash for what I
already do for a pittance, does that then demand that *what* I do is worth
more? Seems your point is covered in hari. So, the salary that teams
(individuals) are willing to pay are but part of their costs for making
exponentially more dollars! Not any different than (funny you should
compare pro sports to movies; they're all GROSSLY overpaid and can be
equally compared). I'm a buyer and understand your cost analysis theories.
Why don't you come in and do what I do with your 'intelligence' and make a
buck? I dare you! You gotta spend a buck to make a buck!
>
> You are overpaid if NO employers want to pay you at your existing
> salary.
No, your employer is OVER-GREEDY if they are unwilling to pay a fair
percentage (equal ratio) of their earnings!
> Are there any employers willing to pay the Projectionists
> their desired salaries?
No, because greed exists everywhere and nowhere is it flaunted more than
Hollywood (I don't even want to _begin_ to talk about 'actors' (truly HARD
work) salaries!
> Simple Economics of Labour apply here. If you wish to throw these
> basic laws and principles out the door then basically you can say
> whatever you wish and believe it to be true. However, few people will
> believe or sympathize with the illogical.
That is not a simple concept of labour (I fear you should re-read your
material). Simple Economics of Labour indicate that a consumer with money
(adequately paid, average Joe) is worth far more than a consumer without!
Attempt to deny that economics are not driven by the buying power of the
consumer. Now I challenge you to argue the real "Simple Economics of
Labour"! If the wages in your industry are driven so low you can't feed
your family, you too would fight for sustenance (human nature, don't even
bother insulting anyone here by denying the basic laws of humanity) and
wonder what's wrong with the world that they're so intent on making the
greater part of the pouplation poor.
> How do you define overpaid and what references do you use? I get my
> definition from textbooks in case you are curious.
Oh, well, shit man, that's like "I saw it on TV, so it must be true!". I've
read lots of stuff in books, but don't believe it all. Don't tell me;
you're in your 1st year of Economics (Labour Relations) as a major (ya, good
luck getting a job; good thing mummy and daddy are loaded), and you read
some conservative babble soit's in print, 'it must be true'. Well darlin',
I learned long ago that wasn't so!
> The principles are
> obviously a little more complicated (not much, your view is of the most
simplistic, as is the mind from which it apparently originates) then (you
did mean *than*, not *then*?) what I wrote but I don't want
> to get into the supply and demand of labour.
Only because you haven't had anything to do with the real world yet. Ah,
Grasshopper, one day you may know the privledge of true experience.
>It'll definitely screw
> people up.
You couldn't be more choked by your silver spoon! How dare you assume we're
of less than equal intelligence than yourself! Intelligence = Ability to
learn, something that continues to escape your scope of life.
> So let's keep it simple. (You've suceeded in that, and that alone)
You'll probably say that textbook
> definitions don't apply in the real world.
Well, I've got an earth shatterer for you darlin! You've got a lot to learn
and the sooner you disengage yourself from mummies teats, the better off
you'll be.
(Gotta love these University Educated Assholes eh?)
Ah, Yout. We really admire your idealism!
Michelle S.
Michelle S
inability to provide for his/her family is compromised? He/She is reduced
to the most basic, primitive, rudiment element of nature; HUMANITARIAN!
You too would fight hard when your livelihood is compromised. Obviously
yours is no currently in that situation, but beware, your turn too will
come. Don't you agree the truckers are fucking sick of getting the hard one
up the ass? Why not the projectionists, any every other skilled labour who
has had enough?
Michelle S.
Ken Flanagan <kf...@mag-net.com> wrote in message
news:37bb384c...@207.211.168.92...
Michelle S
thinking that you're SURE a projectionist could not POSSILBY do your job!
Well, try theirs just once before you're inane insults plague your keyboard
and our monitors!
Michelle S.
kenwil...@hotmail.com
have taken a post that made total sense and wrote something that is
absolutely nonsensical. I couldn't find one point of yours that is
correct nor makes any sense.
I'm not even going to bother to deny EVERY point of yours because it
would take WAY TOO MUCH of my time and it would be redundant as most of
us already know what is logical and what isn't. The topic of supply
and demand of labor has come up many times, in various forms, and is
hard to argue though you have tried your uneducated best. You and
Colin have a lot in common in your posts, in the number of posts, and
in the number of irrational ideas. I don't have anything against the
Projectionists but you have made the Projectionist supporters, however
few there are, look like morons.
Go take your swim. At least that doesn't require any rational
thoughts. Unbelievable. Well, not really, I always knew the Internet
opened up portals to the extremely stupid.
In article <7pdno1$8ub$1...@news2.tor.accglobal.net>,
Bad Daddy
wrote:
>
>Bad Daddy wrote in message <37b9f938...@news.pinc.com>...
>
>>Gee colin, better go to the union hall for some support. Your not
>>going to get much here. Just S&A or actually, a dose of non-union
>>reality.
>>
>
>As I have said " Daddy", I am not a projectionist,
>merely a labour supporter.
>
>I get plenty of satisfaction from my posts and
>your responses..... So...
>
>Give us a kiss!
For a labour supporter? Never.
>
>Colin
>
>
Bad Daddy
wrote:
>Guess what happens when a humans (yes this includes you and everyone)
>inability to provide for his/her family is compromised? He/She is reduced
>to the most basic, primitive, rudiment element of nature; HUMANITARIAN!
>
>You too would fight hard when your livelihood is compromised. Obviously
>yours is no currently in that situation, but beware, your turn too will
>come. Don't you agree the truckers are fucking sick of getting the hard one
>up the ass? Why not the projectionists, any every other skilled labour who
>has had enough?
Since when did turning on a light or driving a truck become a skill?
Either job is at best semi-skilled. And that is the nub of the
problem: the semi-skilled labourers consider themselves skilled. And
expect big dough for it.
Obviously being a projectionist is a job that is going away with
better technology. Same as hunting whales for lamp oil. A better
technology was developed and supplanted the old method. This is called
development. And with truckers, that is truly an unskilled job.
Anybody can drive and anybody can learn to drive a truck. If it were
not so then there would be a multi-year course to become a truck
driver, or projectionist. There is a very strong correlation between
years of study and income. The projectionists only recieved a
relatively high income because they had mgt over a barrel. Well, the
barrel has rolled. And the proj't come up with fewer hours at lower
pay. Value for work. Simple as that.
>
>Michelle S.
>
>Ken Flanagan <kf...@mag-net.com> wrote in message
>news:37bb384c...@207.211.168.92...
Bad Daddy
<dred...@ipipeline.net> wrote:
>colin newell wrote:
>
>> I get plenty of satisfaction from my posts and
>> your responses..... So...
>
>Are you at all familiar with the expression "troll"?
As he 'trolling in a gay bar?' or would that be cruising in a gay bar
or pick-up station? or could it be that colin is a troll?
Bad Daddy
wrote:
>
>Rod Rempel wrote in message ...
>
>>Of course this is all crap to try and produce sympathy for
>>grossly overpaid, semi-skilled union workers...
>>
>
>
>Pavel Bure is overpaid.
>
>Cinema projectionists are not.
>You have been hypnotized by the corporations.
You are paid for what you are worth. Simple as that.
>
>Colin in Victoria
>
>
Bad Daddy
wrote:
>I too have a "God-Given' talent for what I do; shit man, I do it the BEST!
Best at what dear?
>
>> You have to be gifted to be a hockey
>> player. You don't have to be gifted to be a projectionist (Am I
>> wrong?).
>
>Well, why don't you just hump your ass in the booth and provide the over
>charged consumer with a great product that can actually not tak away from an
>already shitty movie plagued with Hollywood morals and shit!!!!?
>
You use bad word alot. When you use them all the time, they have no
meaning. Be economical with your cursing. It will have greater impact.
And the above passage is meaningless. What are you trying to say?
>>
>> Bure is NOT overpaid if there are employers willing to pay him that
>> salary. Are there teams seeking Bure's services at his salary? You
>> bet there are. Florida for one.
>
>If my employer is willing to pay me disgusting amounts of cash for what I
Disgusting? Like dirty money?
>already do for a pittance, does that then demand that *what* I do is worth
>more? Seems your point is covered in hari.
Hari? Is that Hair? And what do you mean by hari or hair?
> So, the salary that teams
>(individuals) are willing to pay are but part of their costs for making
>exponentially more dollars! Not any different than (funny you should
>compare pro sports to movies; they're all GROSSLY overpaid and can be
>equally compared). I'm a buyer and understand your cost analysis theories.
>Why don't you come in and do what I do with your 'intelligence' and make a
>buck? I dare you! You gotta spend a buck to make a buck!
This is a meaningless section. Please read your post before sending it
off. How can we reply if we do not know what you are trying to say?
>
>>
>> You are overpaid if NO employers want to pay you at your existing
>> salary.
>
>No, your employer is OVER-GREEDY if they are unwilling to pay a fair
>percentage (equal ratio) of their earnings!
Over-greedy? This is a new one. I thought greedy would cover it. But
over-greedy? Wow!! A new union speak term. Wouldn't $38/hr for running
a light bulb seem a bit over-greedy?
>
>> Are there any employers willing to pay the Projectionists
>> their desired salaries?
>
>No, because greed exists everywhere and nowhere is it flaunted more than
>Hollywood (I don't even want to _begin_ to talk about 'actors' (truly HARD
>work) salaries!
Geed. That word again. So it applies to everyone but the proj'iists?
Strange universe you live in dear.
>
>> Simple Economics of Labour apply here. If you wish to throw these
>> basic laws and principles out the door then basically you can say
>> whatever you wish and believe it to be true. However, few people will
>> believe or sympathize with the illogical.
>
>That is not a simple concept of labour (I fear you should re-read your
>material). Simple Economics of Labour indicate that a consumer with money
>(adequately paid, average Joe) is worth far more than a consumer without!
>Attempt to deny that economics are not driven by the buying power of the
>consumer.
As I wrote, this is a bad post. Slow down and articulate. I cannot
chop up your message unless it is clear. Or is that the message?
>Now I challenge you to argue the real "Simple Economics of
>Labour"! If the wages in your industry are driven so low you can't feed
>your family, you too would fight for sustenance (human nature, don't even
>bother insulting anyone here by denying the basic laws of humanity) and
>wonder what's wrong with the world that they're so intent on making the
>greater part of the pouplation poor.
Now what is the point of trying to make the popuation 'poor' when no
one will buy your product or service?
Start again dear. Take a deep breath. Type slowly. Read it and then
post.
>
>
>> How do you define overpaid and what references do you use? I get my
>> definition from textbooks in case you are curious.
>
>Oh, well, shit man, that's like "I saw it on TV, so it must be true!". I've
>read lots of stuff in books, but don't believe it all. Don't tell me;
>you're in your 1st year of Economics (Labour Relations) as a major (ya, good
>luck getting a job; good thing mummy and daddy are loaded), and you read
>some conservative babble soit's in print, 'it must be true'. Well darlin',
>I learned long ago that wasn't so!
Blah blah blah. Simply a bad post. Terrible.
Try again on some other subject that you can articulate upon.
>
>> The principles are
>> obviously a little more complicated (not much, your view is of the most
>simplistic, as is the mind from which it apparently originates) then (you
>did mean *than*, not *then*?) what I wrote but I don't want
>> to get into the supply and demand of labour.
>
>Only because you haven't had anything to do with the real world yet. Ah,
>Grasshopper, one day you may know the privledge of true experience.
>
>>It'll definitely screw
>> people up.
>
>You couldn't be more choked by your silver spoon! How dare you assume we're
>of less than equal intelligence than yourself! Intelligence = Ability to
>learn, something that continues to escape your scope of life.
>
>> So let's keep it simple. (You've suceeded in that, and that alone)
>You'll probably say that textbook
>> definitions don't apply in the real world.
>
>Well, I've got an earth shatterer for you darlin! You've got a lot to learn
>and the sooner you disengage yourself from mummies teats, the better off
>you'll be.
>
>(Gotta love these University Educated Assholes eh?)
>
>Ah, Yout. We really admire your idealism!
>
>Michelle S.
>
>>
>>
>> In article <toou3.2650$Kh.1...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
>> "colin newell" <rne...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Rod Rempel wrote in message ...
>> >
>> > >Of course this is all crap to try and produce sympathy for
>> > >grossly overpaid, semi-skilled union workers...
>> > >
>> >
>> > Pavel Bure is overpaid.
>> >
>> > Cinema projectionists are not.
>> > You have been hypnotized by the corporations.
>> >
Bad Daddy
wrote:
>Please, more ignorant I have not heard. I'm just guessing here, but I'm
I got it. Michelle is Yoda in disguise!! "Please more ignorant I have
not heard"!!
>
>Michelle S.
>
>
Bad Daddy
wrote:
>
Well thank you.
>
>Colin -
>
>
Jim Hobek
Bad Daddy <dontbugme@home> wrote in message
news:37bafe8a...@news.pinc.com...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 01:55:37 GMT, "colin newell" <rne...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Rod Rempel wrote in message ...
> >
> >>Of course this is all crap to try and produce sympathy for
> >>grossly overpaid, semi-skilled union workers...
> >>
> >
> >
> >Pavel Bure is overpaid.
> >
> >Cinema projectionists are not.
> >You have been hypnotized by the corporations.
Actually, I believe you are paid for what your marketable skills are worth
assuming you exploit those skills to your advantage. Improve your
marketable skills and watch your wages rise. In this world so far, there is
nothing for nothing. I hope it never changes.
I know that some individuals believe that by simple virtue of being born you
are "entitled" to something. Well, sorry. Not at my expense.
I am a selfish, self interested fool and I'm still proud to be that way...
:)
Jim
Bad Daddy
<jimh...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
>Bad Daddy <dontbugme@home> wrote in message
>news:37bafe8a...@news.pinc.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 01:55:37 GMT, "colin newell" <rne...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Rod Rempel wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >>Of course this is all crap to try and produce sympathy for
>> >>grossly overpaid, semi-skilled union workers...
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Pavel Bure is overpaid.
>> >
>> >Cinema projectionists are not.
>> >You have been hypnotized by the corporations.
>> You are paid for what you are worth. Simple as that.
>
>Actually, I believe you are paid for what your marketable skills are worth
>assuming you exploit those skills to your advantage. Improve your
>marketable skills and watch your wages rise. In this world so far, there is
>nothing for nothing. I hope it never changes.
I think we are on the same page. You fluffed up ( ;) ) my short
retort.
>
>I know that some individuals believe that by simple virtue of being born you
>are "entitled" to something. Well, sorry. Not at my expense.
>
>I am a selfish, self interested fool and I'm still proud to be that way...
Good man. Don't change this view of the world and you will never be
disappointed by the travails of life.
>:)
>
>
>Jim
>
>
Lorne
>"Its absurd," said B.C. Projectionists' Union President Damon Faulkner.
>"These arrogant corporations are thumbing their nose at the Provincial
>Government
Why shouldn't they? Everyone else in the province is.
-----
Lorne
Last three movies seen, rated out of four:
The Iron Giant (**1/2)
The Thomas Crown Affair (*)
Bowfinger (**)
* To reply, remove the second "o" (between the "d" and "g").
Lorne
>(Ken Flanagan) wrote:
>> Operative word here: "fair". What projectionists do these days hardly
>> warrants the wages they WERE getting paid.
>
>Perhaps, but I think it's worth a lot more than $8/hour. There's more to
>it than selling candy bars, and they do provide the services that allow
>their employers to generate such huge revenues in the first place.
Now here's *your* bias showing. Having experience in every possible
position in movie theater operation, I can assure you that the
projectionist's job is *far* easier than that of the concession clerk,
usher, or management staff. The only job that may be easier is that of
the doorperson, except they still have to deal with the public -- far
more challenging then dealing with the (extremely) occasional problem
in the booth.
samw...@my-deja.com
are based upon the supply and demand of labour in a free market. What
you wrote makes a lot of sense, although, I don't have data to back up
your numbers. But I am certainly willing to believe them.
In article <eXqu3.122710$U42.1...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
Graeme Hiebert
> Now here's *your* bias showing.
What bias would that be?
> Having experience in every possible
> position in movie theater operation, I can assure you that the
> projectionist's job is *far* easier than that of the concession clerk,
> usher, or management staff.
I didn't say it wasn't easier, just that there's more to it. My job's a
heck of a lot easier -- and certainly a lot more fun -- than selling candy
bars, but there's no way I'd be working where I am if my employer was only
paying me $8/hour, and there's no way in heck a 17-year-old with no
experience could do my job (though some come frighteningly close ;^).
> The only job that may be easier is that of
> the doorperson, except they still have to deal with the public -- far
> more challenging then dealing with the (extremely) occasional problem
> in the booth.
No bias there. BTW, what do the ushers do these days? Seems when I was a
teenager (early eighties) the ushers actually walked into the theatres,
asked people to move over, helped people find a seat in the middle of a
show, etc. etc. Now they barely even seem to be present. It seems that
people have figured out how to do these things themselves; maybe users
aren't needed in modern cinemas.
-g
samw...@my-deja.com
"Michelle S" <mst...@ican.net> wrote:
> I too have a "God-Given' talent for what I do; shit man, I do it the
BEST!
Hi Michelle.
Well, maybe you do have a God-Given talent. I didn't say that you
didn't. However, not all of us have a God-Given talent. I'm only a
computer programmer and I know that it is not a God-Given talent
because many people can train and become a programmer if they desired.
> exponentially more dollars! Not any different than (funny you should
> compare pro sports to movies; they're all GROSSLY overpaid and can be
> equally compared).
Why is the comparison funny? I didn't come up with it. I just used
someone else's example to show the difference between overpaid and not
overpaid. IE. Surplus Labour, Shortage of Labour, or Equilibrium.
When a group of people are overpaid, it means that there is a surplus
of labour (ie. more people want to work at those wages than there are
jobs). To remove the surplus, wages are decreased. That's what
overpaid means. Underpaid means that there are more jobs than labour
at that wage so employers have to increase wages if they want to fill
those positions. Like I said, if employers can pay less and still get
workers to fill every position, then the original wage was too high
(IE. overpaid).
> I'm a buyer and understand your cost analysis theories.
> Why don't you come in and do what I do with your 'intelligence' and
>make a buck? I dare you! You gotta spend a buck to make a buck!
You might be right. I don't know what you do but I could certainly
fail at it. I didn't say I could do what you do. I do have my own
business that does make a few bucks but I know that doesn't mean
anything.
> > You are overpaid if NO employers want to pay you at your existing
> > salary.
>
> No, your employer is OVER-GREEDY if they are unwilling to pay a fair
> percentage (equal ratio) of their earnings!
Well, yes, the free market is all about greed. But my original claim
still appears to be true.
> > Are there any employers willing to pay the Projectionists
> > their desired salaries?
>
> No, because greed exists everywhere and nowhere is it flaunted more
than
> Hollywood (I don't even want to _begin_ to talk about 'actors' (truly
HARD
> work) salaries!
Yes, again the free market is all about making as much money as
possible. But that doesn't deny my points on being over or underpaid.
> That is not a simple concept of labour (I fear you should re-read your
> material). Simple Economics of Labour indicate that a consumer with
money
> (adequately paid, average Joe) is worth far more than a consumer
without!
> Attempt to deny that economics are not driven by the buying power of
the
> consumer. Now I challenge you to argue the real "Simple Economics of
> Labour"!
We are talking about the Competitive Labour Market here aren't we (IE.
Wages)? I re-read my material and am quite sure that there is no
consumer element in the labour market model that I am talking about.
>If the wages in your industry are driven so low you can't feed
> your family, you too would fight for sustenance (human nature, don't
even
> bother insulting anyone here by denying the basic laws of humanity)
and
> wonder what's wrong with the world that they're so intent on making
the
> greater part of the pouplation poor.
I'm sorry. I do not see how this humanity business is related to the
Competitive Labour Market model that I am talking about.
I won't deny your points about Humanity because I do not want to get
involved in that. However, I don't think Humanity is an element that
affects the wage rate either. At least, not in a free market society.
> Oh, well, shit man, that's like "I saw it on TV, so it must be
true!". I've
> read lots of stuff in books, but don't believe it all.
No, its not something that I saw on TV so its true. Its just something
that appears to be true in a free market society that we live in. Its
not a coincidence that these theories are also published and taught.
> Don't tell me;
> you're in your 1st year of Economics (Labour Relations) as a major
(ya, good
> luck getting a job; good thing mummy and daddy are loaded), and you
read
> some conservative babble soit's in print, 'it must be true'. Well
darlin',
> I learned long ago that wasn't so!
Well no. I'm not in 1st year Economics. I'm just a computer
programmer who also owns a business.
> Only because you haven't had anything to do with the real world yet.
Ah,
> Grasshopper, one day you may know the privledge of true experience.
I think I have some experience in the real world. But perhaps you have
more? Well, maybe you have something to teach me then.
Have a nice day.
foamy
pol...@fightspam.net (Karl Pollak) wrote:
You have to be gifted to be a hockey
>>player.
>
>Tiger Williams? Talented? Not even very good, but very entertaining.
>Eddie Shack? ditto
When you say Williams or Shack were not very good or talented, you
are mistaken. If you compare them to other NHL'ers they played with
and against, you could say they were not as good or talented as most
[ although Shack was one of the greatest skaters of his time ]. But what
you are overlooking is they both were in the top 1/10 of 1% of the general
population. [ just a figure plucked out of the air not actually calculated, in
order to make the point ]. Anyone who makes it to the NHL is special. Take
Dana Murzyn for example. Commonly referred to as a bum or a pylon, he
did not look very good compared to his fellow NHL'ers. However, put Murzyn
in any rink in the country against non-NHL'ers and he'd look like Wayne
Gretzky.
>Absolutely, there is no accounting for some people's stupidity. Somebody
>please do explain to me why do thousands of Vancouverites flock a few
>nights a week to pay through their noses to watch a bunch of overpaid,
>under-achieving Sleeping Beauties in short pants??
Because to tens of millions of Canadians, [ me included ] hockey is a
beautiful game and part of what defines us as Canadians. Please don't
infer anything negative from this, but I would guess you were not born in
this country. Experiences of skating on a frozen pond playing shinny long
after the sun had set, with nose frozen and never wanting it to end, is an
experience most Canadians share, from coast to coast to coast.
Canadians take pride in the fact hockey is our game and we are the best.
I don't understand the " Sleeping Beauties in short pants " remark, but I'd
like to know what it was supposed to imply.
Jim
colin newell
: Hey. Great post. WooHoo, someone who actually understands that wages
: are based upon the supply and demand of labour in a free market. What
: you wrote makes a lot of sense, although, I don't have data to back up
: your numbers. But I am certainly willing to believe them.
Anything to quell the guilt of crossing the picket line ?
Sadly, many Union activists cross picket lines with little
regard to the plight of the projectionists.
I even had an economics "prof" ( read instructor )
from Camosun College ( I was at his wedding )
tell me that he gladly took his 12 year old daughter
across the picket lines, sniffing: "I do not support
their cause".. He tells his young daughter that
the man on the picket line is *sniff* overpaid.
Surely that economics instructor realizes that after
everyone has been downsized and outsized and had
their salaries stripped to "competitive levels",
that noone will afford to go to movies.
Yes. There is a great big demand for high tech workers,
engineers, computer science types, web designers, etc.
No everyone wants to be a science geek, no matter what the
pay.
For the record: I am a science geek. I enjoy my work and
my pay. I still will NOT Cross any picket lines.
I will continue to protest in any way that I can against
corporate greed.
Colin -
colin newell
: Unionized workers in skilled and respected positions--nurses, police
: officers, bus drivers--they will receive the pay they deserve,
Who decides who is worth what ?
That word "deserve", in this context, has always bothered me.
Who, I ask, gets to play god ?
colin newell
: Last three movies seen, rated out of four:
: The Iron Giant (**1/2)
: The Thomas Crown Affair (*)
: Bowfinger (**)
Sounds like you need to pick your movies more
carefully! :-)
colin newell
: Wrong end, bud. The troll that keeps posting here the projectionist crap
: is not interested in any Economics of Labour. He is only interested in
: the Politics of Labour. Not much point discussing anything with a teit
: like that.
Be it known that I am a 6'3" Troll.
Politics. Yes. I am a politician.
Jim Hobek
colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:7phs5v$c88$1...@sylvester.vcn.bc.ca...
goods being offered I think should have the right to decide if they are
getting fair value for their dollar. If not, move on...
Consumers in this country still have the right to decide whether something
is worth what the asking price is to them.
I go to a grocery store. I am allowed to decide whether the price per pound
of apples is what I'm willing to pay. If not, I am allowed to look
elsewhere.
The company is interested in purchasing labour and skills. Why shouldn't
they have the right to determine if the cost is worth it? If not, move on
and find other people who are willing to supply the skills and labour at the
price offered.
If you're going to respond with your argument that the company can afford
the asking price (even though the financial statements show a loss) and
that's why they should pay, then I ask you, if I happen to make a good
living, should the pound of apples cost me more, simply because I can afford
it? When you buy at Safeway, should the cashiers ask for a pay stub before
they set the prices on their goods???
Jim
Andrew Ryan Chang
>>Pavel Bure is overpaid.
>>
>>Cinema projectionists are not.
>>You have been hypnotized by the corporations.
>You are paid for what you are worth. Simple as that.
Yeah, like those Nike workers in SE Asia. Capitalism /in theory/
isn't capitalism as actually practices, ya know.
--
"Ed is the standard text editor."
-Patrick J. Lopresti
Jeff Tang
are free to look elsewhere if you don't feel you wage is justified.
employers very clearly should also have the same right to decide how much
you are worth. if they are wrong, then there wouldn't be anybody ending
working for them.
union live off working people. i mean if not satisfied with working
condition, refer to standard imposed by work relations board. if think
wage cannot support you, get another job or a place that would pay more
for your skills. really the minimum wage here is already among the high
end among all canadian provinces.
Louis Johnson
: As a child of the 1980's, and an advocate of the free market economy, I'm
: perplexed by this term "union busting." If someone is capable and willing to
: do the job for less money than the unionized worker, why shouldn't they?
indeed.
and technology comes up with things like some sort of gizmo that
converts a high res. image from a vcr or dvd machine into a
beam projected onto a screen.
set it up, check it out a moment or 2, and then just tap a
key on the console when the movie is about to start.
.
no need for all that projectionist apprentice
crap and strikes and bargaining unit blackmail, exhorbitant
demands for lifelong employment, etc etc et fucking cetera.
wake up union boy.
: Statistics teach us that, given current labour trends, we'll be at (the
: impossible) -13% (that's negative) unemployment. There will be a lack of
: skilled labourers, so workers will be able to command their price. One need
: only look as far as the high-tech industry to observe this supply and demand
: gap. Over 22,000 high tech jobs went unfilled in Canada last year because of
: a lack of workers. Do these people need a union? Hardly. Furthermore, the
: growth of small business is exploding across North America. That can't be
: helping the unions' position.
kinda like, well bill you wanna be management or labour today?
uh, I dunno doug. lets flip a coin and get busy building a partnership.
: Unionized workers in skilled and respected positions--nurses, police
: officers, bus drivers--they will receive the pay they deserve, or go
: elsewhere (out of the province or country). Unionized workers in relatively
: unskilled or shrinking fields--projectionists, fishermen, foresters--should
: be replaced by cheaper workers if they're available and competent. As far as
judging by some of the ghastly deplorable MESSES Ive seen in
the construction business, put there in the heyday of union boy,
it seem 'competancy' is an elusive commodity from unionism.
those bastards are known to DELIBERATELY SABOTAGE production
to get their way. that is a CRIMINAL act.
: I can tell, in the case of replacement projectionists, they are. Those in
: these fields should consider retraining, or another field entirely.
: I'm reminded of the uproar some time ago caused when it was revealed how
: much the city's (I don't recall his title) Sewage Supervisor. People said
: $90,000 (or whatever) was too much, until he said "well, basically, I stand
: in sh*t all day." I'll drink to him and his salary for that.
just dont drink the water!
: So, pay people what they're worth. Simple as that. DB.
: colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
: news:7pcoa8$3mi$1...@sylvester.vcn.bc.ca...
: > MEDIA RELEASE
: >
: > 92% Income Reduction
: > New Demands by Theatre Chains
: >
: > Famous Players (Viacom) and Cineplex Odeon (Sony) reacted to the
: > governments recently appointed Industrial Inquiry Commission (I.I.C.) by
: > demanding locked out
: > projectionists take up to a 92% income reduction.
: >
: > "Its absurd," said B.C. Projectionists' Union President Damon Faulkner.
: > "These arrogant corporations are thumbing their nose at the Provincial
: > Government, organized
: > labour, and workers in B.C. They are an embarrassment to B.C. companies
: > that pay fair wages."
: >
: > In an effort to resolve the nine-month-old dispute, the Union presented a
: > proposal through I.I.C. appointee Stephen Kelleher. "The Unions proposal
: > was intended to bring
: > an end to this dispute," stated Faulkner. "Our offer was very close to
: > answering demands of these employers that locked the Union out last
: > December."
: >
: > The Union contends it is now absolutely clear that the theatre chains are
: > intent on Union busting. Apparently the almost bankrupt Toronto/Ontario
: > Projectionists' Union was
: > forced to accept a similar proposal. In bargaining, the B.C.
: > Projectionsts' Union has no relationship or affiliation with any other
: > Projectionists' Union. "Ontario and the
: > International (I.A.T.S.E.) Union do not negotiate contracts for
: > projectionists here or set patterns acceptable to living conditions in
: > British Columbia," commented Faulkner.
: >
: > The Union has not given up, and will work with the B.C. Federation of
: > Labour and other Unions to escalate pressure against the companies.
: >
: >
: > Damon Faulkner
: > President
: >
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
life is just one fraud after another.
ya know how they REALLY make that $50 'ice wine'?
dump the leftover grapes in a meat freezer and then
brew them up like the rest of it except seperate. honest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Louis Johnson
: colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
: news:7phs5v$c88$1...@sylvester.vcn.bc.ca...
: > In can.general Darren Barefoot <dbar...@home.com> wrote:
: > : Unionized workers in skilled and respected positions--nurses, police
: > : officers, bus drivers--they will receive the pay they deserve,
: >
: > Who decides who is worth what ?
: > That word "deserve", in this context, has always bothered me.
: >
: > Who, I ask, gets to play god ?
: >
: I don't know if it's playing God...but whomever requires the services or
: goods being offered I think should have the right to decide if they are
: getting fair value for their dollar. If not, move on...
: Consumers in this country still have the right to decide whether something
: is worth what the asking price is to them.
: I go to a grocery store. I am allowed to decide whether the price per pound
: of apples is what I'm willing to pay. If not, I am allowed to look
: elsewhere.
precisely.
but union boy aint happy with that, preferring to manipulate the
supply side by restricting entry into a given line of work by
arranging for unionism and labour contracts (which he will
readily IGNORE when it suits him. a.k.a. 'wild catting')
: The company is interested in purchasing labour and skills. Why shouldn't
: they have the right to determine if the cost is worth it? If not, move on
: and find other people who are willing to supply the skills and labour at the
: price offered.
: If you're going to respond with your argument that the company can afford
: the asking price (even though the financial statements show a loss) and
: that's why they should pay, then I ask you, if I happen to make a good
: living, should the pound of apples cost me more, simply because I can afford
: it? When you buy at Safeway, should the cashiers ask for a pay stub before
: they set the prices on their goods???
interesting concept.
gee, I wonder if union boy is going to try for THAT next.
: Jim
colin newell
Graeme Hiebert wrote in message ...
>When you consider that there are typically more customers there, that the
>projectionists haven't been paid $30/hour for years, and the same
>projectionist is minding several theatres at once, the cost per customer
>is even less. Why the heck does everyone get so irate towards the
>projectionists?
Why ? Everyone is irate because humans inherently do not like
disruptions to their routine. Noone likes to see others suffering
in any way, so they rapt with guilt that they are crossing the picket
line of a fellow human.
The people that cross picket lines and enjoy it are usually
sadists that drive SUV's, own pit-bull terriers, terrorize small
children and their wives.. you know, generally evil people. :-)
The people that are screaming the most, other than me obviously,
want to see their movies, projectionists be damned.
I dare say that the average movie goer would walk over the body
of their deceased grand ma-ma to get to their stupid and frivolous
evenings entertainment.
Colin in Victoria
colin newell
Bad Daddy wrote in message <37baf8cd...@news.pinc.com>...
>>Give us a kiss!
>
>For a labour supporter? Never.
Come on Daddy!
Just one quick one!!
** puckering **
** smooch **
Thanks Dad, you're the best!
Now. How about the keys to the Jag for the weekend ??
Baden Kudrenecky
>Jim Hobek (jimh...@uniserve.com) wrote:
>
>: colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
>: news:7phs5v$c88$1...@sylvester.vcn.bc.ca...
>but union boy aint happy with that, preferring to manipulate the
>supply side by restricting entry into a given line of work by
>arranging for unionism and labour contracts (which he will
>readily IGNORE when it suits him. a.k.a. 'wild catting')
[...]
>gee, I wonder if union boy is going to try for THAT next.
>
>: Jim
You and your scabby bastard accomplices are the FIRST ones to
bitch and complain when some hard working immigrants from Asia
attempt to come and make a life for themselves here. I think
all you anti-union bastards should be the first ones displaced
by immigrant labour, who are willing to work way longer hours
for much less, and are often better trained and motivated. This
would echo the true Fraser Institute 'economics' that you idiots
so lamely believe in.
The fact is that you ant-union bastards are big whining
anti-social hypocrites who don't think that a honest working
Canadian should earn a decent wage. You bring up some
right-wing economics attempting to support your crap, however,
most your jobs aren't even worth a dollar per hour on the
international market.
baden
ba...@unixg.ubc.ca
http://baden.nu/
OS/2, Solaris & Linux
foamy
ba...@unixg.ubc.ca (Baden Kudrenecky) wrote:
> The fact is that you ant-union bastards
Well Baden Kudrenecky, if that's your real name, I have never
been a member of the ant-union. I can't stand walking in single
file, and I hate carrying leaves. Sure, the brothers and sisters in
the ant-union get to go to a lot of picnics, but I'm looking for
something more cerebral. Any openings in the dolphin-union ?
Jim
Darren Barefoot
hear their union dues are extremely high. To the tuna 50 bucks a month.
There may be space in the more obscure unions...I understand the Vancouver
Island Marmot Local 152 is accepting applications. Of course, you must be
extremely endangered. Pretty much like most other unions, I guess. DB.
foamy <fo...@intergate.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:rrpr1q...@corp.supernews.com...
foamy
"Darren Barefoot" <dbar...@home.com> wrote:
>>To the tuna 50 bucks a month.
Thanks Darren, I didn't know it was that deer.
I otter re-think my options.
Jim
samw...@my-deja.com
colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> I even had an economics "prof" ( read instructor )
> from Camosun College ( I was at his wedding )
> tell me that he gladly took his 12 year old daughter
> across the picket lines, sniffing: "I do not support
> their cause".. He tells his young daughter that
> the man on the picket line is *sniff* overpaid.
He understands how the Economy works. He knows that wages have been
set by the Labour Market since the inception of free markets.
> Surely that economics instructor realizes that after
> everyone has been downsized and outsized and had
> their salaries stripped to "competitive levels",
> that noone will afford to go to movies.
Competitive levels doesn't mean that salaries will be stripped. In
some cases, competitive levels could be increases in salary. Wages are
constantly adjusted according to the market.
Some businesses need to downsize in order to survive. Isn't losing a
few employees better than having all employees lose their jobs?
While some businesses downsize, others pop up and hire new workers. I
truly can't see a day when "noone will afford to go to movies". In the
end, things balance out.
> I will continue to protest in any way that I can against
> corporate greed.
Your determination is admirable but in the end, the Labour Market will
continue to operate as it always has and people will continue to get
the wages that are set by the Market. Union workers will continue to
enjoy wages that are slightly higher than Market value. The
Projectionist's strike will be over, and they will receive wages that
are slightly higher than the market (Which I think is fine because
that's normal). I don't know what that wage is going to be but we'll
find out when its over.
samw...@my-deja.com
the market value. No one individual sets this value. No union sets
this value. It is determined by the labour market.
Don't underpay or overpay them. Instead, pay them what they deserve.
Hope that makes sense.
In article <7phs5v$c88$1...@sylvester.vcn.bc.ca>,
colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> In can.general Darren Barefoot <dbar...@home.com> wrote:
> : Unionized workers in skilled and respected positions--nurses, police
> : officers, bus drivers--they will receive the pay they deserve,
>
> Who decides who is worth what ?
> That word "deserve", in this context, has always bothered me.
>
> Who, I ask, gets to play god ?
>
>
Baden Kudrenecky
>In article <Bq4v3.128034$U42.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
>ba...@unixg.ubc.ca (Baden Kudrenecky) wrote:
>
>> The fact is that you ant-union bastards
>
>Well Baden Kudrenecky, if that's your real name, I have never
>been a member of the ant-union. I can't stand walking in single
>file, and I hate carrying leaves. Sure, the brothers and sisters in
Well, if you don't like towing the line, or working too much,
maybe some ant union busting may be more to your liking.
>the ant-union get to go to a lot of picnics, but I'm looking for
>something more cerebral. Any openings in the dolphin-union ?
>
>Jim
Just remember, the ant union is effective, because they
believe in and practise solidarity!
samw...@my-deja.com
it somewhere else.
In response to that message:
You have to be very talented to make the NHL period. Let's take a
small sample. How many players have been from the Lower Mainland. 10
or 20? What is the population of the lower mainland? 4 or 5 million?
So 1 in .5 million people have the talent to be a hockey player? So
even if Tiger Williams was the worst player in the NHL, he is in a very
elite group of talented individuals. Besides, Tiger scored 35 or so
goals for the lowly "Can-Nots" back when there were no stars on the
team. He's still 3rd or so in most goals scored in a season as a
Canuck. Only Bure and Rota have more I think. If the numbers are a
few % off, my point still remains that you need God-Given talent to be
a hockey player.
Does talent determine wages? Yes and No. As I mentioned, the labour
market determines wages. I was only pointing out why the labour market
dictates that hockey players make so much money. IE. They can do
things very few can, which entertains millions of fans, which in turn
generates lots of money, which in turn means that employers can afford
to compete with each other for their services. If Florida pays
millions to Bure, how is that being overpaid? That's the market
value. Any less and he's underpaid. Of course once the labour market
dictates high wages for hockey players, it follows that the more talent
a player has, the more he gets paid.
As for the stupidity comment about hockey fans. :):):) Well, why do
people watch movies, watch opera, go hiking, go biking, go camping???
I can't answer that. Sorry.
> Are there enough people capable of doing the same job willing to do
it at considerably less $$?
Well, from what I've heard, projectionists in other provinces already
make considerably less. I guess that means the answer is yes.
In article <rrn6g1...@corp.supernews.com>,
Rod Rempel
tread latched onto my mildly inflammatory closing opinion,
but nobody has really commented on the guess I was making or
provided other guesses.
People were getting deeply into the "92%" figure (which
sounded impossible to me from what I had been hearing from
both sides on the radio), so I wanted to try and figure out
a way to come up with the figure based on some collection of
guess-work since nobody was telling me where it came from.
To reiterate my _guess_, if you take a current wage of
$60/hr (a number I've heard/read, and equivalent to
$125K/yr before taxes/benefits are considered) and drop it
to $18/hr (a number I've heard/read as a target) you can
only get the 92% if you assume that the same worker is only
working 10hrs/wk now vs. 40hrs/wk after adjustment (ignoring
the tax and benefit effect).
If there is another approach that results in the 92% number
I would love to hear it. Maybe from the person making the
claim?
Rod Rempel
r...@wavemakers.com
Karl Pollak <pol...@fightspam.net> wrote in message
news:37ba4ddb...@news.radiant.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> Rod Rempel wrote:
>
> >Of course this is all crap to try and produce sympathy
for
> >grossly overpaid, semi-skilled union workers...
>
> What I don't understand is why so many people are so ready
to jump on this
> troll's bait. Of course it is crap. So hit the "next msg"
button and
> ignore him.
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland !
> The land where anything can happen, ... and usually does!
John Corman
wrote:
>
>John Corman wrote in message <37baea3c.8294699@news>...
>>You know, I get pissed off enough that when I read this garbage of
>>yours, I wish it were true.
>>Grow up for Christ sake and find a life where you earn what you're
>>worth. If you don't like, it make your self more valuable. You can
>>probably start find learning what 92% means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>Calm down John-john!
>
>I am not a projectionist.
>I am merely an advocate for strong labour in B.C.
>
>Colin -
=================================================
An "advocate"? Does that mean that you can abrogate any
responsibility to make some sense once in a while?
What's an "advocate" anyway? If I want to get laid tonight can I
pretend that I'm an advocate for the sexual gratification of men.
Thereby justifying any actions I might take in satisfying those goals.
I probably shouldn't have used that analogy. David Rielley sits at
his computer waiting for any one to give the slightest hint of being
human.
John Corman ****** @server home.com
Shanny
> believe in and practise solidarity!
They are also brainless, relying on base instincts and pheromones farted out
by the elite ant class for direction. Also, 99.9999999% of the ant
population live a drone-like existence in service to their Queen (uh, the
Joy McPhail of the ant world). When they die, do you think the Queen cares?
Hell no. She probably eats them! Go UNIONS!
--
Shanny
Louis Johnson
: > Just remember, the ant union is effective, because they
superb analogy.
anybody got the phone number for the ant union? I want to bribe
the unionboy ant boss to get the 'anthood' to do some digging for me.
: --
: Shanny
colin newell
Enjoy the refreshing alternative: Boycott Famous Players and Cineplex Odeon
Theaters -- You will be glad you did.
Lorne
>Another movie-free month!
Bully for you.
>Enjoy the refreshing alternative: Boycott Famous Players and Cineplex Odeon
>Theaters -- You will be glad you did.
>
>>92% Income Reduction
>>New Demands by Theatre Chains
(snip)
This is the exact same propaganda you posted two months ago. Hardly an
"update."
-----
Lorne
Last three movies seen, rated out of four:
American Beauty (***1/2)
Blue Streak (*1/2)
Stir of Echoes (*1/2)
"It was kind of a kicky blast. The guys really got it together and
wailed and bent the gig outta shape."
* To reply, remove the second "o" (between the "d" and "g").
Darren Barefoot
news:dqWH3.821$TH3....@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> Another movie-free month!
>
Too bad for you, because last weekend I saw the smartest American movie I've
seen in years: "American Beauty." I highly recommend it, regardless of one's
attitudes on picket-line hopping. DB.
colin newell
: Too bad for you, because last weekend I saw the smartest American movie I've
: seen in years: "American Beauty." I highly recommend it, regardless of one's
: attitudes on picket-line hopping. DB.
I will see this movie at the Caprice or one of the other
independents. The Caprice business in Victoria has done
big business since the lockout -- every Caprice ad in the paper
has "No Picket Line" banners across their ads. It seems to have worked.
Every person that has even a modicum of respect for their fellow
working stiff has honored the picket line and gone to an independent
Colin in Victoria
Dave 2
>
> In can.general Darren Barefoot <dbar...@mps-canada.com> wrote:
>
> : Too bad for you, because last weekend I saw the smartest American movie I've
> : seen in years: "American Beauty." I highly recommend it, regardless of one's
> : attitudes on picket-line hopping. DB.
>
> I will see this movie at the Caprice or one of the other
> independents. The Caprice business in Victoria has done
> big business since the lockout
Yes, but does every film make it through the Caprice Langford or one of the
other (2?) independent screens?
While we're on the topic, does anyone know what's the deal with the Caprice in
the 900 block Granville? A couple months ago it was "Closed Temporarily", now
there's nothing at all.
--
Happiness is a fresh TripTik.
Warning: Address has been modified.
Ken Flanagan
>Every person that has even a modicum of respect for their fellow
>working stiff has honored the picket line and gone to an independent
Working is the operative word here Colin. It seems to me that your
buddies were locked out because they refused to do their job! In a
non-union job, they would have been thrown out on their asses.
Ken Flanagan
wrote:
>Another movie-free month!
So what? Do you actually think FP/CO are hurting because you don't
watch the movies they're showing?
>Enjoy the refreshing alternative: Boycott Famous Players and Cineplex Odeon
>Theaters -- You will be glad you did.
The boycott is obviously not working. The lockout is almost a year
old, and there still are no signs that FP/CO are going to bend to the
projectionists demands.
colin newell
: The boycott is obviously not working. The lockout is almost a year
: old, and there still are no signs that FP/CO are going to bend to the
: projectionists demands.
:-) Stay tuned! :-)
--
http://coffee.bc.ca The Coffee Expert's Group
Victoria British Columbia Canada
The Complete Coffee Resource | Machines | Coffee | Home Roasting |