There could be trouble brewing in NDP-Green paradise

[Urban Cowboy]

Even six weeks of an NDP government is too much.

Even though you're comment made me chuckle Techie, I have to disagree. I think a temporary pause (6 months to a year) before holding another election would give everybody time for some "sober second thought".

But it's a moot point anyway, because unfortunately the people in this Province have become so polarized in their politics that the kind of compromise I envision is probably impossible. Which is too bad, because at the end of the day we all want the same thing - a better British Columbia.

I agree with you regarding the polarization, though I feel it's far worse on the NDP side of things.

Look through the forums going back years now to the last election, and I dare you to find a post by the NDP supporters where they ever show compromise or any sign of admitting wrong doing on the NDP's part.

By contrast, I've seen many Liberal supporters concede, that there are things about the Liberal party, that they would love to see changed.

How can any government, work with a party that is closed minded, and unwilling to change their position on anything, regardless of how much supporting data is provided?

Also not even in power yet, if ever, and we already have seen glimpses of how presumptuous Horgan is, even making promises his precious Green ally, states emphatically, he would never agree to.

What right did Horgan have, to at this point in time, make any demands whatsoever of BC Hydro regarding the Site "C" project?

He's not Premier and engaging in a major case of putting the cart before the horse.

These are not the actions of someone, displaying any type of willingness, or ability, to cooperate with anyone.

The best thing for British Columbians would be to go back to the polls for a clear mandate, and I dare say despite the 50 million price tag, it would still be money well spent.

[erinmore3775]

Mike Smyth, on his Twitter Feed suggested that in the Throne Speech the Liberals might propose legislation on a complete ban on political party contributions for, corporations, industry lobbyists, and unions. This legislation would ban not only monetary contributions but contributions of an "in kind" nature. It was further suggested that the Throne Speech could contain substantial increases for social welfare payments.

Since there is a significant period before the required completion of the Throne Speech Debate (20 sitting days, I believe) the Liberals could introduce both of these pieces of legislation before the completion of the Throne Speech Debate. In the first reading of these pieces of legislation, announce that both are confidence motions.

While both pieces of legislation could easily be defeated during the first or second reading, the defeat would put the NDP/Green coalition in a very difficult political position. They would have defeated parts of their own party platforms. Furthermore, the Liberals could say that they offered these pieces of legislation in the spirit of co-operation. Their defeat would indicate the NDP and or the Greens were only power hungry and not interested in co-operation.

There is already some discord in the NDP/Green Coalition. The B.C. Greens won’t support the NDP’s plan to remove the use of secret ballots for employees seeking to form unions.

"Green Leader Andrew Weaver said he’s adamantly opposed to the idea and will fight the NDP if the party tries to push forward. The NDP needs the Green party’s three votes to pass any legislation."
http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-greens-kill-ndps-proposed-change-to-unionized-secret-ballots

I am certainly enjoying watching Weaver and Horgan try to walk through this cow pasture, that they have chosen, without getting their shoes dirty.

[mr.bandaid]

Call an election, get rid of Christy, Mike and Rich and the Liberals could win in a landslide. You want to believe that the last two are just itching to get their hands on that leadership position and if they do it will change nothing. Liberals need a leadership enema.

I agree with you, but don't forget the NDP are in dire need of the same, given who actually pulls the strings within that party.

I mentioned that in previous posts. They both need an enema. The Greens will die a natural death for being thick.

[hobbyguy]

Merry - when I ran operations and had to deal with unions, it is largely a political process (if you want it to be successful partnership).

It really relies on building a team. It can't be opposite sides of the table, it has to be a team working together, union, unionized workers, management and supervisors all pulling together to move the operation forward for the benefit of all.

There were always a handful of unionized employees who thought that all management people were jerks and idiots. To build a functioning team, you need to isolate and marginalize those folks by leaving them behind. Fine, don't want to get on the train? It is pulling out of the station. That is part of leadership - making that hard choice to do so.

That is part of the reality of leadership, you can make 80-90% of the people happy 95% of the time, but there 5-10% that will never be happy. My basic answer to those folks was the old one: "Lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way".

The other part of leadership is that you can not be concerned about people liking you, only that you are respectful to them, and that earn their respect.

The NDP have made the choice NOT to leave anyone that would run as an NDP candidate behind. Nor do I see any evidence of real leadership. IF a member pulled the site C tantrum on me and said "I will quit the caucus if I don't get my way", my answer would have been "Don't slam the door behind you please". IF that resulted in a leadership challenge - so be it! Leadership requires being willing to put your butt on the line to advance the organization.

The NDP leadership have not done that. They therefore have enabled the "the tail to wag the dog", which is a completely untenable situation, and forms zero basis for providing good governance. There is no "I" in team. The NDP have a collection of cats (apologies Queen) that they are trying to herd with a string.

It shows distinctly in that the NDP platform has only one point of cohesive unity - and that one is not a basis for governance - as the unifying point of cohesion is an ofttimes irrational "We hate Christy".

[mr.bandaid]

Merry - when I ran operations and had to deal with unions, it is largely a political process (if you want it to be successful partnership).

It really relies on building a team. It can't be opposite sides of the table, it has to be a team working together, union, unionized workers, management and supervisors all pulling together to move the operation forward for the benefit of all.

There were always a handful of unionized employees who thought that all management people were jerks and idiots. To build a functioning team, you need to isolate and marginalize those folks by leaving them behind. Fine, don't want to get on the train? It is pulling out of the station. That is part of leadership - making that hard choice to do so.

That is part of the reality of leadership, you can make 80-90% of the people happy 95% of the time, but there 5-10% that will never be happy. My basic answer to those folks was the old one: "Lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way".

The other part of leadership is that you can not be concerned about people liking you, only that you are respectful to them, and that earn their respect.

The NDP have made the choice NOT to leave anyone that would run as an NDP candidate behind. Nor do I see any evidence of real leadership. IF a member pulled the site C tantrum on me and said "I will quit the caucus if I don't get my way", my answer would have been "Don't slam the door behind you please". IF that resulted in a leadership challenge - so be it! Leadership requires being willing to put your butt on the line to advance the organization.

The NDP leadership have not done that. They therefore have enabled the "the tail to wag the dog", which is a completely untenable situation, and forms zero basis for providing good governance. There is no "I" in team. The NDP have a collection of cats (apologies Queen) that they are trying to herd with a string.

It shows distinctly in that the NDP platform has only one point of cohesive unity - and that one is not a basis for governance - as the unifying point of cohesion is an ofttimes irrational "We hate Christy".

A lot of what you're saying here also applies to the liberals and the ties they have to big business. Their agenda is to break down unions and have their industry buddies contract in on the work that the unions do regardless of costs. They also seem to be working towards insuring that a large number of BC people working in these partnerships do not make a living wage. This strategy is going to steer a lot of people away from this province and open the doors to tfw's to come in and work in tough working conditions that inevitably will effect the health of the people of BC. I know you're going to bad mouth unions but know this this, I have been on both sides of the table and have first hand knowledge how government and unions think. Unions are in no way perfect. For the most part they are a huge revenue grabber (like government). The two are not that different, just go about robbing you in a different manor.

[Smurf]

Could not agree more hobbyguy being on the other side of the table for a few decades. You have to work together for the betterment of all. The key word being "work" and probably a lot of compromise on both sides and it can work well. There will always be the few on both sides who are out of sync and as you say have to be left behind. However my experience was that they were probably no good for either side anyway. I don't think there is any doubt that it can be compared to government in so many ways and as long as they give those rotten apples any power the whole box will continue to rot.

[hobbyguy]

To be honest, I have not seen the Liberals make any attempts at real union busting. One exception being the goofball "we never settle with anyone" BCTF.

That's it. I have not seen anything other than that one, which the BCTF themselves and their puppy dog Adrian forced into an untenable situation.

The BCTF and BC Fed would like to paint it as otherwise (the BC Fed don't like the CLAC, no money for the BC Fed, but from the contract for the biggest site C contractor I read, the wages/benefits/working conditions are very similar). And of course the CLC don't like the CLAC affiliation with WOW. Basically, the cryin' from the BC Fed is just inter union politics.

My own experience is that unions retain a substantial representative position for workers where they fit the context. When I represented the company at Labour Relations Board hearings, the onus was on the employer to prove their case in an ironclad and irreproachable fashion. IF there was even a hint of unfair dealings by the employer - the employer lost - and I was fine with that. IF the employer does things fairly and doesn't try to shortcut, then it is all good. Exactly as it should be, in that firing an employee is a very negative thing that has repercussions for their family.

From my perspective, the only complaint from the BCTF and BC Fed have against the Liberals is that the Liberals try to represent all the people of BC, and at times that is in conflict with the narrow interests of the BCTF and BC Fed. Naturally, the BCTF and BC Fed want the NDP, who are their political arm, to represent their narrow interests as the government - but I see that as just plain wrong.

The whole notion that the BC Liberals are anti-union just does not hold water. Unionization in BC is bang on the national average, and much higher than provinces like Ontario.

Unionization has been consistently falling in Canada, from 42% of male workers down to 28% of male workers 1981-2014. Is that the fault of governments? I think not. It is partly due to automation (a high percentage of male union jobs were easily automated). It is also partly due to the failure of unions to adapt to changing circumstances. (Interestingly, female unionization has remained steady at about 31% from 1981-2014).

I do see unions liking to take potshots at government as an easy way to escape culpability in the declining union movement. I wish it were otherwise, as unions should be an important counterbalance in the labour markets, but have allowed themselves to decline to a position of irrelevance for over 70% of Canadians.

[maryjane48]

maybe someone should unglue their eyes. campbell dismantled our forestry sector to bust unions . site c has thousand scabs working on it . taking donations from the other scabs the ibca is more union busting.


speaking of bctf since someone else mentioned them they kinda showed the clark gang who was boss and who was the loser

[Urban Cowboy]

I am certainly enjoying watching Weaver and Horgan try to walk through this cow pasture, that they have chosen, without getting their shoes dirty.

Same here. I'm of the mind that if we were to liken this to a chess game, then Horgan is a few moves behind Clark, who would appear to be at "check" with "checkmate" in sight, and scratching his head wondering how this happened.

If some of the speculation I've read, regarding the throne speech, is anywhere near true, then the Horgan/Weaver wagon is going to find itself in a very deep rut, yet one they played a huge part in creating.

Karma is such an interesting thing to observe in action.

[Urban Cowboy]

maybe someone should unglue their eyes. campbell dismantled our forestry sector to bust unions . site c has thousand scabs working on it . taking donations from the other scabs the ibca is more union busting.

So a union that you don't happen to like or agree with, is suddenly the equivalent to scabs, as if anyone cares about that opinion.

I have a son who works for that union. He earns $25hr plus full benefits and is quite happy with it, as in my opinion he should be.

speaking of bctf since someone else mentioned them they kinda showed the clark gang who was boss and who was the loser

No, all they actually did, was expose themselves as truly being the scumbags, most of us already knew they were!

The NDP relationship with the BCTF, is best possible example of conflict of interest anyone could ever imagine.