We certainly know who DOESN'T care and that is our government in Ottawa.

The flawed Softwood Lumber Agreement should never have been agreed to by Harper's Ottawa and to give up over a billion dollars of our money to Washington (to help pay for past and future lawsuits against us!) was ill advised and spineless.

Now the USA is attempting to shut down our pulpmills with its black liquor subsidies to American pulpmills, amounting to an illegal subsidy of between 200 to 300 dollars per ton or 7 to 8 billion dollars annually.

The European Union has protested, but not Canada.

Forestry jobs represent renewal of new money being generated in the economy. Value created from the resources and human input that represents real new dollars in wealth.

The service economy relies on passing the parcel sometimes with a lot of turn over and thus multiplier effect with the same dollars, and other times with taxes it diminishes, but in the end very little real new dollars in wealth are being created, and when the parcel drops everything comes crashing down.

When the Premier finally comes clean about our $2 billion dollar deficit this year the parcel could very well drop and it might start to become a reality... just in time for the Olympics and its cost related over runs....

If forestry is gone it won't be long before the province is broke IMO.

Well said by all!

I think we are quick to blame the Government and the Companies for all the problems in the forest industry, and they are responsible for some of them, but the unions are also responsible for some.

Im not sure how severance works in every situation, however if it is not negotiated in the Union Contract then I suggest that it falls under the Labour Standards Act, which after three years of work, would allow one week of severance for every year worked. So roughly if you worked for 20 years you would get 17 weeks severance. I dont beleive that severance comes into play unless you are permanently laid off, and in most cases these mills have laid off workers **temporarily** therefore no severance.

Insofar as the Pensions go, it appears that the general consensus is that the Pensions are Company pensions, when in fact a lot of Pensions in the forest, and other industries in Canada are Union Pensions, and therefore if they are failing, we should be looking at the Unions, in addition to Companies, and Government.

Looks like 17 weeks severance is incorrect. It would more likely be 8 weeks maximum. No much for someone working from 15 to 40 years.

Of course it must be the union's (employee's) fault, who else`s could it be? What nonsense! When a company tells laid off workers they are not going to severance because they are broke, that is the company not the employees.

Pensions may be under the control of different groups, depending on the circumstances and collective agreements. I am opposed to companies retaining control of pension funds as there have been cases where the company simply took some of the income from them when they were doing well. I support legislation to establish a non-profit pension corporation to administer all pensions in BC. Both the companies and employees would make their contributions each pay period, but neither would be allowed access to any funds until it became time for the employee to retire. Something similar is already in place for public employees and it works very well.

Generally speaking, nobody cares about forestry workers except foresty workers. It's much the same as most people out here don't care about auto workers, farmers in Manitoba, IT workers in Ontario, cod fisherman in Newfoundland or BC government workers. It's human nature to not worry about anything until it hits home.

The best way to get more attention IMHO is to have a stronger and united lobbying group and/or elect people who will fight for you. I don't get the sense that either of those will change anytime soon. It's certainly not fair or proper, but it's been like that forever.

Lots of other good points here as well. Certainly severance and other legal obligations should be paid out and I think ammonra's point about pensions is also a good one.

"Forestry jobs represent renewal of new money being generated in the economy."

Yes .... but ..... our dollar is called the petro dollar not the forestry dollar. When it comes to natural resources, the oil from the tar sands influences the value of the dollar, not forestry.

not just the government to blame.re
new firehall at beaverley,all metal.

"the unions are resposible for some", That statement is ridiculous.
If that is the case then suppliers like Magna in the auto industry are also responsible for the collapse of the "Big3". Obviously because Magna was profitable they must have overcharged GM, Chrysler, and Ford so they must be bad just like the union.
To further strengthen this ridiculous leap of faith, Magna is in the process of purchasing the now bankrupt European GM division. Therefor, if Magna is able to be financially strong enough to do this they must have over-charged parts to the Big3.

We are all talking about the real truth of the matter. Nobody cares about ANYBODY else. It isnt just forestry workers who are failing to attract public attention. Perhaps thats paranoia on our parts, thinking it is just us being ignored.
From an economic viewpoint it would be hard to argue against eagleone: resource jobs, like manufacturing create real wealth (they produce usable things) and thus ought to be considered more valuable then say, money changers , etc. However, from a human standpoint the distinction is meaningless. Downturns (or collapses) are terrible things. This one isnt the fault of anyone you could accurately point a finger at. Then again, why do we need to blame someone at all.
When the fishing industry fell apart (well, one of the times it did so) in the east, I remember the general consensus in my western town being one of disinterest. Those who were called upon to comment tended to blame the fishermen or the government for overfishing (OR the portugese) and suggested the newfies ought to just move to a new place (one with jobs). Does this sound familiar?
My apologies for belabouring the point. I think the most important observation Ben makes is in regard to the news services. In their rush to attract our short attention spans they tell us what we want to hear about, rather than what is actually important. I know that I, for one know a lot more about Brangelina and Jen than i did about labour protests right next door.

Remember, you could be next!

Maybe Ben should stop bashing the pulpmills with half truths about air quality. There's another 1000 jobs that will be down the drain if the air quality fanatics get their way. But then you defend them over the US black liquor tax credit. Hmmm. Maybe Opinion 250 only care about what sells - Could it be, Ben, that you're just like them! And forestry doesn't sell - Does it Angelina?

Loki, the fact that Magna, or any other company, for that matter, is "profitable" doesn't necessarily mean they've "overcharged" anyone. That's a fallacy held by many people, including those of the Communist, and often also, Socialist, persuasions. It's as fallacious an idea as that of our forest industry being in trouble because mills pay workers wages they can live on.

There is a very big difference between a simple 'cash' profit, where, say, I buy something for $ 1 and turn around and sell it to you a few minutes later for $ 2 without essentially having done anything to it, (where you might very convincingly argue that you've been "overcharged", at least relative to what it cost me); and what constitutes a profit in the method of "accrual" accounting used by Magna, and every other business.

In business accounting, sums "accrue" to various accounts, amongst them the Profit and Loss account. These sums really have little or no meaning whatsoever outside the context of the Company's complete set of books.

In business accounting, a profit is NOT necessarily analogous to 'cash', though certainly 'cash' received from Sales will be a PART of what goes to make up the computation of that profit. Other parts that go into it will be things like changes in inventory, allowances for depreciation, etc., which are bookkeeping figures and don't involve 'cash' at all.

Business accounting expresses profit ultimately as a change in the net worth of the Company over some fiscal period. The growth in Assets over Liabilities when there is Profit; or in the event of a Loss, the shrinkage of those Assets relative to Liabilities.

Both of which will be recorded as they've occurred in the Company's 'Capital Account'. An approximation of the change in value of what the Company's shareholders or owners actually 'own', and whether their investment is making a return for them, or is being diminished.

Profit in accrual accounting is an indication of the correctness of some line of entrpreneurial action. It is the 'feedback' mechanism that tells the business's management whether they are deploying their Assets to advantage, or whether changes in the way the business is being operated are necessary. Without profit there would be no way to accurately determine what products should be made and/or what services should be provided.

The old Soviet Union abolished profit, since they subscribed to the similar fallacy that the "poor were poor, because the rich were rich". But in doing so it also abolished the ability to determine what its citizens REALLY wanted in the way of actual goods and services.

(BTW, the "poor AREN'T poor, because the rich are rich", but because there is often a collective inadequacy of 'money' in the hands of the public relative to the collective 'price values' of goods and services for sale to the public at one and the same TIME. Not primarily because greedy business people are "overcharging" for them, which, where they can get away with it through monopoly (gasoline prices, for instance) they may well be, but far more so because all 'price values' in a modern economy increasingly include past costs which no longer are in existence as 'money'.)

Much waste was embellished in the whole Soviet system as various goods were made for which there was absolutely no demand, while people went without other things which could've been made, but weren't, because without the mechanism of 'profit' there was no effective way of determining what was, or was not, wanted.

"without the mechanism of 'profit' there was no effective way of determining what was, or was not, wanted."

That notion is not one of general applicability.

Do you really think that people in McBride and Mackenzie and Burns Lake are so different than those in Prince George that they really do not want a McDonald burger, or Wendys?

Or that people in PG are so different from people in Kamloops or Kelowna that they do not want a Chapters?

Do you want to know what people want? Ask them! Take a survey!

The question is, can people in McBride afford to pay 5 or 10 times as much for the same product as is sold in PG or can those in PG affor 5 to 10 times as much as what a product such as is sold by Tiffany's or Birks in Vancouver?

The City of PG is not much different than the Soviet Union, is it? It is trying to force housing in downtown down our throats. If people wanted it, they would be making sure that when developers were putting concepts out there they would line up to pre-purchase as they do in other communities.

Is City Hall just as bad as the Soviet Union? If not, what exaclty is the difference?