"Reopening negotiated contracts to cut wages and benefits is definitely not on the table"

I can't believe these union leaders. Would it not be better to take a pay cut of a couple dollars an hour and still have a job? I guess standing in the welfare line is better. The first people to go should be the heads of the unions. The only thought each and every one of them has is to line their own pockets. They don't have to worry, they still have a job.

Would anyone happen to know what Mr. Coles's personal wage and pension benefit package is and how this compares to the wage and pension benefit package of the average worker in his union?

Duffer, your point on taking a few dollar an hour pay cut could work. But then what? The company/ shareholders might just find that an interesting prospective and attempt to renegotiate that again later even when the going seems good. Should we be held hostage by big business. Many of us work long, hard and dangerous hours, at the cost of taking some years off of our lives, funny how my bonus at the good times interval is non-existent. I believe the union has a fair assessment of the situation.

One just has to look at what's happening with the North American auto industry to see the problem with high wage costs in the face of an industry in trouble. Sure there are other issues, but make no mistake, wage costs are a significant expenditure.

It's certainly someone's right to not accept wage cuts, however, I would sure hope that they seriously consider the potential consequences of such a position. It's not a decision to be taken lightly, nor is it one that I would make based on the recommendation of someone like Mr. Coles.

Hey CEP President Dave Coles, guess what? TOO Late!

The goose is cooked and there ain't no more eggs. The company isn't responsible for the employees anymore, because you said you were, so how do you like it now?

Anybody remember CP Air? Their employees took several rounds of pay cuts to keep it afloat. It was taken over by Air Canada and the employees lost their jobs anyway. Live and learn.

Sure! All workers should be able to take a cut of 2 bucks an hour while politicians of all levels give themselves outrageous raises. Take a pay cut lose your house, eat dog food so you can pay ever rising taxes, have your hydro, telephone, gas cut off because bills are always rising. Lets see...maybe they drop the minium wage a couple of bucks too to 6 bucks and hour. That will make the rich and politicians happier too. Tax cuts for the rich and pile it on the worker.

Ya, just toss the workers out on the street. If the employers can't pay a big salary lock the workers out until they can.

Hmm.. wonder what I would do, or which choice I'd take?

Forget the Union for a minute. Ask the average guy doing the work if he would takeing the pay cut to keep his job. I bet he/she wouldn't mind a few bucks an hour to keep the job.

Share holders/ business owners in general can have a heart of gold but when they are losing your asses they make the cuts however, difficult they may be. Going to the table and pleading to anything but thier pocketbook is a waste of time.

As for the politicians... they are just like everyone else... they want more for themselves. Some think they deserve it, some don't but it is irrelevant. Human nature is to improve your position as much as possible. You would do the same if you could.

Taking a pay cut would make the overall situation worse instead of better. It's just engaging in accelerating a 'race to the bottom'. Which we're already in.

You can go bankrupt quite easily doing absolutely nothing. Why are so many convinced it's something you have to 'work' towards? Either way the end result is the same. Because that's exactly what you'd be doing. You're 'broke'. A purely 'financial' condition in this country.

Tell you what, lets ALL take a 25% wage cut, to make ourselves 'globally competitive', (so we can continue to dump 'more' lumber into a 'global' market that can't absorb all that we're dumping into it right now).

But lets see ALL the PRICES of everything we buy or are making payments on come down 25% too. Isn't that a little fairer than asking SOME of us to do 'more' for 'less'?
Just so we can continue to dump product wherever we can find someone who'll take it, just to have a 'job'.

Especially when, if our present 'incomes' were adequate to meet 'prices' as they are right now, we wouldn't have so many in debt up to their eyeballs, and beyond, just to try to live.

"Tell you what, lets ALL take a 25% wage cut, to make ourselves 'globally competitive', (so we can continue to dump 'more' lumber into a 'global' market that can't absorb all that we're dumping into it right now)"

Why would we ALL take a 25% wage cut if it's only the forestry sector that's in crisis? That would be lunacy. Wages ebb and flow based on the health of the industry, the skills of the workers, etc. It has nothing to do with everyone being "in it together".

"Especially when, if our present 'incomes' were adequate to meet 'prices' as they are right now, we wouldn't have so many in debt up to their eyeballs, and beyond, just to try to live"

Surely these wouldn't be the folks driving 60-70K trucks and living in "properly valued" 400K houses would it be?

"Why would we ALL take a 25% wage cut if it's only the forestry sector that's in crisis? That would be lunacy. Wages ebb and flow based on the health of the industry, the skills of the workers, etc. It has nothing to do with everyone being "in it together"."

It has EVERYTHING to do with us all "being in it together." You will notice that I also said, "But let ALL PRICES of everything we buy or are making payments on come down 25% too." So how are you disadvantaged?

And how too, if the 'incomes' in forestry are reduced, are those 'prices' going to be paid unless they're reduced too? And if they're not paid, who suffers? Everyone who's in business, any business, that sells stuff, that's who.

"Surely these wouldn't be the folks driving 60-70K trucks and living in "properly valued" 400K houses would it be?"

Lets just look at that. You can get a 'plane jane' Chevrolet pickup still for just over 20K.

But you can't get three people in the front seat of it anymore. And it's so high geared with the 17" wheels that are standard on them now, that you'd never get out of a driveway this time of year unless you have 4-wheel drive.

So right there you're forced to either have a club cab or a crew cab to carry any more than the driver and one passenger. And 4-wheel drive, whether you want it or not. So there's a good part of your 60-70 K right there.

Secondly, as to house prices. You can't live in a tarpaper shack any more with an outdoor privvy and all the other low cost discomforts. Your 'governments' won't allow that. You're 'forced' into a house that's at least 1,000 square feet, completely finished to 'occupancy permit' stage, and is built to the standards of the National Building Code.

A modern 'septic tank', if you're on an outlying lot not connected to city sewer, costs more than most houses themselves did a few years ago to install.

Your modern house has some wonderful features. Thermo-pane windows, insulation, ground fault plugs, etc., etc., and a 'new home warranty'. That, for most houses constructed even with all these wonderful things, for less than the amount you mentioned, will last just about a year less than the time it's going to take for you to start to have trouble with that house. So it's 'pay me now', and correct the problems to come up front, or try to, or 'pay me later', and let them be built in.

You seem to ignore the fact that LOADS of people live quite well with the prices of today, with cars instead of 1 ton trucks and with modest homes and not 3,000 square feet of brand hew housing . . .

..and on a lot less than a union wage.

Sure they do, and there's no doubt that there are other people who are profligate spenders. Who, no matter how high their income was, would still be trying to live beyond their means. But I seriously doubt that's the case with MOST people who receive a 'union wage'.

Which, you might remember is a 'gross' wage so far as 'costs' to the employer are concerned, and the inclusion of those 'costs' in 'prices'. But only a 'net' wage to the recipient. And with the level of taxation today, there's quite a difference in that 'union wage' between 'gross' and 'net'.

Wow, my union wage made me a killing last year. Or did it? Like everyone else Mr Taxman stole a disportionate share, quess how much the union took? The union took so much, Mr Taxman said, Hey Mister, thats ridiculous and we'd like you to prove it!!

Union or non-union, and regardless of wage or salary, people are spending at whim, afford it or not. I purchased a truck for $8500, paid it off. Now its not a new $70K rig, so I'm not as hip as the Jones' around me. But when I lose my job I won't be slapping a FOR SALE sign on it.

Keep in mind there are millions of well paid non-union employees out there making more than union members. Blah, blah i could have fun with this for days.

Now I feel there is no need to retort to the economics and business aspects of the forestry industry, for that would HOG up too much space. Though i will say this, in light of recent events and the upcoming end of the current CEP contract, it'll be very intersting to see what concessions the CEOs will be looking for.

That's absolutely all true. There are a great many good non-union jobs out there. And unions often do themselves, and their members, more harm than good with some of their practices.

The endless struggle between Labor against Management over 'money' is completely futile. It should be a struggle of Labor AND Management against Finance. Those who currently control 'money', and always 'win' in proportion to that which either Management or Labor, or both, 'loses'.