the monopolies are coming with the king's blessings hide your chickens, to them working people are the same as any commoditie loot & plunder don't spare the force,see gordy,see steven you cannot see the puppet strings oh my ,there may not be any tax money until this messy controlling is over,its warm and cozy here in victoria in the old parliament castle on the moat -you don't think those peasents will attack do you?

The main reason for the current crisis is the down turn in the US housing market- little demand for wood products- however the Union's must give their heads a collective shake (the NDP too)- while Interior mills are quite competitive, coastal mills are the high cost mills in the world due to poor productivity and very high union costs- ave wage in a mill in the US Pacific NW is only $17 hour, on the coast wages start at $23 hour plus full payroll loading. Haramac workers ave in excess of 80k or more. Unions have demostrated no flexiblibity except for Port Alberni. The USW 10 point plan is a complete joke.

Reducing wages is always promoted by those on the 'right' as the great cure-all. But if the market is already glutted with product, how in the world is glutting it with MORE, even if it is produced at lower cost, going to improve the situation?

You want access to global markets. You believe that 'free-market competition', internationally, is the best way to get needed product into the hands of final consumers. Wherever they may be. All very commendable. Except for one little, or not so little, fatal flaw.

The 'incomes' to consume those 'cheaper' products still come, for the vast majority of consumers, wherever they are, from EMPLOYMENT.

They are the EFFECTIVE demand for the products for which there is, or may be, a genuine 'real' demand.

But when you beat wages down here, and your competitors internationally are forced to do the same thing, or go out of business, who is actually gaining? Do the math, Dogs, remember back to you high school algebra. It's easily provable mathematically that a reduction in wages is NOT the solution to the overall problem.

It does not one whit of good to any country to virtually enslave its population producing goods for export at starvation level wages any more than it does to do the alternate ~ impoverish them through unemployment caused by the present phoney international 'money trade' that distorts 'real' costs internationally.

Either way they're still losing. And the debate is solely a question, then, of whether it's necessary to 'work' at going broke, or whether the same result could be achieved doing nothing. Either way you're in the same spot ~ broke. Only for many, our 'moral' background dominates our thinking, and we persist in thinking we have to 'work' at it. We need to separate the 'moral' from the 'economic'. And look at one at a time

What you're inferring here, Dogs, is simply the political 'right's' exact phoney solution to that of the political 'left's. The 'left' would re-distribute an 'insufficiency' (of 'money'incomes ) by robbing Peter to pay Paul. The 'right' would simply reverse the process. But an 'insufficiency' is still an 'insufficiency' and no matter how you try to 're-distribute' it there's no way it can be made (and kept) into a 'sufficiency'.

It's like slicing the pie thinner and thinner as more people line up for a slice. Everyone might get a taste of pie, but they still all leave the table hungry. The only solution is to 'bake a bigger pie'. Big enough for EVERYONE to get whatever size piece it takes to satiate their hunger. The problem here isn't with the physical 'pie', there's more than enough of that. It's that we need a 'ticket' to get a piece of it. It's purely a 'financial' problem of an insufficiency of 'tickets'.

It really is simple economics - supply and demand. No one should really call this a crisis - it has been seen coming for many years - the only reason it has been called a crisis is because it was not planned for. It's time for some people - preferably younger ones to come up with some new and innovative ideas to deal with this situation. Out with the old in with the new...change is hard but its time to move on people..

It makes me laugh when union leaders and their NDP cohorts make statements, especially when it comes to the government intervening to save jobs.
Why would or should a company remain in business if they continue to lose money hand over fist? Is it the shareholders fault that these unions will not negotiate with the companies to maybe reduce wages rather than lose jobs? While these union reps drive $70,000 plus vehicles….they are more worried about losing the union dues…Get rid of the union and the problems will start to solve themselves…our provincial government is a perfect example. Yeah it wont solve the economic slow down but I guarantee it would make the industry a lot more competitive and prosperous.
Here is an idea…why doesn’t the B.C. Federation of Labour purchase the Mackenzie pulp mill? That would save a lot of jobs!

I am sure are happy the unions are on board.The p&t mill on the island is closing in a city of 150,000.500 workers are out of work.Ft st. james a village of 2500.300 P&T workers off work since Thankgiving day 2007. All of sudden its a problem. This company filed its papers in October 2007 and now there starting to be a major player.I say just stay home we need leaders not followers that come on line when it looks good.This reaction leadership is just like the companies who for the last 20 years have worked in the hurry up to stop way of doing business.We needed proactive leadership that would of already had a plan in place.Go home you are now just getting in he way of people tryng to move on,the damage is all ready done.

Wavoes, lets all take a 30% cut in income. Everyone. But lets also lower the price of everything, all the goods and services everyone needs and wants, plus the payments you're making on all the ones you've financed (on the basis of your previous income), by an equal 30%. Doesn't that sound fair? If we're so worried about being 'globally competitive' and preserving 'jobs', well, there's the way to do it, is it not?

Now just ask yourself 'why' we don't do such a thing. Why is it always just the worker, who, through his spending, and nowadays spending even more than his current income, that keeps the whole reason for 'production' going, the one who is supposed to bear the full brunt of any credit contraction?

Well said Socredible. BOTH wage & price controls would only be fair.

wage and price control.
I've heard that somewhere before.