Unifor Joins With TIDES NGO's Against Their Own Members

[RW]

I grasp that concept just fine as I have now stated more than once.  Please try to keep up.



The claim is, that there will be a loss of jobs failing the installation of a pipeline.  We CURRENTLY produce (using your numbers) 3 millions barrels of crude a day.  That means all the people currently employed in oil support that level of output that is currently being transported within our current shipping infrastructure.  So where will the loss of jobs within the current working cohort be without a pipeline?  I understand there will not be an increase in oil patch jobs because of maintaining output levels, but where will the LOSS be?

[Obvious Li]

I grasp that concept just fine as I have now stated more than once.  Please try to keep up.



The claim is, that there will be a loss of jobs failing the installation of a pipeline.  We CURRENTLY produce (using your numbers) 3 millions barrels of crude a day.  That means all the people currently employed in oil support that level of output that is currently being transported within our current shipping infrastructure.  So where will the loss of jobs within the current working cohort be without a pipeline?  I understand there will not be an increase in oil patch jobs because of maintaining output levels, but where will the LOSS be?

you are correct in your statements...what works now is sustainable with no increase in production..if that is your end game you are there......we should all stop expansion and wait for these mines to run out of feedstock and then start to build some new ones...hopefully the 10 year interlude between the two events and the lack of tax and royalty revenue won't affect the welfare/protest crowd too too much....

[Obvious Li]

fuck ya...a n awesome TOP

[RW]

Thanks for once again confirming I'm right.  Never talk to me like I'm an idiot again.

[Anonymous]

I grasp that concept just fine as I have now stated more than once.  Please try to keep up.



The claim is, that there will be a loss of jobs failing the installation of a pipeline.  We CURRENTLY produce (using your numbers) 3 millions barrels of crude a day.  That means all the people currently employed in oil support that level of output that is currently being transported within our current shipping infrastructure.  So where will the loss of jobs within the current working cohort be without a pipeline?  I understand there will not be an increase in oil patch jobs because of maintaining output levels, but where will the LOSS be?

you are correct in your statements...what works now is sustainable with no increase in production..if that is your end game you are there......we should all stop expansion and wait for these mines to run out of feedstock and then start to build some new ones...hopefully the 10 year interlude between the two events and the lack of tax and royalty revenue won't affect the welfare/protest crowd too too much....

Why would a union say we have enough jobs for members and we don't want anymore that increased production will bring? China wants our resources, they produce tremendous wealth and great jobs for our country. Let's get it to them.



Hey Real Woman, when is Unifor going to come out against the increased grain shipments going abroad? Will they say we are sending thousands of jobs overseas by not making bread?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for once again confirming I'm right.  Never talk to me like I'm an idiot again.

Your position is so unrealistic you are not to be taken seriously.

[RW]

I'm not Unifor's spokeswoman seoul.

[RW]

Thanks for once again confirming I'm right.  Never talk to me like I'm an idiot again.

Your position is so unrealistic you are not to be taken seriously.

What position is that exactly?  That Unifor isn't supporting union job LOSS by opposing a pipeline?  Because that's pretty much the only real opinion I've had in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for once again confirming I'm right.  Never talk to me like I'm an idiot again.

Your position is so unrealistic you are not to be taken seriously.

What position is that exactly?  That Unifor isn't supporting union job LOSS by opposing a pipeline?  Because that's pretty much the only real opinion I've had in this thread.

Increased production means more good jobs. Build the pipelines and expand our rail network. Resources are not producing a single job sitting in the ground.

[RW]

NO SHIT SHERLOCK!

[Anonymous]

NO SHIT SHERLOCK!

Good, then you know that Unifor's pipeline position is not good for anyone.

[RW]

My point was calling bullshit that it harm it's current membership.

[Anonymous]

My point was calling bulkshit that it doesn't harm it's current membership.

I don't know enough about the industry to say if it would or not. I know not expanding resource production will hurt growing membership. That's what will happen without new pipelines.

[RW]

Just shut up now.

[Obvious Li]

Thanks for once again confirming I'm right.  Never talk to me like I'm an idiot again.

Your position is so unrealistic you are not to be taken seriously.

what seoulbro said...in a discussion regarding any serious topic.....you cannot be taken seriously....your views are included merely for entertainment purposes......cupcake