URINE TEST

I must admit that I did not write the following paragraph, it was a forwarded e-mail from a friend in the United States. Is it a little bit hard line; perhaps. When I walk around in the city of Vancouver, BC, I see these people sitting on the streets begging for money. Some have little signs asking for money for a meal or to pay for a place to stay for the night. I always wonder how much is not for the bare necessities of life but rather for drugs, cigarettes and beer.

Unfortunately, many of these people are here in these circumstances due to no fault of their own. Many have mental illness and were put out on the mean streets with little or no support when they were de-institutionalised from Riverview mental hospital, victims of political correctness. Others are unemployable for other reasons such as physical disability. These poor souls should get our help. No one in a country such as Canada or any other rich nation should live on the streets when they had no fault causing them to be there.

Those who are there because they have addicted themselves to narcotic drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine and etc. are victims of self inflicted injury and could have avoided being on the streets simply by avoiding these dangerous drugs which are also illegal under the Criminal codes of Canada, America , Great Britain and most civilised nations of the world.

URINE TEST (I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)I DO HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB..... BUT I AGREE 100%Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I Do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who Don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I Do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ?Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . something has to change in this country -- and soon!

For those who are homeless because of mental illness, give them shelter, care, treatment in mental hospitals or other treatment facilities where they can regain the self respect and mental and physical health they have lost.

For those with physical disabilities, much the same thing. Hospitalize those who can be treated for their ailments. Give retraining to those who can benefit from that to enable them to gain control over their own lives. Connect them with suitable agencies such as the Canadian Institute for the Blind or which ever is best suited to assist the person deal with their particular problem or problems.

Some are senior citizens, some quite elderly. Why are they living in such conditions? Chances are they are people who have contributed to this country in past wars as members of the armed forces or as civilians in other occupations. They do not deserve to be living on the mean streets of the city. They do deserve to be given respect, comfortable warm shelter, good nutritious meals and companionship in seniors' homes and if they choose, away from the slum areas where they had been living.

That leaves just the drug addicted who would otherwise be employable were it not for their self inflicted situation. What to do with them. Suggestions range from prison to supplying them with all the drugs they want - for free. The answer probably exists somewhere in between the two extremes or a combination of them. Discussions of the solutions and options are endless and I will not pursue them here, other than to suggest that something needs to be done with and for these people. As a society, we can live with nothing less.

Anti Scab Labour Bill Just won't go away!

I see the ANTI SCAB bill is rearing it's ugly head again in parliament. I know this is a sacred cow for the labour movement who always feel that they are being downtrodden and victimized. I just don't understand how having closed shops where employees don't have the right to work without being forced into the union or to have a secret vote when the union is holding a certification vote, a fundamental part of out democracy. It wouldn't be fair if people could vote against the union without the union bosses seeing who does not support them, would it?

Now the union says they need anti scab legislation in order to prevent an employer who is being struck, rightly or wrongly, from hiring temporary replacement workers.

I realize that there are times when employees are not treated fairly. An employer may not pay the staff fairly or fire without just cause or any number of other issues. There are times when it is difficult for a grieved employee to obtain a satisfactory resolution. If there is no ombudsman or other means to get fair treatment for the employee(s) a strike may be needed to force the issue.

However, there are many times a union wants pay or benefits that are unreasonable or that an employer simply can not afford to grant. In a case like that, a strong union can hold the employer to ransom over a pay raise that is unreasonble or unjustified. Often, it is not just the employer who is injured or hugely inconvenienced, but the public at large. Think government employee unions or transportation or utilities and many others. In many cases, the entire national economy could be put at serious risk.

Why is this a cause for concern now? The Liberal opposition under new leader Stephane Dion is supporting a bill sponsored by the Bloc Quebecois which is not very different that the bill they did not pass when they were in government. Why the change of philosophy now?

Now to my suggestion: PASS THE BILL INTO LAW, but with the following ammendment, "no striking worker will be permitted to accept any other paid employment during the period that the strike is in effect."

If the employer is to be denied the ability to make any money to cover ongoing expenses, pay the bills or create profits, why shouldn't the union members have the equal disadvantage? Or to put it another way, why should the striking workers be able to make money while they are preventing their employer from doing so?

Can you live with it?