Liberals Want Voting Age Lowered to 16

[Fishbone Jones]

Disagree. Unions have by far and large been a great overseer of worker's rights. There is very little militarism in the way I am speaking of in terms of politics, and Unions still serve a great purpose overall.

-C/D

I don't know what sort of unions you've been exposed to, but the CAw has become nothing short of a political corporation. Workers rights are so far down their list of goals, it's not even on the screen. No militarism? Try attending a rally down here. Methinks your just regurgitating some party line you read somewhere. If you had any dealings or relationships with real (big & powerful) unions you'd not be thinking the way you are.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

I don't know what sort of unions you've been exposed to, but the CAw has become nothing short of a political corporation. Workers rights are so far down their list of goals, it's not even on the screen. No militarism? Try attending a rally down here. Methinks your just regurgitating some party line you read somewhere. If you had any dealings or relationships with real (big & powerful) unions you'd not be thinking the way you are.

While some unions have certainly become powerful in that sense, I think in this case though throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the right step. Historically speaking, unions have been defenders of human rights, workers rights, family rights and proper wage controls. Otherwise there is no check on the inherently strong profit margins by organizations (whereby to increase profit, the workers are squeezed even more). Organization of workers for their own benefit is important.

While the union as a monolithic organization does decide "for you" in a sense, it is still a collective of people and ideas. You mention that "the union" decides to go on strike but you forget that this is done through democratic processes of voting and appointments, and there are usually union wide votes on such actions.

Michael, I believe our definitions of militarism are misconnecting, so with that I disagree with your assertation of militarism in unions. Majority rule, and organizational unity is no more militaristic than majority ruled democracy.

-C/D

 

[Rodahn]

You can't have the job if you don't belong to the union. and
You can't be in the union unless you have the job!!!
The union will decide when you go on strike, even if you can't afford it.
The union will decide what's good for you.

Even more so when I started. That actually happened to me in 73, when I applied for a job..... Small wonder I detest unions.....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While some unions have certainly become powerful in that sense, I think in this case though throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the right step. Historically speaking, unions have been defenders of human rights, workers rights, family rights and proper wage controls. Otherwise there is no check on the inherently strong profit margins by organizations (whereby to increase profit, the workers are squeezed even more). Organization of workers for their own benefit is important.

While the union as a monolithic organization does decide "for you" in a sense, it is still a collective of people and ideas. You mention that "the union" decides to go on strike but you forget that this is done through democratic processes of voting and appointments, and there are usually union wide votes on such actions.

This statement just confirms for me that you've never been a REAL participant and you really have no true experience to be espousing the socialist party line. Get your head out of the books and student discussions. Time for jaundiced look at the real world. You're in for a real rude awakening.

 

[Marshall]

Im 18, and 16 was not too long ago. And when I remember how my classes were during school... I would not put such an important matter in the hands of a 16 year old.

18 is low enough, I still think half the people my age around me should not vote. Many people (and probably NOT just 18 year olds) do not even look at politics, and probably just show up to vote for whomever looks nice or has the better color on their lawn signs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Unions exhibit militant behaviour, not militarist behaviour.  What is in common is the authoritarian streak.

Trade unionism has been responsible for some excellent labour legislation, but not as much as the guardians of its mythology would have us believe.  Most of what we hold to be good about our labour laws is the result of general public pressure, to which labour unions contributed.  But so did non-unionists.

You have to have the mind of a child - or perhaps a teenager - to fail to understand or be aware of the ways in which unions really can "decide for you".  Union executives can and do make decisions which result in information being withheld from members, and whether the membership will be offered an opportunity to debate and vote.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

You have to have the mind of a child - or perhaps a teenager - to fail to understand or be aware of the ways in which unions really can "decide for you".  Union executives can and do make decisions which result in information being withheld from members, and whether the membership will be offered an opportunity to debate and vote.

Yup,......and I'm the VP of my local.

CD, once again I would like to know if you have first hand experience or are just telling us what you studied somewhere.
I'm getting ready for job actions and then a possible strike in little over a month.......and you?

 

[Steel Badger]

While some unions have certainly become powerful in that sense, I think in this case though throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the right step. Historically speaking, unions have been defenders of human rights, workers rights, family rights and proper wage controls. Otherwise there is no check on the inherently strong profit margins by organizations (whereby to increase profit, the workers are squeezed even more). Organization of workers for their own benefit is important.

While the union as a monolithic organization does decide "for you" in a sense, it is still a collective of people and ideas. You mention that "the union" decides to go on strike but you forget that this is done through democratic processes of voting and appointments, and there are usually union wide votes on such actions.

Michael, I believe our definitions of militarism are misconnecting, so with that I disagree with your assertation of militarism in unions. Majority rule, and organizational unity is no more militaristic than majority ruled democracy.

-C/D

C/D.. I have to ask? have YOU ever participated in a Union in any form; or are you basing your judgements entirely on what you have read?  I have 10 years experience as an active Union member, ( 7 of them as a Steward) and I must say that your ideas of Unions are idealistic and "Ivory Tower" to say the least. Perhaps you should lend greater creedence to the comments of Messers Monkhouse et al. THOSE gentlemen have a great deal more experience with the beast than I.  In addition there are MANY knowledgeable members out here who have offered their opinions to you ( Herr O'Leary  etc,) in open discussion. I am concerned regarding the tone and content of replies your mate... to me it appears as if your stock answer to these members is to tell 'em to "JOG ON" because of the mystical insight you have....

Might be the distance or worldview from the sandbox; or might be my aluminium pot syndrome kicking in; but I would suggest you review how you deal with people mate.....

(Edited for completeness, oh and spelling....durn mess tins...)

 

[CountDC]

Im 18, and 16 was not too long ago. And when I remember how my classes were during school... I would not put such an important matter in the hands of a 16 year old.

18 is low enough, I still think half the people my age around me should not vote. Many people (and probably NOT just 18 year olds) do not even look at politics, and probably just show up to vote for whomever looks nice or has the better color on their lawn signs.

you missed the "my father and his father and his father voted insert party here and so am I" group.  Unfortunately there are still lots of those that will vote for the "family" party regardless of who is the new face or what their current policies are.

 

[R. Jorgensen]

I don't like the idea of Voting Age being lowered to 16; just because through Grade 11 so far (Yes, I'm in Grade 11, not Grade 10 like the article says) most 16 year-olds haven't the slightest clue of even how the Canadian Parliamentary system let alone voting works - they are completely ignorant. However, I am very informed on Canadian Politics and I have had several Legal Studies, Social Studies and Political Studies teachers say that for my age, I know too well of politics - but I beg to differ. I am informed and knowledgable enough that I would put my vote in the right direction (the government should come up with a system where people under 18 but no younger than 16 can sign-up for a 'young voter' status or something, teehee...).

Alberta is messed up; there is a rumour going around that the Alberta GDL system has changed regarding age (14 - Learners GDL 7; 16 - GDL Class 5 [Restrictions apply]) however I am still running off of the confirmed rules.

Alcohol and Tobacco: 18yrs.
Voting: 18 (Obviously)
Drivers license: 14 for Learners Permit (GDL Class 7); 16 for GDL Class 5; 18 for anything higher than Class 5
Age of Majority: 18
Consent (Sexual): 14 (I still believe this is the age which people gain legal sexual consent rights, I heard it was changed or is being changed to 16)

 

[tynanfromBC]

If lowering the voting age means 16 year olds will begin to pay taxes, then by all means.

Before they go about talking about lowering the legal voting age, perhaps a reform of the electoral process is in order? It's hard for a 16 year old to really understand the workings of International Relations, Federalism, or the proper workings of a state (beaurocracy and all). Perhaps they should begin to look at our outdated electoral system, and propose a change to Proportional Representation and actually make the votes count.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Lowering the voting age is sensible, if first we nerf the powers of government.

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps they should begin to look at our outdated electoral system, and propose a change to Proportional Representation and actually make the votes count.

Uninformed teenage voters coupled to an undemocratic voting system (how many 16 year olds will be in control of the appointed "party list"? How do voters reach appointed "party list" candidates for accountability?). Wow, you really have found the worst of all possible worlds.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Well if they are proposing that the legal age for voting be 16, then the public and high schools better start teaching these kids about the system and it's workings before allowing them into the booths.

Cheers.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well if they are proposing that the legal age for voting be 16, then the public and high schools better start teaching these kids about the system and it's workings before allowing them into the booths.

Cheers.

That would defeat the whole purpose wouldn't it? They don't want educated voters........they want sheep.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Just the liberal dinosaurs...  ;D

 

[Armymedic]

If Ontario Liberals bring in the new driving law, then that province's Conservatives and NDP parties will fight desperately to get 16 yr old voters....all whom are not old enough to drive, nor drink, but to dispose of a crappy provincial government.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

C/D.. I have to ask? have YOU ever participated in a Union in any form; or are you basing your judgements entirely on what you have read?  I have 10 years experience as an active Union member, ( 7 of them as a Steward) and I must say that your ideas of Unions are idealistic and "Ivory Tower" to say the least. Perhaps you should lend greater creedence to the comments of Messers Monkhouse et al. THOSE gentlemen have a great deal more experience with the beast than I.  In addition there are MANY knowledgeable members out here who have offered their opinions to you ( Herr O'Leary  etc,) in open discussion. I am concerned regarding the tone and content of replies your mate... to me it appears as if your stock answer to these members is to tell 'em to "JOG ON" because of the mystical insight you have....

Might be the distance or worldview from the sandbox; or might be my aluminium pot syndrome kicking in; but I would suggest you review how you deal with people mate.....

(Edited for completeness, oh and spelling....durn mess tins...)

Despite various Union's problems in the end eliminating them completely would not be the solution. I'm sure those of you with Union experience could in the very at least agree with me on that regard?

-C/D

 

[Steel Badger]

C/D old son, I believe I asked you a question: Have you ever been involved with, or part of a Union? 

One would imagine the polite response would be to answer it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Despite various Union's problems in the end eliminating them completely would not be the solution. I'm sure those of you with Union experience could in the very at least agree with me on that regard?

-C/D

I'll answer your question - No I don't agree. There are laws in place now ensuring the fair and safe treatment of workers. Many big corporations now operate quite well without the unions and sometimes better. Should there be some sort of watchdog organisation to overlook things? I'd be open to that, but would have to see what the mandate is first and how they were going to operate. BTW, I've had plenty of experience with unions.

Now, you've been asked questions. Answer them, and I suggest you take to heart the post I made to you in another thread.