GCn20

Here we go with the privatization boogey-man again. The good news for Manitoba is that Manitobans are not fooled by the NDPs scare tactics anymore. Only the very die-hard NDP supporters, which are a breed quickly becoming extinct, are willing to listen to this cock and bull anymore.

Never ceases to amaze me how the pro-NDP keep trying to perpetuate the myth of fired nurses, even though PUBLIC RECORD has shown that it is an outright LIE.

As opposed to Sterling Lyon who referred to Manitoba women as "good breeders" and Filmon with his vote-rigging scandal? Or premier-hopeful Brian Pallister who calls non-Christians "infidels"? One incident of idiot staffers doesn't ruin a great legacy of Filmon. Would take him back any day. The PC's campaign manager, a party bigwig (who didn't learn anything from it and tried to rig another election 4 years later in a relative's riding), Filmon's Chief of Staff and the Secretary to Treasury Board - those aren't just any staffers - they were all trusted advisors and friends of Filmon. What legacy does Filmon have? Firing nurses, privatizing MTS, making cuts to social services, etc, etc. Mods, maybe it's time to split off the non-IGF discussion from this thread. This has gone so off topic. Filmon's government had it's warts. All governments do over time. I would gladly take Filmon's record over Selinger's, any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Selinger is easlly the worst premier we have had in Manitoba since Pawley. His record is atrocious. Awful, awful mismanagement on every level.

You need to talk to smarter people.

Jacquie your statements are ALL factually incorrect.

Wonder if they were the best qualified for the job in the tendering process, or simply the best they could get with union affiliation.

There were conditions placed by the government of Manitoba on the project in order for them to loan the money. Did these conditions contribute to the situation that is now happening. This is what I would like to see answered. There is no question that at the end of the snowball's roll that corners were cut. Were they cut because of a flawed tendering process. Were they cut because of problems with the mandated build site. Did it create a situation that created an unwinnable situation all the way around. At the end of the day, Olsen should be left holding the bag. He took on the contract knowing what the conditions were. However, on future capital projects undertaken by Crown agencies or corporations we will not have a bag man.

Cowboy churches? What happens if you are not a cowboy and you know maybe just wanna go pray. Gotta buy chaps with sequins on them? I get that there are cowboys in Alberta and Saskatchewan....that's great. Making it a requirement for entry....that's absurd. It does sound silly even to a Westerner. I am a little surprised by Saskatchewan not embracing Hillbilly church though....mind you, I guess they just call that regular church.

I spent a year in Estevan called July and August in 1990. That town makes Honey Boo-Boo look like Stephen Hawking. I got a buddy who just moved there... Tattoo artist, of all careers.. I have to assume hes pretty much braindead by this point.. You should tell your buddy to really have some fun and mess with them. He can misspell every word on his tattoos on purpose and just sit back and laugh at the fact that nobody notices.

Huff saw a value in Shomari. Some people here dont. He also saw first-round value in Ameet Pall. Huff is far from infallible. Personally I'd have liked to see Shomari on teams to start with and work his way into the rotation like anyone else. Oh well. It all boils down to price tag. For the right price, Williams could have been a valuable contributor and depth for our club.

The general contractor, architect and engineering firm are all national companies. They are forced to hire unionized workers, regardless of who the best trade for the job may be. Funny, I always thought that whether you are unionized or not, you still had to pass the same standards to be qualified as a journeyman. Ooops. Sorry. More logic. Have to pass the same standards yes. Union labour is not unqualified labour. If you are going to make an argument against unionized labour it would be that it generally costs more and is less productive. If you are forced to hire unionized workers then you can only hire out of union shops. That takes many very good companies out of play as options for subcontracting. It narrows down and limits options and effects cost control. That's just straight up logic for you. When cost control is effected, so too will the final product. Your logic is flawed. You are positing that the lowest labour cost determines the best quality and the lowest overall cost- that is not a given under any circumstances. In most cases, the wages will be the same for a similarly qualified tradesman because a journeyman will take his/her talents elsewhere if inderpaid. You are also assuming (probably falsely) that the issues with the stadium are due to poor workmanship, and nowhere is that categorically stated- the issues appear to be poor design, and that comes out of the non-union offices of the architect and engineering firms. Moreover, the supervision on the site would have been the purview of the construction mangers, and I would bet they are also non-union. Being unionized is no guarantee of good results, but neither is is being non-unuon. Nope, not at all what I was saying. Not in any way shape or form. My point is simply that requiring the exclusive use of union shops limits the amount of companies that can tender and therefore waters down the pool of skilled labor. On a project with the scope and size of a stadium that will inevitably lead to cost overrun due to limited tendering, and will exclude in some cases some very good and possibly better qualified companies. Can you seriously defend the need to use only union labor? What possible argument could one have that it would improve a project. It was simply a requirement put in place by a government that is beholden to the unions. It made so sense, other than political gain, then and the proof is coming out in the pudding.

The general contractor, architect and engineering firm are all national companies. They are forced to hire unionized workers, regardless of who the best trade for the job may be. Funny, I always thought that whether you are unionized or not, you still had to pass the same standards to be qualified as a journeyman. Ooops. Sorry. More logic. Have to pass the same standards yes. Union labour is not unqualified labour. If you are going to make an argument against unionized labour it would be that it generally costs more and is less productive. If you are forced to hire unionized workers then you can only hire out of union shops. That takes many very good companies out of play as options for subcontracting. It narrows down and limits options and effects cost control. That's just straight up logic for you. When cost control is effected, so too will the final product. Your logic is flawed. You are positing that the lowest labour cost determines the best quality and the lowest overall cost- that is not a given under any circumstances. In most cases, the wages will be the same for a similarly qualified tradesman because a journeyman will take his/her talents elsewhere if inderpaid. You are also assuming (probably falsely) that the issues with the stadium are due to poor workmanship, and nowhere is that categorically stated- the issues appear to be poor design, and that comes out of the non-union offices of the architect and engineering firms. Moreover, the supervision on the site would have been the purview of the construction mangers, and I would bet they are also non-union. Being unionized is no guarantee of good results, but neither is is being non-unuon. Nope, not at all what I was saying. Not in any way shape or form. My point is simply that requiring the exclusive use of union shops limits the amount of companies that can tender and therefore waters down the pool of skilled labor. On a project with the scope and size of a stadium that will inevitably lead to cost overrun due to limited tendering, and will exclude in some cases some very good and possibly better qualified companies. Can you seriously defend the need to use only union labor? What possible argument could one have that it would improve a project.

Poor Alberta. Those Tories really screwed them up. LOL. Consider your audience when you want to go on a rant about poor Alberta. We would give our left nut in Manitoba to have the economy that has been crafted in Alberta under the Tories.

I agree. Anytime only union shops can be utilized the more danger there is for cost overrun and poor workmanship through decreased competition and lack of option.

The timeframe was aggressive. It had nothing to do with design flaws. It may have contributed to some of the shoddy workmanship though.

The general contractor, architect and engineering firm are all national companies. They are forced to hire unionized workers, regardless of who the best trade for the job may be. Funny, I always thought that whether you are unionized or not, you still had to pass the same standards to be qualified as a journeyman. Ooops. Sorry. More logic. Have to pass the same standards yes. Union labour is not unqualified labour. If you are going to make an argument against unionized labour it would be that it generally costs more and is less productive. If you are forced to hire unionized workers then you can only hire out of union shops. That takes many very good companies out of play as options for subcontracting. It narrows down and limits options and effects cost control. That's just straight up logic for you. When cost control is effected, so too will the final product.

I found it hilarious today that a few Riderfans were crying about the Stamps ability to sign BLM to a contract. Whining about the SMS....what an about face they pull when a team not named the Riders appears to be pushing the SMS limits.

I think Taj Smith might know the answer to that.

Absolutely, he didn't cost us a draft pick. Nothing to lose.

Absolutely. I was one who You think they keep all of them around? Unless Grigsby got some balls surgically added in the offseason he's not as good as the other two guys. Call me over sensitive but really beginning to think you don't like Grigsby. He gave us high hopes coming outta camp after.cottons injury... Then we realized he can't block, barely catch and is a lightweight when any contact happens... Any dislike is based upon his brutal season with us AND then blaming everyone but himself.. That's just incorrect... catching is one of the things he is good at... I believe there was even discussion around here about how effective is would be in the slot... Absolutely, I was one of a few members here who mused that perhaps we could convert him to receiver.

Griffiths is likely a long term project for the PR or just a body who will give us some bodies at OL in mini-camp. He is an extreme longshot, but hey, he's got a better shot at making the CFL than he did yesterday. Hope he works hard and surprises. Any of these fringe signing right now leave me a little skeptical with mini-camp nearing. Teams always struggle to have enough new recruits at each position for mini-camp and begin signing longshots to fill out the camp.

I get why Huffer may have drafted him. What I don't get is how this guy was able to have so many CFL lives.

You and Aards are really carrying around a bad case of the jinx today. At BB.com, Aards told us we should watch out for Pall now that he has real coaching...CUT. Now you with Jackson. On behalf of all current Bombers under contract, I will please ask you not to mention any more names today, lol

Shocker. Pall looked like he was on the cusp of CFL superstardom.

Exactly, he offered ridiculously high contracts to guys like Casey Printers that completely changed the pay scale at QB. He did this with several positions. If the average going rate for a star receiver is 100k he will offer 200k and get his guy, well guess what every other comparable talent wants now. He has no regard for the salary structure of the CFL. He spends like a drunken sailor.