66 replies to this topic

[Peeves]

Ontario PC leader Hudak is going down the road to try and change labour law with unions. One of his changes is unions dues being paid by workers who don't want to pay them. Well, I guess if a worker applies to a job and knowing its a union, then that worker knows exactly what is expected of them. Another view is have non-union workers within a union BUT those workers wouldn't get the benfits of all the wages as an union worker. I'm wondering if Hudak as been talking to the feds, to try to get rid of unions, since the feds are reducing the size of unions. I think Hudak may feel the heat on this one. http://www.thestar.c...a-lousy-economy

Perhaps you're simplifying this just a bit. I paid dues. I signed up workers that didn't hold cards but paid dues under the Rand formula.
I also knew what our union spent the dues on, contracts, working conditions, grievances and salaries for our executive. No big problem.

Today the Sid Ryans and CUPE and other unions have their own political agendas and pet projects and expend monies worker dues to support demonstrating students in another province, boycotts in another country, demonstrators over G8- G 20, Occupiers and the like. That should not be funded by workers dues when dues are paid to provide leadership in union working conditions.

[Shady]

Today the Sid Ryans and CUPE and other unions have their own political agendas and pet projects and expend monies worker dues to support demonstrating students in another province, boycotts in another country, demonstrators over G8- G 20, Occupiers and the like. That should not be funded by workers dues when dues are paid to provide leadership in union working conditions.

Well said.

[Boges]

You have to wonder why the cost of living is so high in this province. Is it because Union wages push them up? In these right to work states people can live relatively comfortably on $15/hour.

Most people in the private sector aren't currently or have never been in a union. Employers in the private sector can decide whether to have a union or not.

I think the main problem we're seeing in Canada is how public sector unions hold a monopoly on how public money is spent and how much to charge for services.

Anyone pay attention to the situation at the Toronto District School Board? A perfect example of what happens when a union doesn't have to compete for providing a service. You get them charing $3,000 to install an electrical outlet, and no one can say shit about it.

Edited by Boges, 30 June 2012 - 10:34 AM.

[cybercoma]

Perhaps you're simplifying this just a bit. I paid dues. I signed up workers that didn't hold cards but paid dues under the Rand formula.
I also knew what our union spent the dues on, contracts, working conditions, grievances and salaries for our executive. No big problem.

Today the Sid Ryans and CUPE and other unions have their own political agendas and pet projects and expend monies worker dues to support demonstrating students in another province, boycotts in another country, demonstrators over G8- G 20, Occupiers and the like. That should not be funded by workers dues when dues are paid to provide leadership in union working conditions.

Then the workers should elect better union leadership and representation.

[Jack Weber]

Jack, I don't pretend to understand all the ramifications of changes to the law about unions but one thing I do know - we are going to keep losing jobs no matter what new laws might be enacted!

That being said, can you name any instance in the last decade or so where having a union had saved jobs?

Can you name any instance where having a union has attracted new employers to any town or region? Where having a union has CREATED jobs?

Seems to me we're arguing politics on the deck of the Titanic...

Saved jobs or tried it's very best to save jobs only to be rooked by management in the end???

In the last 17 years I've worked at 3 unionized establishments where the union backed off and took less than it could have asked (in one case took a 5 year contract with no wage increases except for CPI) and still both companies effed the membership...

The most recent case is just last weekend where we avoided a strike by signing a 4 year deal and took less than 2% in the first 3 years and 2% in the 4th...This is after management informed the bargaining cimmittee 3 weeks before potential job action that they had not paid a cent into the pension fund for two(2) years in direct contravention of the law.The bargaining committee came back and ssaid that we can,by law,compell you to make a 15 million dollar lump sum payment to top up the delinquent deficiency...The company shot back that they would have to liquidate assets to make good (which is total BS and even they knew it!)...However,the UNION came up with a comprimise solution to remedy the situation by allowing this upstanding individual to make up the $15 million deficiency over the life of the 4 year agreement...Nevermind the fact that we have mant retiree's,AND SOON TO BE RETIREE'S, who wont see a pesion increase because,by law,no increases can be made until the deficiency is topped up.AND THIS IS A FUND THAT IS FULLY AND COMPLETELY FUNDED AND ISN'T INDEXED!!!!

So,to save the owner sorry,delinquent,law breaking hide,we had to take a hit...

As to your contention that business doesn't want to deal with unions..Of course they don't...Unions are a correct check on their way to extreme profiteering.Look who's behind the Right to Work movement as it relates to lobbying in the US and it should tell you all you need to know about the reasons for anyone advocating for any form of RTW legislation...

Then please look at the links I've provided from the AFL/CIO website...Before you assume the statistics are "union biased",most of the stats are from the US Department of Labour and are simply a reflection of the numbers provided...The ask yourself if that's the type of workplace environment you would want to work in???

Because that's what Mr. Hudak is aiming for and that is certainly what Minister Raitt and the Corporate Conservative Party of Canada is advocating for with Bill C-377...

[Jack Weber]

Perhaps you're simplifying this just a bit. I paid dues. I signed up workers that didn't hold cards but paid dues under the Rand formula.
I also knew what our union spent the dues on, contracts, working conditions, grievances and salaries for our executive. No big problem.

Today the Sid Ryans and CUPE and other unions have their own political agendas and pet projects and expend monies worker dues to support demonstrating students in another province, boycotts in another country, demonstrators over G8- G 20, Occupiers and the like. That should not be funded by workers dues when dues are paid to provide leadership in union working conditions.

Peeves...

I don't disagree with any of this...

And I can relate to this from something that happened to me recently...

I'm a USWA member and I got robocall from Ken Neumann back in early March asking me to vote for Brian Topp for the leadership of the NDP.I'm not even an NDP member!!!

So a small portion of my dues went to Ken Neumann to record a message to call me to vote for Brian Topp when I couldn't vote in that leadership event even if I wanted to!!!

HOWEVER...This is small potatoes compared to what Mr. Hudak is proposing.Because,if one looks into what RTW legislation is all about,it's about legislative union busting under the guise of..You guessed it...


"Individual Worker Freedom and Liberty!!!"

Like the NAM or The Koch Bros. ever cared about that!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

Then please look at the links I've provided from the AFL/CIO website...

Are there any AFL-CIO locals in Canada? The "A" in AFL-CIO stands for "American".

[Jack Weber]

Slow your role here people. In actual economics not what you guys are talking about there are actually wage models. Now because of the union wage premium, organizations may want to avoid unionization. The easiest way for them to do this is to offer supracompetitive wages which means just for the fact that unions exist lots and lots of people get paid a higher wage. Just because they exist. Stop trying to make a very complex problem a simple one because you don't to put the time to understand all the variables.

Very true...

Two examples that I can think of off the top of my head are the non-union auto sector in Ontario that pays very similar wage and benny packages as the Big Three plants...

AND..

The steel producers,particularily in Hamilton....Dofasco (now Arcelor/Mittal) and Stelco (now U.S.Steel) have very similar wage and benny plans but only one is unionized (U.S.Steel)...

Edited by Jack Weber, 30 June 2012 - 02:56 PM.

[WWWTT]

I don't need a union. Who cares?

Lots of people care.

Unions are very important for the well being of our economy.

More unions members = stronger economy!

WWWTT

[Peeves]

Lots of people care.

Unions are very important for the well being of our economy.

More unions members = stronger economy!

WWWTT

Hah! and add a derisive snort.

70% 0f workers are non union. Just 16 per cent of private sector workers now belong to unions. Do you think for a minute that any union cares about non union workers beyond concern if they lose a job to some firm/individual that isn't unionized? They couldn't give a shit if a non unionized worker is drowning if they don't get dues.

30% of Canadian 'workers' belong to unions, including, nurses, teachers, journalists and professional athletes, as well as the more traditionally (sometimes) unionized occupations like retail store clerks, manufacturing workers, miners, electricians and other construction trades workers. Cops and others have unions by another name. Try to get any of them fired for most any cause including non competence.

Now since 70% of workers aren't union members and (probably) a sizable number wouldn't be had they a choice, just who do you think gives a shit about the 70%?

Hudak has the right idea. Just where else does a law like our Rand formula force a worker to pay dues whether they want a union or not.


This is what a union does when not controlled.

And I quote!

The work is performed by members of the Maintenance and Construction Skilled Trades Council, with whom the TDSB is required to contract for virtually all such projects. But even outside contractors, where they are permitted, must kick in a portion of their wages in "dues" to the Trades Council, much as the TDSB's in-house construction workers must.

The Trades Council's president, Jimmy Hazel, is unapologetic. Asked by the Star about the electrical outlet, which took four hours but for which the board was billed 76, Hazel replied, "we don't need to f—ing prove anything to anybody about costs."

http://www.canada.com/news/national/Coyne+Ontario+Tories+take+unions+about+time/6851160/story.html

Edited by Peeves, 30 June 2012 - 03:37 PM.

[Peeves]

Peeves...

I don't disagree with any of this...

And I can relate to this from something that happened to me recently...

I'm a USWA member and I got robocall from Ken Neumann back in early March asking me to vote for Brian Topp for the leadership of the NDP.I'm not even an NDP member!!!

So a small portion of my dues went to Ken Neumann to record a message to call me to vote for Brian Topp when I couldn't vote in that leadership event even if I wanted to!!!

HOWEVER...This is small potatoes compared to what Mr. Hudak is proposing.Because,if one looks into what RTW legislation is all about,it's about legislative union busting under the guise of..You guessed it...


"Individual Worker Freedom and Liberty!!!"

Like the NAM or The Koch Bros. ever cared about that!!!

The best case for union busting and the best union busters are the public sector unions themselves.

[Jack Weber]

Hah! and add a derisive snort.

70% 0f workers are non union. Just 16 per cent of private sector workers now belong to unions. Do you think for a minute that any union cares about non union workers beyond concern if they lose a job to some firm/individual that isn't unionized? They couldn't give a shit if a non unionized worker is drowning if they don't get dues.

30% of Canadian 'workers' belong to unions, including, nurses, teachers, journalists and professional athletes, as well as the more traditionally (sometimes) unionized occupations like retail store clerks, manufacturing workers, miners, electricians and other construction trades workers. Cops and others have unions by another name. Try to get any of them fired for most any cause including non competence.

Now since 70% of workers aren't union members and (probably) a sizable number wouldn't be had they a choice, just who do you think gives a shit about the 70%?

Hudak has the right idea. Just where else does a law like our Rand formula force a worker to pay dues whether they want a union or not.


This is what a union does when not controlled.

And I quote!

http://www.canada.com/news/national/Coyne+Ontario+Tories+take+unions+about+time/6851160/story.html

And I repeat,as someone who knows better than to believe the crap you've just posted...


Under 'Agency Shop",no one...NO ONE ...Is forced to join a union if they don't want to.."Agency Shop" is the framework we work under in the province of Ontario..But,of course,you knew that...

Hudak has the right idea??

To legislatively bust individual union locals to drive down the standard of living even more??

We know this will inevitably happen because we all know that the "Union Wage" sets the bar in industry...

So does he and his willing legislative and corporate aparatchiks....

My suggestion is that you look at wage and benny plans in RTW states in the US to see where this would go if it were to pass...

Let me guess..You're an advocate for the "meritocracy" of non-union employment??

[Peeves]

Then the workers should elect better union leadership and representation.

Ok I'll pass that brilliant observation on if you don't object.


And this too. (Assuming they are indeed unionized workers.)

Porn Surfing SEC Government Workers Not Fired
I guess it takes an act of God or Democratic congress to fire Federal employees.
Remember when, there were about 31 employees of the SEC (Security Exchange Commission- not Sexual Encounters Commission) who were caught watching porn on their computers instead of watching for thugs like Bernie Madoff who stole billions under their hair in the palm hands.
From Ann Coulter: Taking only one performance problem in a single government office -- surfing Internet pornography at the Securities and Exchange Commission: In 2010, 31 employees were found to have spent their workdays downloading Internet porn in the 2 1/2 years during and preceding the financial crash that led to the greatest depression in nearly a century. (One of their favorite online porn sites was "Fannie Mae Hill," while those who prefer big girls were at "Too Big to Fail.") If only Bernie Madoff had posted naked videos of himself on the Internet, the SEC might have noticed him. Seventeen of the porn-surfers were being paid government salaries of $99,356 to $222,418.
In another classic example of the left hand not wanting to know what the right hand was doing, an employee with the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance admitted watching up to five hours a day of pornography in his office. His favorite pornographic websites were bookmarked on his government computer, and he had both downloaded and uploaded pornographic videos to the numerous websites he had joined. Even after admitting to surfing porn all day on the taxpayers' dime, not one of the lonely SEC employees was fired, nor were their names released by the government, even in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. (Although most of them were referred for membership in D.C. sex clubs.) These are the true beneficiaries of big government -- or our "commitments," as Obama calls them -- not the poor, the elderly, the disadvantaged, and those about whom we say "There but for the grace of God, go I.
http://www.anncoulter.com/ (April 27, 2011 article)
And yet Harry Reid says there is no fat in the government. President Obama just can't seem to find any place to cut the budget. And yet, somehow, these perverts still have a job and not in jail.
There should be a law or rule- if an employee in any government job has time to surf the web for pornography, not only should that person be fired immediately, but that job should be eliminated as well. If they have time to surf for porn, then that job just is not needed for government to function.
But the Democrats want to protect these people and their jobs, along with others who violate work rules, like stealing, being late to work, sleeping on the job and maybe even attempted murder under the right circumstances.
It's time to reform work rules in the Federal government ala Wisconsin, Ohio and maybe even Massachusetts and other States. It's also time to get rid of jobs that are not essential to keeping the Federal government working.
Do that and we won't need to worry about raising the debt ceiling.

[Jack Weber]

Ok I'll pass that brilliant observation on if you don't object.


And this too. (Assuming they are indeed unionized workers.)

So Peeves..

Would your public sector union legislative union busting (essentially RTW legislation) apply to the private sector,as well?

Edited by Jack Weber, 30 June 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[Peeves]

And I repeat,as someone who knows better than to believe the crap you've just posted...


Under 'Agency Shop",no one...NO ONE ...Is forced to join a union if they don't want to.."Agency Shop" is the framework we work under in the province of Ontario..But,of course,you knew that...

Hudak has the right idea??

To legislatively bust individual union locals to drive down the standard of living even more??

We know this will inevitably happen because we all know that the "Union Wage" sets the bar in industry...

So does he and his willing legislative and corporate aparatchiks....

My suggestion is that you look at wage and benny plans in RTW states in the US to see where this would go if it were to pass...

Let me guess..You're an advocate for the "meritocracy" of non-union employment??

They are however forced to pay union dues, and, they are at times harassed if they won't sign a card.


No I endorse the initial need and cause for unions.
Those unions that work for their members and don't accept kick backs like in the example I posted. I worked for union wages when we had 48 hour weeks little vacation/health care or Ministry of Labour inspections/WCB or pensions. I know what a union can do.
I maintain that what we have today is not what a union should stand for. The Public sector unions are a farce. The teacher's union gives a shit for no one but teachers. The cops won't give evidence but expect the public to do so. Construction unions work on kick backs. Poor teachers can't be fired and are rehired after retiring. Union workers were paid to switch jobs when there was no wage loss. A public service union worker can surf porn 5 hours a day and not get fired.
Dues are spent promoting personal 'causes.'
These aren't unions, they're just another form of fraud.

I was a union rep, and I am ashamed that the union movement has become. Often a fraudulent black mailing supporter of over payment for civic workers jobs (and others) to the point of insanity.