66 replies to this topic

[WWWTT]

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...

I do not believe you understand how our economy works or the concept of "middle class"

When people earn a wage for providing a service or product they are then reimbursed with a monetary sum.

In turn these people use their monetary sums to buy other services/products/pay taxes/save/etc.

The more money that goes to the middle class,the more money circulated within the economy.

Less money going to the middle class and more going to the 1% = bad news for the economy!!!

If you do not understand the importance of this,or have forgotten then you it's pointless.

WWWTT

[Jack Weber]

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.

Wrongo,sport...

They are not forced to pay union dues...They can have those dues directed to the charity of their choice AND get the resulting tax break for this...

I shouldn't have to tell a former union negotiator? about these legal matters,should I?

This is done under the express knowledge that those INDIVIDUALS are declining representation and are on their own...

Agency Shop...Look it up!!!

This is far fairer than the corporate silliness that Mr. Hudak,and any other RTW loving fool,is promoting...

The rest of your overly verbose drivel is blathering about the public sector and doesn't even scratch the surface of the real issue here...

Back to "steward school",kiddo...

Edited by Jack Weber, 30 June 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[WWWTT]

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%?

That was quite the rant to edit for my reply.

As Jack Weber has noted,there are many non union companies that are in direct competition with unionized shops.The non union shop employees receive direct benefit from competing with a unionized one!

Our country would be doing better if there was more unionized workers!

The only losers would be CEO's,vise presidents and share holders.

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

I do not believe you understand how our economy works or the concept of "middle class"

When people earn a wage for providing a service or product they are then reimbursed with a monetary sum.

In turn these people use their monetary sums to buy other services/products/pay taxes/save/etc.

The more money that goes to the middle class,the more money circulated within the economy.

Less money going to the middle class and more going to the 1% = bad news for the economy!!!

If you do not understand the importance of this,or have forgotten then you it's pointless.

WWWTT

Then why do any work at all? Why not just give everyone a government cheque and have it trickle all around to pay everyone?

Are you suggesting that we don't need REAL jobs providing REAL goods and services?

Are you suggesting manufacturers can ignore cheaper imports and give their workers raises even while their sales are drying up?

[Wild Bill]

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, I think you are so upset you are confusing me with other posters. Those were not MY contentions!

I would never deny that some companies bargain in bad faith. Just because I criticize one side does not make the other all saints. The world is not so black and white.

Nonetheless, you didn't answer a single bloody thing I asked!

[Jack Weber]

Jack, I think you are so upset you are confusing me with other posters. Those were not MY contentions!

I would never deny that some companies bargain in bad faith. Just because I criticize one side does not make the other all saints. The world is not so black and white.

Nonetheless, you didn't answer a single bloody thing I asked!

Yes I did..

But in your "classic liberal" infantile mindset,you can't get past your "Let the market be the market" foolishness...

[socialist]

Yes I did..

But in your "classic liberal" infantile mindset,you can't get past your "Let the market be the market" foolishness...

Why must you insult everyone who disagrees with you. Name-calling is for little people. Take some anger management dude.

[Wild Bill]

Yes I did..

But in your "classic liberal" infantile mindset,you can't get past your "Let the market be the market" foolishness...

Here's my questions again, Jack. Forgive me if I'm blind but could you quote me those answers you claim you gave me?

All I saw was a complaint than you had some bad management. Perhaps I missed it.

[WWWTT]

Then why do any work at all? Why not just give everyone a government cheque and have it trickle all around to pay everyone?

Are you suggesting that we don't need REAL jobs providing REAL goods and services?

Are you suggesting manufacturers can ignore cheaper imports and give their workers raises even while their sales are drying up?

We are not going to get far if you reply to my comments without/refusing to read the critically important parts!

I clearly stated that I was referring to people who earn wages for providing a service/product.

That means working!

Maybe you did not understand that part.

As far as the details go when a union goes into negotiating a new contract,that's between the company and the union.

Unless there's been a third party assigned to arbitrate then it is not any one elses business(only because there are so many details that this is always a full time job)

Just because some people have bits and pieces of the picture,that does not make them experts and they are now capable of wielding the power to make life impacting decisions!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Why must you insult everyone who disagrees with you. Name-calling is for little people. Take some anger management dude.

Hey buddy back off!

Its not easy watching your hard working colleagues take a kick for years while some fat cats get nice easy bonuses!

And Wild Bill always ignores details in ppls comments to assert his own bias,he had it comin man!

WWWTT

[Peeves]

"The rest of your overly verbose drivel is blathering about the public sector and doesn't even scratch the surface of the real issue here..." Typical union negotiation .

I'll leave you with that and the right to defend a anachronistic breed of Public (LIP Service ( Hah!) Workers.

All one need do is read the papers where cities and other levels of government workers are now facing the reality of near bankruptcy and outrageous taxes do to decades of feeding at the taxpayer trough.

Good luck on the union defense. All union supporters today can expect more disillusion from the public and more whining as unions shrink and shrink....to quote another 'Wicked" source..." I'm MELLLLLLLLLLLLTING!

See I don't really care about your spouting off. More power to you. You are faced with the reality of defending the mainly indefensible, the unions of today. An impossible job. But, keep trying while the revelations of kick backs and over charging hit the fan in Ontario, Quebec and Wisconsin.

I admire your quixotic enthusiasm, dead-ication, purse-erverance and rose coloured glasses.It's a thankless job like deck chairs on the Titanic, but some one has to do t. Sadly I see unions (most, not all) of today as akin to the last DoDo bird as it looked into the face of the guy with the outstretched hand not seeing the ax, just the apparent request for another buck, $$$$$.

"Je te dis merde!"

[Jack Weber]

"The rest of your overly verbose drivel is blathering about the public sector and doesn't even scratch the surface of the real issue here..." Typical union negotiation .

I'll leave you with that and the right to defend a anachronistic breed of Public (LIP Service ( Hah!) Workers.

All one need do is read the papers where cities and other levels of government workers are now facing the reality of near bankruptcy and outrageous taxes do to decades of feeding at the taxpayer trough.

Good luck on the union defense. All union supporters today can expect more disillusion from the public and more whining as unions shrink and shrink....to quote another 'Wicked" source..." I'm MELLLLLLLLLLLLTING!

See I don't really care about your spouting off. More power to you. You are faced with the reality of defending the mainly indefensible, the unions of today. An impossible job. But, keep trying while the revelations of kick backs and over charging hit the fan in Ontario, Quebec and Wisconsin.

I admire your quixotic enthusiasm, dead-ication, purse-erverance and rose coloured glasses.It's a thankless job like deck chairs on the Titanic, but some one has to do t. Sadly I see unions (most, not all) of today as akin to the last DoDo bird as it looked into the face of the guy with the outstretched hand not seeing the ax, just the apparent request for another buck, $$$$$.

"Je te dis merde!"

Is this your best "Don Blankenship" impersonation???

The NAM thanks you for your obedience...

[Peeves]

Union agenda is not necessarily their workers agenda!

Forced Dues Blues

Posted on 10 October 2011. Tags: free expression, freedom of association, labour reform, union dues, unions and politics, working families



by Gerry Nicholls

When it comes to running a political ad campaign,Ontario’s big union bosses have a pretty sweet deal.

Here’s how it works: union bosses come up with the political agenda, while unionized employees are forced to come up with the cash. Or to put it another way, unionized employees in Ontario must pay for union boss propaganda campaigns whether they like it or not.

And you can see this arrangement working right now in Ontario’s provincial election. Union bosses are currently squeezing money out of unionized workers’ pockets to finance a front group called Working Families, which has one goal and one goal only: to demonize Progressive Conservative Party leader Tim Hudak with TV attack ads.

Most unionized employees don’t like such tactics. A recent Nanos Research survey, commissioned by the Canadian LabourWatch Association, showed 73% of unionized Canadians are opposed to the types of negative attack ads being run by unions or by union front groups.

Yet even though employees might not like it, they still must finance these attack ads. That’s because under Ontario’s labour laws unionized employees must pay union dues; they have no choice. The idea is that since all unionized employees benefit from the collective bargaining process, all unionized employees should also pay dues.

But the law also says it’s perfectly OK for union bosses to use those forced dues for purposes other than collective bargaining, including funding political advocacy campaigns, such as Working Families.

You don’t have to be a legal scholar to see why this practice is wrong and undemocratic. It clearly infringes on every unionized employee’s right of free expression and free association. Just as we have the right to associate with a political cause, we should also have the right not to associate with a political cause. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

In the case of Working Families, there are likely many unionized employees who would vehemently disagree with a political campaign attacking the PCs, but who nevertheless are being forced through their dues to support such an effort.

And using forced dues to subsidize Working Families is wrong even if just a minority of unionized workers oppose it. After all, a true democracy must protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe this is why in other democracies unionized workers are not compelled to support the partisan political agendas of union bosses. AsJohn Mortimerof LabourWatch notes, “In virtually every other major economy, including the 47 nations composing the Council of Europe,Australiaand theUnited States, the law bars unions from forcing unionized workers to pay dues for politics or be fired from their jobs.”

In other words, when it comes to protecting the rights of unionized employees Ontariois out of touch with the rest of the world.

This must change; it’s time to restore a basic democratic freedom to unionized employees. That means reforming labour laws inOntarioto prevent union bosses from using forced dues to pay for politicking. It should be pointed out that such a reform would by no means stop union bosses from having a say during elections.

They could still run negative media campaigns, but they would have pay for them with money that is voluntarily contributed specifically for that purpose.

This is how other advocacy groups operate. They ask their members for voluntary donations to pay for political activity. Why can’t union bosses do the same?

(Gerry Nicholls is editor of Freedom Forum. This article originally appeared in the National Post.)

[Peeves]

Wrongo,sport...

They are not forced to pay union dues...They can have those dues directed to the charity of their choice AND get the resulting tax break for this...

I shouldn't have to tell a former union negotiator? about these legal matters,should I?

This is done under the express knowledge that those INDIVIDUALS are declining representation and are on their own...

Agency Shop...Look it up!!!

This is far fairer than the corporate silliness that Mr. Hudak,and any other RTW loving fool,is promoting...

The rest of your overly verbose drivel is blathering about the public sector and doesn't even scratch the surface of the real issue here...

Back to "steward school",kiddo...

Perhaps a more definitive explanation and qualifier on obligatory dues.

In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off) is a workplace situation where the payment of trade union dues is mandatory regardless of the worker's union status. This formula is designed to ensure that no employee will opt out of the union simply to avoid dues yet reap the benefits of the union's accomplishments (such as ensuring higher wages, better job security or other benefits). Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ivan Rand, the eponym of this law, introduced this formula in 1946 as an arbitration decision ending the Ford Strike of 1945 in Windsor, Ontario. The Canada Labour Code and the labour relations laws of a majority of provinces contain provisions requiring the Rand formula when certain conditions are met. In those provinces where the labour relations laws do not make the Rand formula mandatory, the automatic check-off of union dues may become part of the collective bargaining agreement if both parties (i.e., the employer and the trade union) agree. If there are religious objections to paying dues the dues may be donated to a mutually agreed upon charity per Canada Labour Code Section 70. (1)


(Quoting Canada Labour Code Part I Section 70)

"Compulsory Check-Off Union dues to be deducted

70. (1) Where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union forthwith.

Religious objections

(2) Where the Board is satisfied that an employee, because of their religious conviction or beliefs, objects to joining a trade union or to paying regular union dues to a trade union, the Board may order that the provision in a collective agreement requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a trade union or requiring the payment of regular union dues to a trade union does not apply to that employee so long as an amount equal to the amount of the regular union dues is paid by the employee, either directly or by way of deduction from their wages, to a registered charity mutually agreed on by the employee and the trade union. Designation by Board

(3) Where an employee and the trade union are unable to agree on a registered charity for the purposes of subsection (2), the Board may designate any such charity as the charity to which payment should be made. "

[edit] Freedom of association issue
It has been argued that the Rand formula forces a person to join an association, thus violating his/her freedom of association. The Supreme Court of Canada determined that the Rand formula was indeed a violation of a person's freedom of association if the union does not use the fees it collects for the collective negotiation process (example : donations to a union in another country). This violation has although been, so far, determined as being justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [1].

[Jack Weber]

Union agenda is not necessarily their workers agenda!

I wonder if Gerry Nicholls is assisting MeritShop Canada in it's advocacy for Bill C-377??

'Cause it's all about "the freedom",right?

Another spectacular diversion,Peeves,from Wine Tasting Tim's attempt at RTW by stealth in Ontario...

Kudos...