Government bill passes forcing unions to make spending public

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

No. This is not true. This is a myth. This is not true. You can not be forced to join a union. You cannot be forced to join a union in order to have any job.

Also, this is not true, this is a myth and this is not true.

Okay.

Amazing, I worked in a union shop for over 10 years and I was told that I had to.

Never once did the company mention that I didn't have to be a member to work there, which you would think would be something that would happen at least once, especially when 2 strikes were involved.

I am going to guess that your information is flawed, not simply not relevant in Alberta.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Paying dues is not equal to being a member of a union.

I am being vague? Are you kidding with this? Green text?

So if you are paying dues, and aren't a member of the union, Can you get access to see the books of where your money is going?

If not then this is a good and necessary law.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Paying dues is not equal to being a member of a union.

I am being vague? Are you kidding with this? Green text?

But your still being forced to pay money to the union, who is then spending your money without oversight.

The biggest issue is really that Unions are becoming political action and lobby groups while enjoying tax free status.

Therefore they can either open their books or start paying taxes on the union dues that they force people to pay.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Amazing, I worked in a union shop for over 10 years and I was told that I had to.

Never once did the company mention that I didn't have to be a member to work there, which you would think would be something that would happen at least once, especially when 2 strikes were involved.

I am going to guess that your information is flawed, not simply not relevant in Alberta.

Really? You can "guess" all you want, but I am not wrong. Canada Labour Code I 8 1. NOBODY CAN FORCE YOU TO JOIN A UNION.

I think I am done with this thread.

[CaptainCrunch]

However, they can force the collection of dues.

And try to go to work in a union environment and refuse to join the union.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Really? You can "guess" all you want, but I am not wrong. Canada Labour Code I 8 1. NOBODY CAN FORCE YOU TO JOIN A UNION.

I think I am done with this thread.

ok, so they can't force me to join the union, but they can for me to pay the union for their services which I would no longer be entitled to, which seems to be pretty much the worst course of action.

However, I do stand corrected.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Rathji

ok, so they can't force me to join the union, but they can for me to pay the union for their services which I would no longer be entitled to, which seems to be pretty much the worst course of action.

However, I do stand corrected.

Right. And this thread isn't about union membership, it's about better disclosure of how unions are spending money.

Money that is paid to them by people who may or may not be union members, and who are forced to pay the money to the union as a condition of employment.

Nothing in that second paragraph is factually incorrect.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Really? You can "guess" all you want, but I am not wrong. Canada Labour Code I 8 1. NOBODY CAN FORCE YOU TO JOIN A UNION.

I think I am done with this thread.

You knew full well this is about where your money is going, not if your part of the club or not.

good try though!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Kavy

You knew full well this is about where your money is going, not if your part of the club or not.

good try though!

Indeed. I don't think the bill is requiring unions to release information on their membership, just information on their money.

I actually think the fact that non-members can be forced to pay union dues is an argument for releasing the information rather than against.

[Thor]

Im sure its just coincidence that the fall of unions in the US and Canada has coincided with the middle class being stagnant in wages and benefits coming up now on 40yrs.

The demonizing of unions comes from business interests who have done an outstanding job for 50 yrs now convincing people to be against something that has for the most part fought for wages, rights and benefits for workers.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

However, they can force the collection of dues.

And try to go to work in a union environment and refuse to join the union.

I call BS on that as well. I am in a union. An active member at that. And whenever we have an event, we like a union picnic or some other kind of get together, many people are surprised to find that they are not union members. They just assume that since they are paying dues that they are members of the union. However, most workplaces allow religious exemptions (ie Seventh Day Adventists), but the union dues are still collected and donated to charity.

As for the legislation, I think the justification (protecting members rights to see where they money is going) isn't the reason for the law. It is just one more jab at organized labour by the pro-fat-cat Conservatives. But something by the Conservatives that hurts unions should play well in the West.

[undercoverbrother]

This is a bit off topic, but with all the union talk I thought I would throw it out.

Can anyone tell me why Unions have not taken hold in the Oil Patch?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Thor

Im sure its just coincidence that the fall of unions in the US and Canada has coincided with the middle class being stagnant in wages and benefits coming up now on 40yrs.

The demonizing of unions comes from business interests who have done an outstanding job for 50 yrs now convincing people to be against something that has for the most part fought for wages, rights and benefits for workers.

Bill Maher has said this repeatedly. He was lamenting that a non-unionized worker was complaining that he did not get the same kind of health benefits and that the unionized workers were 'spoiled' with extra benefits and privileges. Bill said it sounded like this person was against unions because he was jealous of their benefits. People in the middle class shouldn't be dragging down others in the middle class that have slightly more than them. I think those stagnant wages you speak of are the fault of the middle class as they have bought into this "unions = evil" mantra.

[Free Ben Hur!]

Yeah, corporations win again! If this legislation is in the public interest respecting unions, will a similar law be enacted forcing the same disclosures from private corporations? Yeah, I actually didn't think so either. Let's just let the Katz Groups of the world continue buying influence while the media and public at large continue to slumber.

[Thor]

For all Iceland's faults, working here under a nation of 100% unions is a massive change for me. So many benefits, people fighting to protect our wages and ensuring we get what is fair.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

This is a bit off topic, but with all the union talk I thought I would throw it out.

Can anyone tell me why Unions have not taken hold in the Oil Patch?

I think because the wages and benefits are such that unions haven't had a card to play there.

Also, historically oil operations have been more spread out than the typical auto plant or hospital, which makes them harder to unionize. Finally, the oilpatch has attracted free market types with a conservative bent, who are typically not good candidates for unionization drives.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Thor

Im sure its just coincidence that the fall of unions in the US and Canada has coincided with the middle class being stagnant in wages and benefits coming up now on 40yrs.

The demonizing of unions comes from business interests who have done an outstanding job for 50 yrs now convincing people to be against something that has for the most part fought for wages, rights and benefits for workers.

Maybe it was caused by the significant rise in government spending as a percentage of GDP during that time, which disproportionately hurts the middle class since they get less benefits than the poor and have less tax advice than the rich.

See what I did there?

You're can't take a correlation between two events and assume causation.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You are if you want to work for a unionized employer, like say a teacher wanting to work for a school board, or a fireman wanting to work for the fire department. Maybe someone trained as a railroad conductor/engineer should pick the non-union railway to work for?

I'd be fine with the books being private if union membership and dues weren't mandatory to get a job at a unionized employer. But if you think this is a crapstorm, you wouldn't believe what would happen if the gov't proposed that. (AKA right to work)

I chose to teach in a private school, rather than join the teachers union and go public. I made less than a friend doing the same job, but I had a more consistent schedule which suited me at the time.

I didn't join the union at the machining shop I worked in, and suffered no backlash from my coworkers or management. I made more, after paying representation fees than I would have at the comparable non union shop I checked out.

As someone who looked at firefighting as a career, the union and associated labour and bargaining rights were one of the primary reasons the firefighters gave as reasons to consider it.

Does this mean we'll get a closer look at the police union's budgets and how much they spend lobbying for more stringent frug laws and larger public budgets?

Call me paranoid but I predict they'll be exempt.

[Free Ben Hur!]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

This is a bit off topic, but with all the union talk I thought I would throw it out.

Can anyone tell me why Unions have not taken hold in the Oil Patch?

Much of downstream O&G is unionized and has been for quite some time. The people that construct, operate and maintain many of the major faciities in Alberta (primarily refineries and oilsands plants) are represented by the various trade unions affiliated with Alberta Building Trades and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union (CEP). Although the volume of work done by unions has been receding for the last 30 years their presence is still very significant.

Upstream O&G has much less unionization, if any, in Alberta. One of the reasons for this is likely the difficulty of organizing wokers on such a large number of very small sites. Logistics are very difficult.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I chose to teach in a private school, rather than join the teachers union and go public. I made less than a friend doing the same job, but I had a more consistent schedule which suited me at the time.

I didn't join the union at the machining shop I worked in, and suffered no backlash from my coworkers or management. I made more, after paying representation fees than I would have at the comparable non union shop I checked out.

As someone who looked at firefighting as a career, the union and associated labour and bargaining rights were one of the primary reasons the firefighters gave as reasons to consider it.

Does this mean we'll get a closer look at the police union's budgets and how much they spend lobbying for more stringent frug laws and larger public budgets. Call me paranoid but I predict they'll be exempt.

My only point there was that there are some careers where paying union dues is essentially unavoidable. It feels to me that people should have a right to know where money that's being taken on a mandatory basis is being spent.