Government bill passes forcing unions to make spending public

[schteve_d]

Admittedly I'm not a pro-union guy for the most part and further I don't know a whole lot about this bill other than a few news articles I've read. Unions have always seemed to me, at least in this day and age, like legal mafia.

From the little I know I'm all for it but it does seem to me like a pretty big deal. Would be interested to hear some opinions about this. Myself, I don't see a downside.

I'm not at all trying to start a union-bashing thread. It seems to me that pro-union folk and especially those dishing out union dues from every cheque would love to know how the big boys are spending their money.

The star article is here

Another article titled "Labour unions say Tory bill unfairly targets them" is here.

One more from the Globe and Mail where critics say the bill is harassment is here.

[CaptainCrunch]

I have no problem with this bill, Unions have become highly political lobby groups and that alone should force their books open as they're not collecting voluntary donations, but forced dues.

[evman150]

Hardcore lefty who is ambivalent towards unions provisionally approves of this bill.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

Admittedly I'm not a pro-union guy for the most part and further I don't know a whole lot about this bill other than a few news articles I've read. Unions have always seemed to me, at least in this day and age, like legal mafia.

Huh. So you say you don't know much about this bill, and you aren't trying to start union bashing, but you will toss in the suggestion that unions = organized crime.

That's an interesting angle.

I don't know much about jazz music, and I'm not going to bash it, but I think it causes cancer.

Anyway, I'm not in a union. I take it you aren't either. Why should you or I get a look at their finances on a government website? Isn't that up to the members?

If this "tax exempt status" bull$hit stands up, I say we all get a nice long look at the (good) books of the local houses of worship next.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If this "tax exempt status" bull$hit stands up, I say we all get a nice long look at the (good) books of the local houses of worship next.

The fact that they're even tax exempt is ridiculous.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have no problem with this bill, Unions have become highly political lobby groups and that alone should force their books open as they're not collecting voluntary donations, but forced dues.

Maybe we should open up the books of say The Ranchmen's Club. They collect forced dues as well. If you want to join the union, you pay dues same as a private club or any professional organization. This is just harassment that the Conservatives hope will lead to a way to stop unions from being politically involved.

Conservative Parliamentary Secretary Pierre Poilievre used more combative language in defending the bill in response to questions from the NDP.
“Now they realize that transparency is upon them and that we are going to find out how all of this money that these unions forcefully take from workers is spent,” Mr. Poilievre said.

I'm really getting fed up with Harper. He was much better as a minority leader. Now he's going after native treaty rights as well as unprotecting our waters. I also have no faith in any deal he makes with China.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Maybe we should open up the books of say The Ranchmen's Club. They collect forced dues as well. If you want to join the union, you pay dues same as a private club or any professional organization. .

Unless I'm mistaken, that is a bad example as joining Ranchmen's Club is a voluntary exercise and the organization does not have tax exemption status.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Maybe we should open up the books of say The Ranchmen's Club. They collect forced dues as well. If you want to join the union, you pay dues same as a private club or any professional organization. This is just harassment that the Conservatives hope will lead to a way to stop unions from being politically involved.



I'm really getting fed up with Harper. He was much better as a minority leader. Now he's going after native treaty rights as well as unprotecting our waters. I also have no faith in any deal he makes with China.

There is a difference between private clubs and forced employment clubs you must belong to if you want to be employed. You can't honestly say they are the same thing.

However, go for it, make it all public if that is the cost. Harper is annoying the hell out of me to, however, the native public spending is the best the Harper has done, and this follows closely.

I understand unions, I like unions, however, members should have accountability.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Maybe we should open up the books of say The Ranchmen's Club. They collect forced dues as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Kavy

There is a difference between private clubs and forced employment clubs you must belong to if you want to be employed. You can't honestly say they are the same thing.

However, go for it, make it all public if that is the cost. Harper is annoying the hell out of me to, however, the native public spending is the best the Harper has done, and this follows closely.

I understand unions, I like unions, however, members should have accountability.

You are never 'forced' to join a union. You are never required to be in a union in order to be employed.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

You are never 'forced' to join a union. You are never required to be in a union in order to be employed.

you didn't really explain your point, however, I think you fully understood what I ment

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Kavy

you didn't really explain your point, however, I think you fully understood what I ment

????

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

You are never 'forced' to join a union. You are never required to be in a union in order to be employed.

Its pretty much forced on you, try going to work for a union organization and refuse to be in the union of pay dues.

The Ranchman's club, even churches for the most part are voluntary dues.

A Union isn't. Also Unions and especially the big ones have gone far beyond their mandate, they've become political activist and lobby groups. The Postal Workers Unions sending people down to the Anti-Israel conference. Unions in Quebec sending money and supporting the Student protesters.

Did you have a vote of their members to say, do you want us to join team hate? Yes or no.


Of course their books should be opened up as long as they force people to pay dues.


I might be able to say, hey I can go to work for XYZ company and not join abc union, its my right. But by the time the hardcore union workers and the union get through with you you are either going to sign up or quit.

I'm loving this bill the more I think about it.

As much as corporations have to reform, so do a lot of the Unions which have become as bad or worse. Maybe airing their dirty laundry will help with that.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

You are never 'forced' to join a union. You are never required to be in a union in order to be employed.

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)

[vanisleflamesfan]

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)

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.

[bizaro86]

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.

You're right, I should have been more clear, you can opt out of joining as long as you continue to pay the dues.

Since the question at issue here is what unions are doing with the money, the fact that the teacher, fireman, or railway employee in my example above is forced to pay union dues to maintain their employment is extremely relevant.

[CaptainCrunch]

Looking up on the web, if you want to work in a position that's under a union bargining agreement you have to be part of that union you can opt out in that union but you still have to pay the dues.. Especially in Ontario, this was for Public Service.

There are areas that are non bargining or union job descriptions, but for an area for example like being a teacher, its pretty much assumed that your in that union or that your going to pay the dues.

.

[Kavvy]

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.

I have been told by an employer, my unions dues are mandatory. Professional Engineers may withdraw, but as I was a student I was forced to pay, no choice. I had this discussion with HR.

That employer was Alberta Infrastructure. The Government of Alberta forced it on me (which is fine, because that is how it works). But it is no myth

I said you were being vague, and you still are.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Kavy

I have been told by an employer, my unions dues are mandatory. Professional Engineers may withdraw, but as I was a student I was forced to pay, no choice. I had this discussion with HR.

That employer was Alberta Infrastructure. The Government of Alberta forced it on me (which is fine, because that is how it works). But it is no myth

I said you were being vague, and you still are.

Do you have any right to discuss how the union is spending your dues?

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Kavy

I have been told by an employer, my unions dues are mandatory. Professional Engineers may withdraw, but as I was a student I was forced to pay, no choice. I had this discussion with HR.

That employer was Alberta Infrastructure. The Government of Alberta forced it on me (which is fine, because that is how it works). But it is no myth

I said you were being vague, and you still are.

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

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