Canadian Unions the Biggest Political Spenders in Canada

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Right to Work legislation doesn't make sense. It's a tragedy of the commons problem. You might as well just ban unions at that point. As that is the purpose of any right to work legislation.

Who told?

In all seriousness though, that was really well said.

Instead we should expand the essential services language to ensure that any medical, emergency personal, transit, teachers, and public facing people no longer have the right to strike as these are essential to the day to day operation of government. Let them Bargain as a collective but take away their ability to use the electorate against the government.

Do you really believe teachers and transit workers are esssential to the day to day operation of government?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Who told?

In all seriousness though, that was really well said.



Do you really believe teachers and transit workers are esssential to the day to day operation of government?

Teachers and transit workers are as essential possibly more essential than police in the day to day operation of a city. So after Doctors and Nurses, Teachers are next on my list.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by GGG

Right to Work legislation doesn't make sense. It's a tragedy of the commons problem. You might as well just ban unions at that point. As that is the purpose of any right to work legislation.

Instead we should expand the essential services language to ensure that any medical, emergency personal, transit, teachers, and public facing people no longer have the right to strike as these are essential to the day to day operation of government. Let them Bargain as a collective but take away their ability to use the electorate against the government.

I disagree, there's plenty of evidence in jurisdictions that have Right to Work legislation still having union influence. In fact it generally leads to more effective collective labour units.

It just forces the union leadership to actually address the interests of the minority or face the consequences of losing their membership. Right now they have carte blanche to trample the interests of the minority in the name of the 'greater good', without any worries whatsoever. Exhibit 1: making huge donations to only certain political parties.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I disagree, there's plenty of evidence in jurisdictions that have Right to Work legislation still having union influence. In fact it generally leads to more effective collective labour units.

It just forces the union leadership to actually address the interests of the minority or face the consequences of losing their membership. Right now they have carte blanche to trample the interests of the minority in the name of the 'greater good', without any worries whatsoever. Exhibit 1: making huge donations to only certain political parties.

No actually all it does is force unions to provide the same service with less funding in an effort to bankrupt a union. To suggest otherwise is about as silly as suggesting that unions have carte blanche or no worries whatsoever when it comes to looking out for the interests of their members.

In fact it generally leads to more effective collective labour units.

Can you provide anything to support this “fact”? Or is it possible that you’ve opted to just pass off your misguided theories as facts in your (failing) effort to bash unions?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I disagree, there's plenty of evidence in jurisdictions that have Right to Work legislation still having union influence. In fact it generally leads to more effective collective labour units.

It just forces the union leadership to actually address the interests of the minority or face the consequences of losing their membership. Right now they have carte blanche to trample the interests of the minority in the name of the 'greater good', without any worries whatsoever. Exhibit 1: making huge donations to only certain political parties.

Unions already have a legal duty to represent the interests of all of their members.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Unions already have a legal duty to represent the interests of all of their members.

Then they shouldn't be making political contributions.

Imagine if every small business in Canada had to pay a portion of all income earned to the Canadian Small Business Council, and then the council contributed that money to small-c and large-C conservative parties. Don't you think small business owners who weren't conservative would have a legitimate beef?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Then they shouldn't be making political contributions.

Imagine if every small business in Canada had to pay a portion of all income earned to the Canadian Small Business Council, and then the council contributed that money to small-c and large-C conservative parties. Don't you think small business owners who weren't conservative would have a legitimate beef?

Yes, very strange that 100% of all members of the B.C. Government & Service Employees' Union support the BC NDP exclusively. To the tune of $3,098,648.36 no less.

Then again, the minority of members who likely would prefer to donate to the Liberal Party have been instructed to fall in line or face union retribution.

Happens all the time.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Then they shouldn't be making political contributions.

Imagine if every small business in Canada had to pay a portion of all income earned to the Canadian Small Business Council, and then the council contributed that money to small-c and large-C conservative parties. Don't you think small business owners who weren't conservative would have a legitimate beef?

Then publicly traded corporations shouldn’t be able to make political contributions on behalf of their shareholders either. I’d actually be pretty comfortable with such an arrangement (although I doubt a blanket prohibition would survive a constitutional challenge?)

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yes, very strange that 100% of all members of the B.C. Government & Service Employees' Union support the BC NDP exclusively. To the tune of $3,098,648.36 no less.

Then again, the minority of members who likely would prefer to donate to the Liberal Party have been instructed to fall in line or face union retribution.

Happens all the time.

No stranger than all of Suncor Energy’s shareholders eassentially being forced to contribute to conservative political parties (with money that could otherwise be reinvested into capital or paid out as dividends.)

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Then publicly traded corporations shouldn’t be able to make political contributions on behalf of their shareholders either. I’d actually be pretty comfortable with such an arrangement (although I doubt a blanket prohibition would survive a constitutional challenge?)

False.

Shareholders are free to divest of shares at any point. It's a voluntary arrangement.

Union Members have dues taken by force, without any ability to dissent or risk losing their job.

Shouldn't Union Member be free to remove their participation in an organization that works against their interests without being further punished?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

False.

Shareholders are free to divest of shares at any point. It's a voluntary arrangement.

Union Members have dues taken by force, without any ability to dissent or risk losing their job.

Shouldn't Union Member be free to remove their participation in an organization that works against their interests without being further punished?

Union members are free to divest themselves of union membership at any time. They aren’t indentured servants. They can quit their job and seek employment in the non-unionized workplace of their dreams. Problem solved.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Then publicly traded corporations shouldn’t be able to make political contributions on behalf of their shareholders either.

They aren't, unless the contributions are justifiably in the best interests of the corporation itself. If pubco executives decide that the company they work for is going to make a political contribution for their own personal reasons, they're breaching a fiduciary duty. Come on, you know this.

Originally Posted by Makarov

Union members are free to divest themselves of union membership at any time. They aren’t indentured servants. They can quit their job and seek employment in the non-unionized workplace of their dreams. Problem solved.

This argument has always sounded to me a lot like the people who say, "if you don't like the way our country is run, move somewhere else". It's, you know, slightly easier to sell your shares in Enbridge than it is to change jobs.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

They aren't, unless the contributions are justifiably in the best interests of the corporation itself. If pubco executives decide that the company they work for is going to make a political contribution for their own personal reasons, they're breaching a fiduciary duty. Come on, you know this.

This argument has always sounded to me a lot like the people who say, "if you don't like the way our country is run, move somewhere else".

And unions have a legal duty to fairly represent the interests of their members. If a union were to spend its members’ dues on political contributions in a way which was not in good faith or reasonably in furtherance of its members’ interests, it would fund itself in front of the Labour Relations Board. It seems very similar to me.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This argument has always sounded to me a lot like the people who say, "if you don't like the way our country is run, move somewhere else". It's, you know, slightly easier to sell your shares in Enbridge than it is to change jobs.

No doubt (although there may be times where selling shares is equally as unpalatable: buying high, selling low type stuff).

In any event, I have exactly zero ownership interest in my job. My employer can contribute to political parties that I find abhorrent, can decide to produce a product or offer a service that I find repugnant, can organize the workplace in a frustrating and inefficient way that saps me of my will to live and I have zero recourse but to gleefully resign and seek employment elsewhere. If I am arbitrarily fired tomorrow, I will receive no actual compensation for the loss of my cushy yet prestigious position. My employer is obligated only to pay me a reasonable notice period to permit me to find other suitable employment.

[Makarov]

Incidentally, the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously affirmed a union’s right to make contributions to a broad range of political initiatives (including things like pro-choice campaigns) so long as it does so in order to “shape the political, economic, and social context of labour relations” or to “contribute to democracy in the workplace.”

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

And unions have a legal duty to fairly represent the interests of their members. If a union were to spend its members’ dues on political contributions in a way which was not in good faith or reasonably in furtherance of its members’ interests, it would fund itself in front of the Labour Relations Board. It seems very similar to me.

That's precisely the difference, though. A corporation has no duty to represent the interests of shareholders - the duties of management are owed to the corporation itself. Essentially, they're acting as the arms and brain of the company, which is itself making any such contributions on its own behalf. Shareholders have no right to say, "what the corporation is doing, as carried out by you people, is bad for us and doesn't represent our desires" - their only avenue is to argue, "what the corporation is doing is bad for the corporation". The distinction is about who the duty is owed to.

That's why I said, in response to your earlier post, that corporations already aren't able to make political contributions on behalf of their shareholders.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's precisely the difference, though. A corporation has no duty to represent the interests of shareholders - the duties of management are owed to the corporation itself. Essentially, they're acting as the arms and brain of the company, which is itself making any such contributions on its own behalf. Shareholders have no right to say, "what the corporation is doing, as carried out by you people, is bad for us and doesn't represent our desires" - their only avenue is to argue, "what the corporation is doing is bad for the corporation". The distinction is about who the duty is owed to.

That's why I said, in response to your earlier post, that corporations already aren't able to make political contributions on behalf of their shareholders.

Ah, I see. That’s an interesting distinction. One might argue that union members are even better protected than shareholders then? I’m not sure what to make of it, frankly.

[Makarov]

If anyone is interested in reading the SCC’s ruling on these issues, union democracy and union political activity (and the scope of its constitutional protection), I recommend a decision reported as Lavigne v. OPSEU ([1991] 2 S.C.R. 211). You can easily find it on CANLII.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

False.

Shareholders are free to divest of shares at any point. It's a voluntary arrangement.

Union Members have dues taken by force, without any ability to dissent or risk losing their job.

Union members sign cards authorizing the payment of dues before they work their first shift. If they don’t want to be in the union they don’t have to sign. Where is the hardship there? It’s a term of their employment like any other, if they don’t like the terms they can make their own decision as to whether or not they want that job. That employee has yet to even start with that company yet you feel as though they should dictate to the existing employees how their union should operate?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Union members sign cards authorizing the payment of dues before they work their first shift. If they don’t want to be in the union they don’t have to sign. Where is the hardship there? It’s a term of their employment like any other, if they don’t like the terms they can make their own decision as to whether or not they want that job. That employee has yet to even start with that company yet you feel as though they should dictate to the existing employees how their union should operate?

Your position here is like a RTW person arguing they want to do it for the employees benefit. Paying a Union due is a mandatory hardship placed on the employee. If it wasn't a hardship you wouldn't be opposed to RTW legislation as Union membership would only be positive and no one would ever choose not to join.

So is disingenuous to say that the new employee has a choice. They do not. Where you work is not a choice for many people.

It is a neccessary hardship to realize the benefits of unionization but don't pretend that an x% fee on wages isn't a hardship.