Canadian Unions the Biggest Political Spenders in Canada

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

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.

There's at least an argument that given that your duty is owed to a broad class of members, rather than one entity whose interests can be reasonably determined, you shouldn't be donating to political parties at all. Sure, you may be able to say that many of your members will be benefited by a donation to the party that's most pro-union (or whose policies are favourable to workers in your union's industry), there is no one-size-fits-all policy. People, including union members, have diverse interests, and it's entirely possible that there's a proportion of your members who would be better served if the other guys were in office - say, for example, they'd see a net benefit because of different child care policies or tax policies that happen to land squarely in their favour. That's not even getting into whether members' political preferences and ideologies also qualify as relevant interests for these purposes.

I'd say it's pretty reasonable to conclude that if you owe the duty to all of your members, you shouldn't be permitted to make a political contribution that will favour some of them at the expense of others (even if the "others" are in the minority).

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

Wouldn’t that employee be able to avoid suffering that hardship by applying for a job where they would not have to pay union dues? If they feel so strongly about getting rid of the dues they can push for decertification, it’s not as if they have no options.

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.

How are they forced to take the job? Aside from prisoners, no one is forced to work anywhere regardless of their situation. A person’s only options may be to have to choose between a union job or unemployment, but it is still a choice. The same as choosing between a union job and a minimum wage job.

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.

When the sum of the increase in compensation after unionizing is greater than the amount paid in union dues which contributed to getting that increase I find it hard to agree with it being labelled a hardship.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There's at least an argument that given that your duty is owed to a broad class of members, rather than one entity whose interests can be reasonably determined, you shouldn't be donating to political parties at all. Sure, you may be able to say that many of your members will be benefited by a donation to the party that's most pro-union (or whose policies are favourable to workers in your union's industry), there is no one-size-fits-all policy. People, including union members, have diverse interests, and it's entirely possible that there's a proportion of your members who would be better served if the other guys were in office - say, for example, they'd see a net benefit because of different child care policies or tax policies that happen to land squarely in their favour. That's not even getting into whether members' political preferences and ideologies also qualify as relevant interests for these purposes.

I'd say it's pretty reasonable to conclude that if you owe the duty to all of your members, you shouldn't be permitted to make a political contribution that will favour some of them at the expense of others (even if the "others" are in the minority).

But a union is, fundamentally, a democratic organization. Making decisions for the greater good, sometimes at the expense of the few, is absolutely fundamental to collective bargaining. This is what unions do at the bargaining table.

Also, we should keep in mind the scale of donations at issue. The largest political contributor in Ontario was the United Associatikn of Plumbers and Pipefitters. It contributed $500,000 between 2013 and 2016. UA Canada has ~300,000 members. So we are talking about ~$0.40 per year per member.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Well, whether the donations are a big deal is a wholly separate issue. But on your first point, you just told me that the union - presumably the people making decisions about what the union does, such as who it donates to - have a legal duty to the members of the union to serve their interests. I don't know what the nature of that duty is, but if it's analogous to the duty owed by management to their corporation, as you originally suggested, it's fiduciary. In which case, it seems to me it's a tough case to make that political donations are appropriate. If it's a less stringent or formal sort of duty that allows for greater flexibility, then the analogy fails.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, whether the donations are a big deal is a wholly separate issue. But on your first point, you just told me that the union - presumably the people making decisions about what the union does, such as who it donates to - have a legal duty to the members of the union to serve their interests. I don't know what the nature of that duty is, but if it's analogous to the duty owed by management to their corporation, as you originally suggested, it's fiduciary. In which case, it seems to me it's a tough case to make that political donations are appropriate. If it's a less stringent or formal sort of duty that allows for greater flexibility, then the analogy fails.

It isn’t a fiduciary duty (a fiduciary duty to each individual member would be impossible to fulfill). It is a statutory duty of fair representation. It frequently involves reconciling the conflicting duties of its members. This is fundamental to collective bargaining. For instance, a union may need to trade lower overtime premiums in exchange for stronger contracting out protection. Some members will be hurt by the lower overtime premiums whereas other members will benefit from increased job security. The union’s duty is to reconcile the conflicts between the interests of its members fairly and in good faith. Unions must similarly reconcile the inflicting interests of its membership I cases of job competition grievances or allegations of harassment between members.

I’m not convinced that the distinction between the two types of duties necessarily means that the analogy must fail. I still haven’t really seen a convincing argument why one situation is acceptable whereas the other is inherently unfair. In the alternative, even if the idea of union political contributions is for some reason inherently unfair to those members who object, I’m still satisfied that the benefits of union political activity, including political contributions, are large and easily outweigh the unfairness.

EDIT: the more I think about it, the more I prefer my alternative argument. Requiring union members to pay dues probably is unfair to some extent. And permitting unions to spend their money on non-collective bargaining purposes like political contributions is also probably unfair to members who disagree with such contributions.

However, I think that any such unfairness is an acceptable sacrifice for the larger benefits of unions.

I’m not convinced (partly for the reasons that you explained to me) that comparisons to corporations are all that helpful (expect to say that i think there is a benefit to society in having unions as a counterweight to corporate political contributions).

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, whether the donations are a big deal is a wholly separate issue. But on your first point, you just told me that the union - presumably the people making decisions about what the union does, such as who it donates to - have a legal duty to the members of the union to serve their interests. I don't know what the nature of that duty is, but if it's analogous to the duty owed by management to their corporation, as you originally suggested, it's fiduciary. In which case, it seems to me it's a tough case to make that political donations are appropriate. If it's a less stringent or formal sort of duty that allows for greater flexibility, then the analogy fails.

They have a legal duty to fairly represent their members. Making a political contribution that an individual member disagrees with is not a failure to meet that obligation. That member has every right to voice their displeasure with the decision and to vote for new leadership they feel would better represent their interests. If the union leadership were to try and punish that member for doing so, for example by not filing their grievances, then that would be where they would have failed in their duty to provide fair representation and so long as that member files a charge against their union(which in that case they absolutely should) their union would be held accountable.

Edit: what makarov said

[crazy_eoj]

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.

So your answer is no? Union members should not be able to dissent or oppose union leadership without losing their job or facing direct economic retribution.

That's freedom alright. It's no wonder most Canadians view unions in such a poor light.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So your answer is no? Union members should not be able to dissent or oppose union leadership without losing their job or facing direct economic retribution.

That's freedom alright. It's no wonder most Canadians view unions in such a poor light.

I’m not sure I follow? Of course union members can dissent and oppose union leadership. That’s in fact the entire point of the internal democracy of a union.

That’s entirely different from saying that people who wish to work in a unionized workplace must become a member of the union, must pay union dues, and must accept that the terms of their employment with their employer will be bargained by the union rather then themselves.

Is this an infringement on one’s freedom not to associate? Probably. Is it unfair in some cases? Probably. Are these acceptable sacrifices in furtherance of the societal benefit of unions and collective bargaining? Probably.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So your answer is no? Union members should not be able to dissent or oppose union leadership without losing their job or facing direct economic retribution.

That's freedom alright. It's no wonder most Canadians view unions in such a poor light.

In your opinion should Canada not be considered a free nation because it’s citizen’s don’t have the choice as to whether or not they pay income taxes when they don’t agree with how those funds are spent by their governments?

[Shazam]

You know you're pretend smart when you still use the wrong goddamned its.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I’m not sure I follow? Of course union members can dissent and oppose union leadership. That’s in fact the entire point of the internal democracy of a union.

That’s entirely different from saying that people who wish to work in a unionized workplace must become a member of the union, must pay union dues, and must accept that the terms of their employment with their employer will be bargained by the union rather then themselves.

Is this an infringement on one’s freedom not to associate? Probably. Is it unfair in some cases? Probably. Are these acceptable sacrifices in furtherance of the societal benefit of unions Andrew collective bargaining? Probably.

In practice, union members are not allowed to openly dissent or oppose union leadership. They are often 'blackballed' and delivered veiled threats, which usually results in the individual losing their employment (often voluntarily as it's not worth the constant negative attention they receive, simply for holding a contrary viewpoint.)

So while you, and various judges, may view these infringements on individual freedom and rights acceptable, I think it definitely helps to explain why so many, and a growing number of, Canadians view unions in such a negative light.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

In practice, union members are not allowed to openly dissent or oppose union leadership. They are often 'blackballed' and delivered veiled threats, which usually results in the individual losing their employment (often voluntarily as it's not worth the constant negative attention they receive, simply for holding a contrary viewpoint.)

So while you, and various judges, may view these infringements on individual freedom and rights acceptable, I think it definitely helps to explain why so many, and a growing number of, Canadians view unions in such a negative light.

Well, if that is happening, the union members being threatened and harassed should by all means report it to their employer and/or to the Labour Relations Board. Harassment, intimidation, threats etc in the workplace are entirely unacceptable (whether they are related to union business or not).

The solution is to take steps to prevent or stop that type of behaviour. I don’t think the solution is to throw the baby out with the bath water (so to speak).

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You know you're pretend smart when you still use the wrong goddamned its.

Pretend smart or too lazy to correct the auto spell.

Getting a little desperate for your drive-by material don’t you think?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Pretend smart or too lazy to correct the auto spell.

Getting a little desperate for your drive-by material don’t you think?

I hope you pray to Jebus every night that you have the job you do, because you're never going to get a job in the private sector ever again.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I hope you pray to Jebus every night that you have the job you do, because you're never going to get a job in the private sector ever again.

I haven’t reviewed iggyoi’s CV, but nonetheless, I suspect that you badly overestimate the strictness of private sector hiring standards (I mean, Glen Gulutzan...)

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, if that is happening, the union members being threatened and harassed should by all means report it to their employer and/or to the Labour Relations Board. Harassment, intimidation, threats etc in the workplace are entirely unacceptable (whether they are related to union business or not).

The solution is to take steps to prevent or stop that type of behaviour. I don’t think the solution is to throw the baby out with the bath water (so to speak).

But in reality that does not happen, it's just not worth it for the average person to fight against a huge and powerful organisation that is working to the benefit of a majority, but also especially those in leadership positions.

Just look at this thread, several times it's been said that anybody in disagreement with the union should quit. That they aren't welcome, and that there is no room for opposing opinions. That's the mantra repeated over and over again.

Allowing right to work legislation, or some kind of adaptation such as opting out of portions of dues related to partisan activities, would be one way to keep unions focused on representation of the interests of ALL members, not just a majority of them. But as we all know that would weaken unions significantly because without the power to compel membership and payment, it would be painfully clear that many are unwanted by large groups of workers.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

In practice, union members are not allowed to openly dissent or oppose union leadership. They are often 'blackballed' and delivered veiled threats, which usually results in the individual losing their employment (often voluntarily as it's not worth the constant negative attention they receive, simply for holding a contrary viewpoint.)

For how often you claim with certainty that it happens you really don’t provide a lot of examples. Are you expecting everyone to take your word for it? How many unions have you been a member of in your lifetime?

So while you, and various judges, may view these infringements on individual freedom and rights acceptable, I think it definitely helps to explain why so many, and a growing number of, Canadians view unions in such a negative light.

So if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your claim that a growing number of Canadians see unions in a negative light is accurate, you’re saying the route cause is because unions are infringing on people’s individual freedom and rights that those people don’t actually have as rights?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

But in reality that does not happen, it's just not worth it for the average person to fight against a huge and powerful organisation that is working to the benefit of a majority, but also especially those in leadership positions.

A quick visit to the ALRB website, where these types of cases are made public, will completely discredit your statement. Come to think of it, wasn’t your last anti union thread about a group of workers fighting back at their union?

Just look at this thread, several times it's been said that anybody in disagreement with the union should quit. That they aren't welcome, and that there is no room for opposing opinions. That's the mantra repeated over and over again.

That has nothing to do with a disagreement with leadership, if the members have voted in a leadership group who want mandatory dues payment from all members it is the members making that decision.

Allowing right to work legislation, or some kind of adaptation such as opting out of portions of dues related to partisan activities, would be one way to keep unions focused on representation of the interests of ALL members, not just a majority of them. But as we all know that would weaken unions significantly because without the power to compel membership and payment, it would be painfully clear that many are unwanted by large groups of workers.

It’s so interesting that your argument has essentially gone from “union leadership doesn’t know what’s in their members’ best interests” to “crazy_eoj knows what’s in their members’ best interests”.

You say you want unions to better represent ALL members by pushing right to work while completely ignoring the fact that right to work legislation actually weakens unions and their ability to better represent ALL of their members.

Originally Posted by Shazam

I hope you pray to Jebus every night that you have the job you do, because you're never going to get a job in the private sector ever again.

Lol. I’ve only ever worked in the private sector and have never had any issues finding work so I think I’ll manage just fine. As a side note if I were relying on praying to Jebus for the things I have in life, I’d probably just ask for a few million dollars so I wouldn’t have to work a job at all. Seems much less complicated.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The line is 37%

I hope people bet the over!