Government bill passes forcing unions to make spending public

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Free Ben Hur!

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.

It'll be interesting to see if oilsands/thermal plants unionize. They're large, long life plants that don't move with large numbers of skilled blue collar workers. Theoretically should be able to unionize them. I doubt it'll happen though, because the market keeps delivering higher wages and better benefits and working conditions for those people year in and year out.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

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.

Except that it's not unavoidable, and I gave you two examples of first hand accounts of two of the most heavily unionized work forces in the country, in one of the most heavily unionized provinces in the country.

[Flash Walken]

This sounds like it could be the conservative version of the gun registry.

An intrusive government spending project with potential runaway costs with little to no benefit and increased government privacy intrusions.

How do conservative constituents feel about a 100 million dollar bill to identify private employees who make more than 100000, that may not survive a constitutional challenge according to the federal governments own privacy commisioner?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by 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.

Unions do need greater transparency to their members though.

I work with a Union that:

a) pays excessive salaries to business agents
b) is in massive debt in part because of this and horrible financial mismanagement

Now because that union has been mismanaged, how can that represent the members properly at the bargaining table? Strike? Haha, with what money are they going to strike with after pissing away the funds of members.

What recourse do the members have, especially when you have members who are not engaged from the union at large or not very educated because of the nature of the work?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Except that it's not unavoidable, and I gave you two examples of first hand accounts of two of the most heavily unionized work forces in the country, in one of the most heavily unionized provinces in the country.

In one of your two examples, you were paying union dues when working at a machine shop.

My examples of firefighter and railway worker are both careers you need to pay union dues to be in. Just because a small subset of teachers can get out of union dues doesn't mean there aren't careers where union dues are mandatory for any job in the field.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Unions do need greater transparency to their members though.
What recourse do the members have, especially when you have members who are not engaged from the union at large or not very educated because of the nature of the work?

First, the members can get involved with the union management. Most union members just sit around and complain about what the big-wigs within the union are screwing up now... when they could get involved, be active and kick the leaders out. The leadership isn't a dictatorship, they get voted in.

Second, you don't have to be tied to a single union. You can have a coup and bring in a new union. You don't like how the Teamsters is running things, join UFCW. Or form your own.

I believe there should be strong transparency WITHIN the union. Union members should know what is going on. However, turning over that information to the government and thus making it public is where I have a problem, particularly with a government that has shown itself to be very anti-labour.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

In one of your two examples, you were paying union dues when working at a machine shop.

My examples of firefighter and railway worker are both careers you need to pay union dues to be in. Just because a small subset of teachers can get out of union dues doesn't mean there aren't careers where union dues are mandatory for any job in the field.

As has been said by 'the right' in the case of Walmart workers, if you don't like the conditions find another job.

As for the unions books, in my case I get an account of the spending mailed to me once a year. Why do you or anyone else not associated with my union need to know the accounts of our organization?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As has been said by 'the right' in the case of Walmart workers, if you don't like the conditions find another job.

As for the unions books, in my case I get an account of the spending mailed to me once a year. Why do you or anyone else not associated with my union need to know the accounts of our organization?

A job at Walmart is fungible with a job at Safeway, which is unionized.

A career working as a firefighter or railway engineer is specialized, and no similar non unionized position exists.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by 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.

Didnt iceland go bankrupt a couple of years ago?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

A job at Walmart is fungible with a job at Safeway, which is unionized.

A career working as a firefighter or railway engineer is specialized, and no similar non unionized position exists.

If you don't want to be a team player, find another career or change the careers obligations from the inside.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Didnt iceland go bankrupt a couple of years ago?

Laugh, it had nothing to do with the unions it was the bankers.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Didnt iceland go bankrupt a couple of years ago?

Yeah and the US the land of capitalism had their economy meltdown in 2008 and now they're approaching the fiscal cliff.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If you don't want to be a team player, find another career or change the careers obligations from the inside.

Right, not wanting to pay union dues is exactly the same thing as not being a team player.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If you don't want to be a team player, find another career or change the careers obligations from the inside.

I shouldn't have to pay to be a part of a team in a professional workplace.

And let me ask you this as a member of a team, lets say that you were Jewish and found out that your union was spending money to attend anti-israeli conferences?

Or lets say that one of your friends was a police officer and he was injured in the montreal riots and your union was funneling money to the student activists.

Would you still want to pay those union dues?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This sounds like it could be the conservative version of the gun registry.

An intrusive government spending project with potential runaway costs with little to no benefit and increased government privacy intrusions.

How do conservative constituents feel about a 100 million dollar bill to identify private employees who make more than 100000, that may not survive a constitutional challenge according to the federal governments own privacy commisioner?

Deafening silence on this key point.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Didnt iceland go bankrupt a couple of years ago?

Yes because of the unchecked greed of investment banking.

Nice try though

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

First, the members can get involved with the union management. Most union members just sit around and complain about what the big-wigs within the union are screwing up now... when they could get involved, be active and kick the leaders out. The leadership isn't a dictatorship, they get voted in.

Second, you don't have to be tied to a single union. You can have a coup and bring in a new union. You don't like how the Teamsters is running things, join UFCW. Or form your own.

I believe there should be strong transparency WITHIN the union. Union members should know what is going on. However, turning over that information to the government and thus making it public is where I have a problem, particularly with a government that has shown itself to be very anti-labour.

You're funny. It certainly isn't easy to change unions, at least not as easy as you're making it out to be. I've seen positions attempt to decertify and it is a major thing with the labour board.

Also you completely ignored my point - what if the membership can count the number of business related degrees they have on one hand? Are they really going to be asking the right questions of union leadership or understanding?

You are in CUPE iirc and work in public service. There is a difference between that and say some branches of the Teamsters.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Thor

Yes because of the unchecked greed of investment banking.

Nice try though

So your position is that correlation doesn't equal causation now?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I shouldn't have to pay to be a part of a team in a professional workplace.

And let me ask you this as a member of a team, lets say that you were Jewish and found out that your union was spending money to attend anti-israeli conferences?

Or lets say that one of your friends was a police officer and he was injured in the montreal riots and your union was funneling money to the student activists.

Would you still want to pay those union dues?

I'm a Canadian and pay my taxes but that doesn't mean I agree with everything the government does. If we don't like it, we can vote them out, the same as union leaders.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Deafening silence on this key point.

Perhaps it is not seen as a key point to those who did not post it. Most of that post is a pure straw man argument