Government bill passes forcing unions to make spending public

[crazy_eoj]

The Unions' resistance to this bill is what makes me think it is all the more necessary. I wonder what they're hiding that they don't want people to see.

[para transit fellow]

so is this bill going to apply to ALL unions?
-- The doctor's union?
-- The NHL players Union?
-- The the Merrit Contractors association?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The Unions' resistance to this bill is what makes me think it is all the more necessary. I wonder what they're hiding that they don't want people to see.

How about we put a public webcam in your bedroom. If you resist, it makes me think it is all the more necessary. I wonder what you are hiding that you don't want people to see.

[Free Ben Hur!]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

so is this bill going to apply to ALL unions?
-- The doctor's union?
-- The NHL players Union?
-- The the Merrit Contractors association?

Great idea. I think legislation with broader scope is in the public intrest. Let's also include all professional associations (appega, law society, etc.). Or is it just blue collar folks that might be involved in things they shouldn't be?

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

How about we put a public webcam in your bedroom. If you resist, it makes me think it is all the more necessary. I wonder what you are hiding that you don't want people to see.

That is a very odd comparison.

I don't want a public webcam in my bedroom because I'm doing dirty things in there.

You're analogy seems to have the opposite effect of what I think you were trying to say.

[Vox]

Originally Posted by Free Ben Hur!

Great idea. I think legislation with broader scope is in the public intrest. Let's also include all professional associations (appega, law society, etc.). Or is it just blue collar folks that might be involved in things they shouldn't be?

I've been a member of apegga for 20 years, and would have no problem if this applied to apegga. I suspect very few members I know would have an issue with it.

[undercoverbrother]

Is this laws unique to Canada or do other west/contemporary countries also have similair laws?

[Free Ben Hur!]

Originally Posted by Vox

I've been a member of apegga for 20 years, and would have no problem if this applied to apegga. I suspect very few members I know would have an issue with it.

Good to hear. What's good for unions should apply equally to every other professional association. The governments hipocrisy on this file is absurd.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

That is a very odd comparison.

I don't want a public webcam in my bedroom because I'm doing dirty things in there.

You're analogy seems to have the opposite effect of what I think you were trying to say.

Both are an invasion of privacy, no matter what you are doing.

and as long as what you do in your bedroom is consensual, I don't see why you'd consider it dirty.

[CaptainCrunch]

Your making a really bizarre comparison between a private citizen who's not charging people to stand outside of his bedroom door while he does dirty things in the bedroom and enjoys a tax free status while charging people for entrance into his lifestyle and in some case government funding and this bill.

Your comparison makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

A union is not a private citizen, it charges membership fees and doesn't pay any taxes out of those fees in some cases receives funding, I don't believe that the same level of privacy does or should exist.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Vox

I've been a member of apegga for 20 years, and would have no problem if this applied to apegga. I suspect very few members I know would have an issue with it.

And that's all fine and dandy. I'm not a member of apegga and I don't have (or deserve) the right to look at apegga's finances. If that organization wants to put it out there, go to town. If they don't, don't. I don't care if they do or not. I don't think they should be forced to.

It all just stinks of union harassment.

[Rathji]

I don't see the point of looking at union (or other professional organization's) finances.

Lots of different companies and organizations lobby for lots of things and most of those would obviously have a serious problem with their finances being forced to be open due to those contributions.

Unless there is some other reasoning I am missing, this just seems like it is either a) an attempt to waste time and money enforcing something that is really pointless, or b) an attempt to gain some additional power over unions.

[ripTDR]

Originally Posted by Vox

I've been a member of apegga for 20 years, and would have no problem if this applied to apegga. I suspect very few members I know would have an issue with it.

If you have been a member for 20 years and are not aware of where your money is being spent, then maybe you should get a bit more educated.

As somebody who has recently joined a union after working crappy non union jobs for the last 17 years, i gotta say that i am astounded by the number of members who **** on the leadership, yet have NEVER been to a monthly meeting or even a yearly financial meeting. Also, never voted in trustees or taken part of any process, yet will sit in a lunchroom and bitch to no end about stuff they take no action with, but don't bitch when they get their paychecks

This bill targets unions ONLY which leads me to the conclusion that the conservatives are targeting what they perceive as their opponents.

Why shouldn't I be able to see the books of X corporation of their healthcare plan if they can see mine?

Really?

[LIP MAN]

Wouldn't a company have a serious advantage in a legal battle, as they'd know the precise amount of time a Union could strike for, for example? Our current Government is unsurprisingly taking away a lot of the checks and balances out of our legal system.

[GP_Matt]

I am a member of two professional bodies.
APEGA Financial statements can be found here
http://www.apega.ca/Members/Publicat...012/index.html
The Finances start on page 51.

Alberta Land Surveyors Association finances are here and start on page 80.
http://www.alsa.ab.ca/Portals/0/PDF/...s/103rdAGM.pdf

In both cases the reports have been audited by outside CA companies.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by ripTDR

If you have been a member for 20 years and are not aware of where your money is being spent, then maybe you should get a bit more educated.

As somebody who has recently joined a union after working crappy non union jobs for the last 17 years, i gotta say that i am astounded by the number of members who **** on the leadership, yet have NEVER been to a monthly meeting or even a yearly financial meeting. Also, never voted in trustees or taken part of any process, yet will sit in a lunchroom and bitch to no end about stuff they take no action with, but don't bitch when they get their paychecks

This bill targets unions ONLY which leads me to the conclusion that the conservatives are targeting what they perceive as their opponents.

Why shouldn't I be able to see the books of X corporation of their healthcare plan if they can see mine?

Really?

I always have wondered why non profit political organizations such a Canadian Taxpayers Federartion and the National Citizen's coalition never disclose their finances....

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by LIP MAN

Wouldn't a company have a serious advantage in a legal battle, as they'd know the precise amount of time a Union could strike for, for example? Our current Government is unsurprisingly taking away a lot of the checks and balances out of our legal system.

Wouldn't a Union have a serious advantage in a legal battle, as they already know the precise amount of time a public company could strike for, for example?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

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.

I don't think you have any idea how corporations work.
That kind of reporting is one of the basic requirments of every corporation in Canada.

But don't let facts get in the way of your outrage.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I don't think you have any idea how corporations work.
That kind of reporting is one of the basic requirments of every corporation in Canada.

But don't let facts get in the way of your outrage.

To be fair to the facts, only publicly traded corporations are subject to audit of their books, so no, not every corporation is required to disclose their books.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Both are an invasion of privacy, no matter what you are doing.

and as long as what you do in your bedroom is consensual, I don't see why you'd consider it dirty.

Since when does an entity that only exists by law have a right to privacy comparable to that of a person?