Conrad Black: Public-sector unions are a blight on our society

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

"To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous."

New York Supreme Court, 1943

Are you suggesting that pre-civil rights movement, 1940s America was the sort of enlightened and progressive society that Canada should be emulating in 2013?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Are you suggesting that pre-civil rights movement, 1940s America was the sort of enlightened and progressive society that Canada should be emulating in 2013?

No, are you merely appealing to authority again?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In fact, yes, Joe, exactly that. I'm not sure why he believes that the public, with its millions and millions of voices constantly clamoring for more services and lower taxes, is any less mighty or greedy than industrial owners?

Are you suggesting that the public service is not part of the public, or that they are merely more enlightened than the rest of us? Why should their demands be any greater then those they have chosen to "serve"?

[troutman]

Two perspectives:

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=23

The Corporation is a project that came out of this interest. In 1997 I published Just Word in which I argued that constitutional rights were becoming increasingly ineffective in protecting the ideals they embodied, such as freedom, equality and justice. One reason for this, I suggested, was that constitutions apply only to governments; they do not apply to the key institution of market capitalism—the corporation.

The problem was especially pressing because, with economic globalization in full swing, corporations were emerging as global governing institutions, dominating societies and governments throughout the world. At the same time, most people had, and have, very little understanding of their true institutional nature. So it made sense to ask: what is the nature of this new governing institution? And what are the consequences of its growing hold on society? I developed the idea that the corporation, deemed by the law to be a person, had a psychopathic personality, and that there was something quite bizarre, and dangerous, in such an institution wielding so much power.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I agree with most of what you said, other than this. A teacher (or postal worker etc) can work to rule and, IMHO, have it be fairly effective.

When done in concert, this is a strike sanction. A strike doesn't necessarily involve the withdrawal of services.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

No, are you merely appealing to authority again?

I'm confused. Which authority did I appeal to?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm confused. Which authority did I appeal to?

Never said you did, but definitely agree on your confusion.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Are you suggesting that the public service is not part of the public,

??? I don't understand your point.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

or that they are merely more enlightened than the rest of us? Why should their demands be any greater then those they have chosen to "serve"?

??? Again, who has ever argued that public employees are more enlightened than anyone else? All I have argued is that, absent some compelling justification, they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. I'm not sure how you turned that into a strawman about "more enlightened" and "their demands be[ing] ... greater than" anyone else's"?

I honestly don't understand what you are arguing. When you are negotiating an employment contract with your employer, and are seeking a wage raise, is that a case of you believing that you are "more enlightened" than your employer? Is that a case of you believing that your demands are greater than those of your employer (sorry, that which you have "chosen to serve")? Of course not. It is bargaining. It happens millions of times every single day all over the world.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I don't agree. Public Response (a Left Leaning Ottawa based marketing firm) found that only 46% of people felt the gains made by Unions "benefit society generally", while 42% disagreed and 21% strongly disagreed.

Added to this the fact that over 2/3 of the public sphere is employed by unions while only 15% of the private sector is, it's easy to see why most people feel Public Sector Unions really only exist to hold the public hostage to their never ending demands.

That is 109%. Unless you are saying that 42% disagree and half of that 42% (i.e. 21%) strongly disagree. In which case, more agree than disagree. And that is with the statement:

the gains made by Unions "benefit society generally"

as compared to the much stronger original statement:

public-sector Unions breed laziness, corruption, and generally never work in the best interests of society

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I agree with most of what you said, other than this. A teacher (or postal worker etc) can work to rule and, IMHO, have it be fairly effective.

And they are usually lambasted for doing that as well.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm constantly amazed how froth-mouthingly enthusiastic some people, often self-described anti-nanny-state, pro-"freedom" conservatives, are about the government legislating away their own, and their fellow citizens', basic rights.

Thank goodness for the Charter and the judiciary.

I'm constantly amazed how some people think they have a right to a cushy union job and others should be left footing the bill for your law-protected perks and benefits that you amusingly call rights.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

"To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous."

New York Supreme Court, 1943

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

No, are you merely appealing to authority again?

Do you not see how ridiculous it is for you to snidely claim someone else is appealing to authority when your directly previous post is you performing an appeal to authority?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I'm constantly amazed how some people think they have a right to a cushy union job and others should be left footing the bill for your law-protected perks and benefits that you amusingly call rights.

References please. I've carefully looked thru this thread and nowhere do I see anyone claiming the right to a cushy union job. As usual, your distorted understanding of other people's arguments shows much more about your prejudices and assumptions than it illuminates the subject at hand.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jammies

Do you not see how ridiculous it is for you to snidely claim someone else is appealing to authority when your directly previous post is you performing an appeal to authority?

And a really poor one at that.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by jammies

References please. I've carefully looked thru this thread and nowhere do I see anyone claiming the right to a cushy union job. As usual, your distorted understanding of other people's arguments shows much more about your prejudices and assumptions than it illuminates the subject at hand.

Yeah, people in this thread support unions to protect kids working 12 hour shifts in coal mines. Give me a break.

Get your buddies together and collectively bargain away, I am fine with that as long as there is no legal advantage, or benefit, if you will, given to you once you call your group a union.

As long as unions have no more legal rights/powers than a local chess club, I have 0 problems with collective bargaining.

BTW more fancy language please.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Yeah, people in this thread support unions to protect kids working 12 hour shifts in coal mines. Give me a break.

Are you really not able to distinguish between these two positions: (1) support of unions in order to strengthen the bargaining power of employees; and (2) support of unions because I have a right to a cushy union job and others should be left footing the bill for my law-protected perks and benefits that I amusingly call rights?

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Get your buddies together and collectively bargain away, I am fine with that as long as there is no legal advantage, or benefit, if you will, given to you once you call your group a union.

As long as unions have no more legal rights/powers than a local chess club, I have 0 problems with collective bargaining.

BTW more fancy language please.

I'm not sure that you understand what collective bargaining is.

HINT: it requires that the "local chess club" be the exclusive bargaining agent for its members, and... you guessed it, that is a unique legal power/responsibility.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Of course I understand, its the law giving you the power to extort perks and benefits you are not entitled to (despite what your leftist soul may be telling you) because other side (the employer) has no choice other than back down to your demands instead of firing your ass that went on strike and hire a better replacement worker.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Of course I understand, its the law giving you the power to extort perks and benefits you are not entitled to (despite what your leftist soul may be telling you) because other side (the employer) has no choice other than back down to your demands instead of firing your ass that went on strike and hire a better replacement worker.

Lol. What on earth makes you think that employers have "no choice other than to back down to [the union's] demands instead of firing [an employee's] ass that went on strike and hiring a better replacement worker"? Honestly, what would make you believe that?!

An employer may fire any employee, at any time, for any reason. Of course, if an employer fires an employee without cause, it will have to pay damages to the ex-employee (generally speaking, calculated based on how long that employee worked for the employer.) However, an employer is free to fire every employee on its payroll if it chooses to.

Your first clue that your belief that employers must back down to employee demands might have been the relative lack of marble and gold in employee washrooms at unionized workplaces.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Lol indeed. Better tell people over at Alberta Labour Relations Board:


Q: Is a striking or locked-out employee still considered an employee?
A: Yes. Although employees are not working and are not entitled to pay, they are still considered employees and cannot be terminated simply because of being on strike or locked out.

http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/faq_strikes.html

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Lol indeed. Better tell people over Alberta Labour Relations Board:


Q: Is a striking or locked-out employee still considered an employee?
A: Yes. Although employees are not working and are not entitled to pay, they are still considered employees and cannot be terminated simply because of being on strike or locked out.

http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/faq_strikes.html

...i.e., striking is not cause for termination. However, employees may still be terminated without cause (as long as employer pays damages.)

EDIT: Just as a very quick example of circumstances where this has happened:

The main issue in this case is whether employees of the respondent TNT Canada Inc. whose employment was terminated while they were engaged in a legal strike are entitled to severance pay under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c.L-2 (the Code).
...
In sum, I am of the opinion that the respondent's failure to provide the striking employees with severance pay violated s.235(1) and constituted an offence under s.256(1) of the Code as charged.

R. v. TNT Canada Inc., 1996 CanLII 847 (ON CA)

No need to advise the Alberta Labour Relations Board. They are no doubt well aware.