pinko

"How the Agency Shop situation works is,say you had made the union at GM but for whatever reason you did'nt want to be a member of that union.You would deignate your dues to go to a charity of your choice,and that would be it.This would be done under the expres knowledge that you are declining representation AND if you got inot any sort of trouble you were on your own and the Local could not be sued for misrepresentation." If a person is working in Ontario the only exemption is based upon religon. See Section 52(1) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The burden of proof rests with the person asserting a religious belief. Here is a link to an article addressing this issue. http://www.employmentlawtoday.com/articleprint.aspx?articleid=828

Right to work legislation is designed to neuter unions. Statistics show such legislation results in diminshed earning capacity for those so affected.

The freedom of association includes the right to belong to a union notwithstanding your contention. Secondly the labour offered to your enterprise in exchange for wages is anything but a privilege. While it may be the case the business owner provides the necessary capital (usually through financing) that business usually requires labour inputs to bring the product to market. Without such inputs the business wouldn't be viable. Your posts reflect a nineteenth century attitude centred on the idea of the master-servant relationship and is totally out of touch with modern contempary thought. You ask: "Since when is being fired an infringement of a person's rights?" As you may know in a unionized environment an employee has the capacity to challenge a dismissal through the grievance/arbitration procedure. This is a right offered through the collective bargaining process and such a right is defined within the concept of just cause. In such cases there are two stages in establishing the need, if any, for discipline. Here in Canada an arbitrator has the capacity to fully reinstate the individual or vary or sustain the penalty based upon the specific circumstances of the case. Remedies are also available through the courts, human rights and other such legislation. The point I am making is that there are a variety of rights available that mitigate against unjust dismissals.

I understand. Point taken.

Are you suggesting it doesn't include teachers?

Unless you have a specific example I challenge your assertion. I would think that you might be aware of the concept of progressive discipline. If not maybe we can explore that idea too.

I am wondering if you can identify the specific public sector employer that adopts the "last hired first hired" rule. Secondly you appear to be conflating workforce reductions (layoffs) with dismissal.

How did you reach that conclusion, Jim? As you may know I was a full-time union representative working for a public sector union. I am here to tell you that collective agreements take into account merit in the case of hiring and that a public sector employer has the capacity to dismiss a person subject to establishing just cause. If you wish we can explore this issue further.

The article cited by Michael Harder is informative in that it demonstrates that teachers in the private sector generally fare better than their unionized counterparts in the public sector when it comes to compensation. In determining wages the level of education tends to distinguish those with a high school education from those with a university degree. In comparing the high school educated individual in the unionized environment those in such an environment tend to do better than their private sector counterparts with a high school education. Here is an excerpt to illustrate the point: A full-time worker on average employed by state and local government received an 11% lower annual earnings compared to the private-sector employees. However, when compared to total compensation, the public employment penalty declines to 2%. High school graduates with some college approached wage earnings equivalency between private and public sector. High school graduates earn $36,640 on average working for state and local government compared to $38,269 for workers employed by private employers, a public-employment wage penalty of 4%. http://epi.3cdn.net/8808ae41b085032c0b_8um6bh5ty.pdf The other component compared in the article looks at the beneifits package and pay between the two sectors and as well looks at the demographics of the two groups.

What reality is that?

Why do you ask?

Pogo: "The whole issue with collective bargaining is that as Walker leaves, the unions will collectively bargain for themselves to be right back where they were before this whole debate." I am wondering if you would elaborate further on this statement. As I understand the issue in Wisconsin Governor Walker wishes to emasculate the unions. If this is the case then I would be interested in how you would expect the unions to be right back where they were before these measure were taken by the Governor.

I don't think the way a person dresses should have any bearing whatsoever in considering an assault of this nature. The judge in this case ought to have known the nature of the law and precedent in such circumstances. The Crown should appeal this decision.

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION Rape victim 'inviting,' so no jail Judge rules woman's clothes, conduct ease blame on attacker A convicted rapist will not go to jail because a Manitoba judge says the victim sent signals that "sex was in the air" through her suggestive attire and flirtatious conduct on the night of the attack. Kenneth Rhodes was given a two-year conditional sentence last week which allows him to remain free in the community, in a decision likely to trigger strong debate. The Crown wanted at least three years behind bars. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail--rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail-116801578.html This very controversial ruling has brought to light several cases involving this recently appointed Harper nominee to the bench. Some are calling for the judges removal from the bench. When you read this it makes you wonder where this judge has been all this time.

Yes those mcjobs at Tim Hortons, McDonalds, Taco Bell and other such entities are great for folks especially those with ownership interests.

When shady produces the captioned pictures he creates a false impression of those individuals exercising their First Amendment rights. The Huffington Post reported the following: MADISON, Wis. — About 50 pro-union protesters peacefully left the state Capitol late Thursday after a judge ruled they could no longer spend the night to show their opposition to Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to eliminate nearly all collective bargaining rights for public workers. The judge also ruled the state had violated the public's free speech and assembly rights by restricting access to the building. The protesters demanded to see a written copy of the order before they would go. University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Chief Susan Riseling read the order to the crowd, eliciting cheers when she read the judge's determination that the state had unconstitutionally restricted access to the building. "We won this battle," said former Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager, who represented unions that had challenged the state's decision to limit building access. But she also told the demonstrators they needed to leave. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/judge-orders-protesters-removed-wisconsin-capitol_n_831167.html?om_rid=NsfrMk&om_mid=_BNcOmBB8Zc-Pff It seems to me these people have followed the law contrary to the false impression created by others here.

Judge Rules Courts Cannot Force Dem. Senators To Return To Madison Oconto County Judge Made Ruling After Resident Filed Complaint Against Sen. Holperin OCONTO, Wis. -- A judge in Oconto County ruled Wednesday the state Constitution gives neither residents nor the court jurisdiction to bring the missing 14 senators back to Madison to vote on the budget. The ruling came after a resident filed a lawsuit against Senator Jim Holperin, D-Conover. The suit asked the court to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus, basically demanding that Holperin return to the senate or face a felony. The judge denied the motion stating that while Holperin is absent without leave, it is up to the Senate to enforce its own rules and get the senators to come back. http://www.wisn.com/news/27060885/detail.html

You appear to have reading comprehension problems. My position has been consistent throughout the discussion.

The problem with the argument being advanced by the Governor is that the public has rejected it. Most people can see through this ploy except perhaps for the ill informed. I put you in that category.

You are repeating yourself, sonny.

I am sure you think you do but if you had even the most rudimentary knowledge of collective bargaining you would believe otherwise. I will try to excuse your ignorance.

Go back to school junior you don't know what you are talking about.

After two weeks on the run, the Wisconsin Senate passed a resolution Thursday ordering the arrest of the missing state senators. The fourteen Democrats fled the state to avoid voting on Governor Scott Walker's controversial budget repair bill that would strip collective bargaining rights for state workers and require them to pay more for their pension and health care benefits. http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/

It would seem to me the question I asked the gentleman was a reasonable one. You may have been here eight years and that is fine but I haven't. The gentleman should answer my question and then we can move on.

I follow American politics quite closely so yes I am well aware of that fact. The Democrats act like Republican lite in my view.