Should Union Dues Be Used For Political Purposes

[scribblet]

I say no...

Unions -Union leaders are putting YOUR money where THEIR mouths are!

In January, the Alberta Building Trades Council and the Alberta Federation of Labour began using forced member dues towards political purposes.

I agree with the NCC that:

we want politicians to pass legislation that will change labour laws to:

* Eliminate the use of union dues for political purposes

* Ensure all union dues are directed toward workplace related issues

* Bring democracy back to the workplace

[August1991]

How about this?

CUPE BC has produced a 2007 edition of The Wall Must Fall: End the Occupation and Violence in Israel-Palestine.

This update provides new insight into the 40 year Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian Territories. It was prepared with information from the perspective of the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements.

Packed with facts, maps, charts and personal accounts not found in the mainstream media, The Wall Must Fall is a great resource for CUPE members, other trade unionists and concerned members of the community.

4th Edition The Wall Must Fall 2007

CUPE BC

CUPE is the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Union dues are deducted at source.

[rbacon]

It is fraud and theft, unless the member gives written permission.

[capricorn]

I agree with the NCC that:

scriblett, who's the NCC?

we want politicians to pass legislation that will change labour laws to:

* Eliminate the use of union dues for political purposes

* Ensure all union dues are directed toward workplace related issues

* Bring democracy back to the workplace

Agreed.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada that represents about 150,000 federal workers, has been doing this for years and got away with it.

The PSAC, CLC and BC Fedederation of Labour all produced election literature that outlined key labour related issues, and the members ensured their distribution. In addition to the mail-outs and plant-gate distribution of information, the region conducted a phone canvass of its membership.

http://www.psac.com/NEWS/publications/upda...2/18_02-e.shtml

(The CLC is the Canadian Labour Congress.)

Imagine unions spending union dues money to produce election literature and promoting specific parties and candidates. It boggles the mind.

I can't believe union members have allowed the misuse of their dues to go on for so long. I suppose they are intimidated in case they would be blacklisted by the union if they spoke up. How about whistleblower protection legislation for employees who report their unions for the misuse of their dues?

[eyeball]

It is fraud and theft, unless the member gives written permission.

Which they do when they sign the paperwork associated with joining and when they send delegates to general meetings to vote on things like, where to spend dues.

On the other hand we should make it illegal for corporations to use shareholder's money for political purposes. That's the ticket.

[August1991]

Which they do when they sign the paperwork associated with joining and when they send delegates to general meetings to vote on things like, where to spend dues.

On the other hand we should make it illegal for corporations to use shareholder's money for political purposes. That's the ticket.

I can easily sell shares in a corporation if I disagree with its Board of Directors. After all, there are many shares sold in a stock market. I can usually avoid buying from a corporation if I disagree with its Board of Directors - Dollarama and WalMart are not the only stores around.

But if I'm an employee or a worker, it's often hard to change jobs.

Edited February 9, 2008 by August1991

[Muddy]

Union dues are taken by force from workers. Investment in Corporations is not.Big difference.

[capricorn]

Which they do when they sign the paperwork associated with joining

I was an employee of the PSAC for 13 years and a federal worker for 18 years. I know for a fact that in the federal public service, the only paperwork you sign is a union card with tombstone information and does not spell out how dues will be spent or anything else. There is no consent given as to how dues are to be spent.

and when they send delegates to general meetings to vote on things like, where to spend dues.

The "delegates" chosen to attend meetings and conventions are hard core union activists, and do not represent the average worker from the given workplace. Invariably, these delegates have leftist and socialist views. These activists therefore will canvass for the support of candidates who are sympathetic to unions and the average worker has no say in the matter. That's just the way it works.

Unions should concentrate on collective bargaining issues i.e. improving pay and benefits, occupational health and safety, respect for human rights in the workplace and the grievance process. Leave political activism out of it.

[Peter F]

Unions should concentrate on collective bargaining issues i.e. improving pay and benefits, occupational health and safety, respect for human rights in the workplace and the grievance process. Leave political activism out of it.

all those things are 'political activism'. If management fails to provide those things it is actually good for the Union to lobby the government to enact such laws and/or pressure management to do the right thing.

Unions are by their very nature political activism. ... or should be, unless its some sort of 'company union'...

[Wilber]

all those things are 'political activism'. If management fails to provide those things it is actually good for the Union to lobby the government to enact such laws and/or pressure management to do the right thing.

Unions are by their very nature political activism. ... or should be, unless its some sort of 'company union'...

In the cases where the payment of union dues is a condition of employment, there is no way a union member should be forced to finance a political party with their dues. If the union wants to endorse a particular party or candidate and collect voluntary contributions from its members, that is a different matter but its members shouldn't be forced to contribute financially to a party they may not support personally.

[Peter F]

In the cases where the payment of union dues is a condition of employment, there is no way a union member should be forced to finance a political party with their dues. If the union wants to endorse a particular party or candidate and collect voluntary contributions from its members, that is a different matter but its members shouldn't be forced to contribute financially to a party they may not support personally.

Bill c24

The bill prohibits corporations, trade unions and associations from making contributions to any registered political party or to any leadership contestants.

So Unions cannot force its members to contribute financially to a party they may not support. Unions cannot financially support any political party.

In fact, the National Citizens Coalation is upset that the AFL and the ABTC have produced some spots ('attack ads') for Albertans to watch on the tube.

See NCC

See Union advert

[Shakeyhands]

And there is the rub. It seems the OP and others seem to be upset that the Unions typicaly do not support the right wing party's, whom they support.

[scribblet]

Signing a union card does not give the union the right to spend the dues, funding non labour related political causes, members should not be forced to pay for activities unrelated to collective bargaining. In fact, Unions should be required to obtain the membership's permission in advance, for funding anything political.

Edited February 9, 2008 by scriblett

[rbacon]

By the same token, Fat Assed Ed Stelmach the talking horse should not be allowed to take Billions in Tax Dollars and buy votes just at election time. That also is Fraud and breech of trust. A political party in power should not be able to throw tax dollars around just before an election. No different than having thugs outside election booths with whiskey and money to sway voters. Very corrupt. Very 3rd world Ed you Fat Assed Liberal.

[Hydraboss]

Shakey, you are partially right. The only thing I would change in your statement is that it is not only right-wing parties that should not be supported. No political parties should be supported or attacked by use of union dues. My wife is an RN in Alberta and pays ridiculous money in the form of union dues. She has no choice, and therefore we look at it (with distaste) as a cost of doing business. That being said, those funds are supposed to benefit the union members (which they do not for the most part), not attack Eddie the Liberal. I do not want to see our money going to support or attack any political hack.

rbacon, you've hit it on the head. Pierre Elliot Stelmach is playing the same stupid game with my tax dollars. Amazing how the coffers open up right before the election. I would like to see some kind of mandated freeze on all spending 6-8 months before an election. Sure, parties would still try to spend like hell before dropping the writ, but the voting public is not one of long memory and most of the effect would be gone before going to the polls. The governing party knows damn well when they'll want to call an election so they'll have to plan a lot better and much farther in advance.

[eyeball]

...the voting public is not one of long memory...

I find it peculiar that the same voting public that's allegedly so short on memory that it's helpless and blind to the cynical machinations of its government is nontheless held in such high esteem in terms of its wisdom to choose one come election time.

Speaking of voting and political purposes but at the federal level, anyone else notice the punditocracy isn't relaying the message to us that we really don't want to go to the polls yet?

rbacon

A political party in power should not be able to throw tax dollars around just before an election. No different than having thugs outside election booths with whiskey and money to sway voters. Very corrupt. Very 3rd world...

I agree. On the other hand perhaps opposition party's should be allowed to spend an equal amount on some of the things they want. This might give them a chance to compete and give voters a chance to compare results.

Not quite 3rd world but primitive enough. We're in the age of the Internet and Tele-filing and still using a democracy designed in the horse and buggy era. We should be routinely voting on the same issues our MP's and MLA's do. How can we be too stupid and amnesiac to have a say on spending priorities or policies on crime but wise enough to vote on mandates to deal with these?

I guess only a pundit can tell me for sure.

Edited February 10, 2008 by eyeball

[capricorn]

all those things are 'political activism'.

In the context I used the term political activism, it means expending funds from members' dues in an attempt to influence the outcome of elections.

If management fails to provide those things it is actually good for the Union to lobby the government to enact such laws and/or pressure management to do the right thing.

This is done for all workplace related matters that don't form part of the collective agreement. This depends on jurisdictions and workplaces. Union-management committees are quite common in resolving problems.

[madmax]

I say no...

Curb union, corporate donations, NDP leader says

Tory reliance on big money detrimental to families: Mason

"We don't get as much from unions as people think," he said. "We'd be happy to give up our $50,000... if the Conservatives give up the $2 million they (receive) from corporations.

Lisa Young, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, sees the NDP proposal as a positive development. Alberta stands out from most Canadian jurisdictions in its "Wild West" treatment of political finances, she said.

The current situation in Alberta has helped create a longstanding tradition of "lopsided elections... that is very difficult to overcome," Young said.

Edited February 10, 2008 by madmax

[madmax]

I say no...

Unions -Union leaders are putting YOUR money where THEIR mouths are!

For a Long Time Unions have supported Conservative and Liberal Parties.

There was an attempt from the 60s till roughly the 80s to support the NDP.

I know of many NDP candidates who have ran in campaigns never to have seen a Union Dollar.

I know of many Liberal Candidates with long lists of union donations.

I am aware of Conservative Candidates receiving Union donations and having Union and former union Activist Campaign managers.

Ah, the stereo types.....

Really, corporations don't vote and shouldn't be allowed to adverstise or support any political campaign. They should just be concerned about

doing business. Not getting involved in politics.

....

I believe it was the National Party back in the 1990s that first brought forth the idea of banning union and corporate donations and replacing them with a $ per vote system. Man were they crazy..... never won a seat......yet....look at us federally.

I believe the Manitoba NDP government banned union and corporate donations.....

Man, that is just crazy

[Keepitsimple]

Curb union, corporate donations, NDP leader says

Tory reliance on big money detrimental to families: Mason

"We don't get as much from unions as people think," he said. "We'd be happy to give up our $50,000... if the Conservatives give up the $2 million they (receive) from corporations.

Lisa Young, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, sees the NDP proposal as a positive development. Alberta stands out from most Canadian jurisdictions in its "Wild West" treatment of political finances, she said.

The current situation in Alberta has helped create a longstanding tradition of "lopsided elections... that is very difficult to overcome," Young said.

Your post refers to Alberta's Provincial Government but because this is a Federal Posting area, I guess you were trying to say that the Current Federal Conservatives were taking big money from Corportaions. In fact, this used to be the Liberal strong suit - big money from big corporations. Perhaps you are not aware of the Federal Accoujntability Act that was intorduced by the Conservatives:

The Federal Accountability Act which received Royal Assent on December 12, 2006 reforms the financing of political parties and candidates in Canada, changing the rules for political contributions to prevent influence being bought by political donations and to level the playing field for individual contributors.

Reforms to political financing include:

new limits on individual donations to parties and candidates

a ban on contributions from corporations, unions and organizations to parties and candidates

a longer period to prosecute violations under the Canada Elections Act.

Effective January 1, 2007 the following rules for political contributions under the Canada Elections Act come into force.

Who Can Make Political Contributions

You must be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada to make a political contribution to a registered political entity.

Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups may not make political contributions.

An employer can give an employee a paid leave of absence during an election period to allow the employee to be a nomination contestant or a candidate without the leave being considered a political contribution.

Link: http://canadaonline.about.com/od/federalel...ntributions.htm

Edited February 10, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[sideshow]

You sign a union card and you get to work at the job. You don't like it? Go find another job that is non union somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to work for a certain company.

Only about a third of Canadians are unionized, so I am sure all the whiners and criers can go get a job at a non union job anytime they feel like it.

[Hydraboss]

Not completely true, Sideshow. My wife is an RN, and if you choose to be a nurse you MUST be a member of the union. There are, no doubt, a ton of nurses that hate the union but have no choice.

Until private health care arrives. That will be a good day.

[capricorn]

My wife is an RN, and if you choose to be a nurse you MUST be a member of the union. There are, no doubt, a ton of nurses that hate the union but have no choice.

Same with the feds. The federal public service has approx. 225,000 employees that are almost all unionized. If you want a federal career, you have no choice but to join the union.

Until private health care arrives. That will be a good day.

A wish shared not just by nurses I should add.

[Topaz]

It seems to me that this is the same thing when we vote for our own member of government. They go, say to Ottawa, and when they have to vote for bills to pass they may vote against the way we think they should vote. Our tax dollars are paying their wages but they decide to vote the party lines and not the way the voters who elected them to vote. The one difference of this though is when you have a party like the "conservatives" most voters would't know if the party believes the PC way or the Alliance way and that makes it tough for the voters to judge. So, alot of voters don't get there money worth when voting for their own member. So what's the difference between government or a union?

[fellowtraveller]

Same with the feds. The federal public service has approx. 225,000 employees that are almost all unionized. If you want a federal career, you have no choice but to join the union.

A wish shared not just by nurses I should add.

No, you do not have to join the union at all with the feds. They cannot oblige you to sign anything.

However, you must pay exactly the same dues, deducted at source under Rand formula provisions