"right To Work" Laws In Canada

falling leaf · April 18, 2004

August1991

The reality in Canada today is that the non-unionized Average Joe working in the private sector pays high taxes so that unionized public sector workers can have better benefits than the Average Joe.

You are so right 100% right

It is impossible to reform health or education without the approval of union leaders (unless someone takes them on directly à la Thatcher).

Yes we need an Iron Lady to take on all unions in Canada!

Do you think Belinda Stronach would be up to it ?

falling leaf · April 18, 2004

New York City. Organized crime has a substantial foothold into the labor unions in the New York City area. Experienced investigators from the Labor Department list over 100 unions with members of organized crime or their associates in positions of power.

I wonder if Canada has done an investigation into organized crime and labour unions in Canada?

I find it a bit odd that no one responds when I make comments about the connection between labour unions and organized crime or mafia

Michael Hardner · April 18, 2004

I find it a bit odd that no one responds when I make comments about the connection between labour unions and organized crime or mafia

What connection ?

Hjalmar · April 18, 2004

What connection ?

The statement of the century!!!!

Michael Hardner · April 18, 2004

Hjalmar:

Nice to see you respond to one of my posts. How about one of you provide a starting point for the discussion of the links between Organized Labour and Organized Crime in Canada ?

falling leaf · April 18, 2004

Michael Hardner

What connection ?

In Canada, with little or no government enforcement of the same corrupt union systems, employers will continue to pay money into sham union funds to buy labour peace and as a cost of doing business. Meanwhile, many rank-and-file union members will continue to get ripped off by organized criminals and by elected union officials who can't resist the siren of easy union money.

And don't expect Canadian labour leaders and union workers to speak out against union corruption. Their code of "solidarity forever" is a code of silence. It's a code that encourages union corruption. Because of this, our politicians have to get serious about corruption and criminal activity within some unions. Government needs to enact legislation to force unions to operate ethically and transparently, so that the best interests of Canadian business and its employees are protected. If they don't, organized crime may abandon US union headquarters and move to the safety of the branch operations in Canada because it's the new land of union opportunity.

Quote from --Union Corruption: Canadian Opportunities Abound

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another good reason why we need right to work laws so that all workers rights are better protected...

Michael Hardner · April 18, 2004

FL:

It sounds like some isolated incidents, allthough your source doesn't give any examples or evidence. Who wrote this piece ? Was it a magazine article, a book, what ? When was it written ?

BigGunner · April 19, 2004

Organized crime in Canada is specific to biker gangs and the flow and control of drugs.

The union bosses in America that got themselves into trouble were in the bid-rigging scandals of decades ago.

Today's unions are nothing like the good ol' days of the Hoffa Teamsters union.

You will find most of the organised crime today in Ottawa, and at the head offices of the biggest corporations.

Typical though...union haters blame the workers for the failures of the management.

Hjalmar · April 19, 2004

Typical though...union haters blame the workers for the failures of the management.

And union bosses and workers blame management for their own failures.

BigGunner · April 19, 2004

Typical though...union haters blame the workers for the failures of the management.

And union bosses and workers blame management for their own failures.

My union 'boss' is a single mother who worked the first 12 years of her career as an on-call casual. Hardly 'organized crime'..

Hjalmar · April 20, 2004

BigGunner

My union 'boss' is a single mother who worked the first 12 years of her career as an on-call casual. Hardly 'organized crime'..

Of course not. But no one can deny that labour unions aren't connected to organized crime and the mafia. All you have to do is notice some of their antics. Many unions that are connected to organized crime have been mentioned.. The Teamsters, The CAW, and The Longshoremens Union come to mind. That's not to say that they all are but unfortunately they all get painted with the same brush and this is how people view them today.

BigGunner · April 20, 2004

BigGunner
My union 'boss' is a single mother who worked the first 12 years of her career as an on-call casual. Hardly 'organized crime'..

Of course not. But no one can deny that labour unions aren't connected to organized crime and the mafia. All you have to do is notice some of their antics. Many unions that are connected to organized crime have been mentioned.. The Teamsters, The CAW, and The Longshoremens Union come to mind. That's not to say that they all are but unfortunately they all get painted with the same brush and this is how people view them today.

I'm glad that you've identified that the actions of a very few have unfairly tainted the entire labour movement. The criminal acts of some union bosses and corporate bosses must be hammered down on by the police and the court system and the criminals pay their debt to society.

That said, I do reject your assertion that all unions are linked to organized crime....just as you'd be equally upset if I went and labelled all corporate bosses as embezzlers and criminals too...

99% of all union members are decent people who are not interested in busting the company they work for, just as 99% of the managers of companies are not interested in slavery-exploitation of the workforce they rely on to make them successful.

Stop the politics of hate and greed. Promotion of hatred towards unions or any organization will facilitate even more polarization than already exists.

Hjalmar · April 20, 2004

Stop the politics of hate and greed. Promotion of hatred towards unions or any organization will facilitate even more polarization than already exists.

I say it the way I see it BG. There was a time when unions were very popular but that is fast changing now and more and more people are starting to look down on labour unions when they witness governments losing millions daily as a result of union activities. Look at the Longshoremen for example when they close down the ports and business is lost forever to competing ports in the USA. Same with the auto industry.. look at the prices of cars made here in Canada, the USA and Western Europe. Compare them with prices of cars made in South Korea such as KIA for example. Notice how prices skyrocketed for Toyota and Honda for instance after they started manufacturing their cars in North America. Who benefits from this, other than union workers?

Union workers are hurting non-union workers big time.. It has to come to an end and it will.. But it will be to the detriment of union workers.

Michael Hardner · April 20, 2004

Who benefits from this, other than union workers?

Oshawa, Oakville, Ontario in general...

Union workers are hurting non-union workers big time.. It has to come to an end and it will.. But it will be to the detriment of union workers.

When everyone makes minimum wage, who will buy cars ?

I have already asked this question already many times in different ways.

willy · April 20, 2004

"When everyone makes minimum wage, who will buy cars? I have already asked this question already many times in different ways."

I don't work for a union and I don't make minimum wage. I make what value that I bring to an employer that uses my skills and labour.

I will buy cars and most of the other Canadians that are like me will also buy cars, houses, boats, vacations, and reinvest to make more money. The company does not take care of me, I take care of me.

playfullfellow · April 20, 2004

I don't work for a union and I don't make minimum wage. I make what value that I bring to an employer that uses my skills and labour

very well put willy. I bet it is also a little easier on the conscience to ask for a raise when you know you have done a proper job for your employer and helped improve their business. The best job security you/we can have is doing a good job, make money for the boss and he/she will keep giving us a paycheque. I also know that if I do not make money for my employer or if it is just a bad year, I can not ask for a raise. When I do ask for a raise, I would never ever ask for a 15-20 % raise over 2-3 years. Holy jumping catfish, that is way out to lunch in most circumstances, especially for public employees who seem to forget that it is the average joe tax payer that has to foot the bill every time they get a raise. Everytime they get a raise, my taxes go up, I make less money so I need another raise to keep my standard of living where it is at, unions see that the private sector average pay has gone up so then they figure they need another raise and so forth. Things have to change or things will just keep getting worse.

August1991 · April 20, 2004

When everyone makes minimum wage, who will buy cars ?

If unions were abolished, what makes you think everyone would earn minimum wage? Most of the new technology firms are not unionized, and their employees earn good salaries.

Salaries are determined like anything else in a free market, by supply and demand. Employers want to hire people with certain abilities and some people are willing to offer them.

The evidence is that ordinary people living in countries with free markets, including free labour markets, prosper most and have higher incomes.

But what about job security? Here's an idea to consider. A coming major change (5 to 10 years) will be the disappearance of supermarket cashiers. (Many will become unemployed.) Already in some stores in Montreal and in Europe, customers scan products and then pay by credit card. In the future, this process will be entirely automated, like self-serve gas bars and bank ATMs.

Now, what happens if supermarket cashiers are unionized?

Michael Hardner · April 20, 2004

If unions were abolished, what makes you think everyone would earn minimum wage? Most of the new technology firms are not unionized, and their employees earn good salaries.

Developing software supposedly takes more skill than working in manufacturing. That said, globalization is forcing these wages down too.

Salaries are determined like anything else in a free market, by supply and demand. Employers want to hire people with certain abilities and some people are willing to offer them.
The evidence is that ordinary people living in countries with free markets, including free labour markets, prosper most and have higher incomes.

But the unprotected jobs are seeing salaries decrease.

But what about job security? Here's an idea to consider. A coming major change (5 to 10 years) will be the disappearance of supermarket cashiers. (Many will become unemployed.) Already in some stores in Montreal and in Europe, customers scan products and then pay by credit card. In the future, this process will be entirely automated, like self-serve gas bars and bank ATMs.
Now, what happens if supermarket cashiers are unionized?

If their services aren't required, then they will be laid off. They can strike but what bargaining power do they have if they're not needed ?

Economics teaches us that these jobs are replaced by better higher-paying jobs. This is still true, but those jobs are unprotected and globalized. They might be shipped out to India.

So who wins ?

The business lowers labour cost. An offshore company gets the higher paying job.

Hjalmar · April 20, 2004

SOURCE

Big Labour V/S Right to Work Laws

An examination of the AFLCIO's legislative agenda confirms that union officials are profoundly hostile to the free enterprise system. They have lobbied for, among other things, broad-based government price and wage fixing, the Clinton health-care scheme, and a panoply of tax increases for businesses and individuals. Gutting the successful wave of state and Federal welfare reforms over the last decade has been a top union objective as well.

Additionally, union lobbyists are among the strongest backers of the array of business-harassing regulatory schemes that are smothering small businesses across the nation under mountains of Federally imposed paperwork. The number-one reason that Washington, if it acts at all, will pass a tax cut devoid of fairness to American taxpayers or benefit to the economy is the opposition of the union political machine. The overall tax burden, as a percentage of income, is the highest it has ever been in peacetime. Federal tax receipts have jumped 49% since 1992. It is no coincidence that the growth in government spending has accompanied a continuing expansion of union control over government workers. Today, 43% of them are subject to union monopoly-bargaining contracts, and many are compelled to pay dues as a condition of employment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe it's even worse here in Canada because we have no "right to work" laws

Hjalmar · April 20, 2004

Michael Hardner

When everyone makes minimum wage, who will buy cars ?

If everyone made minimum wage the $25,000.00 car you see today would be priced at $2,500.00. Before big labour started to dominate, like it has over the past 35 years, that's exactly what you paid for a full size car with all the bells and whistles available then. Many people traded in their cars every year for $600.00 difference. You sure don't see that today -- People have to keep the same car for 5 years at least.. the cost difference is just to great. So in effect Michael this refutes your entire argument about "who is going to buy the products if you don't have union wages?"

August1991 · April 20, 2004

Michael Hardner:

This is still true, but those jobs are unprotected and globalized. They might be shipped out to India.

So you mean Indians will now provide us a good or service that we used to produce ourselves.

Has it occurred to you that the Indians will not provide this service to us for free? That we will have to provide something to them in return? People will be employed to produce something the Indians want.

Trade, outsourcing and new technology all result in the same thing and have the same effect. They are good because it means we can produce widgets more easily.

Bar code scanners are great inventions.

BigGunner · April 20, 2004

SOURCE
Big Labour V/S Right to Work Laws

An examination of the AFLCIO's legislative agenda confirms that union officials are profoundly hostile to the free enterprise system. They have lobbied for, among other things, broad-based government price and wage fixing, the Clinton health-care scheme, and a panoply of tax increases for businesses and individuals. Gutting the successful wave of state and Federal welfare reforms over the last decade has been a top union objective as well.

Additionally, union lobbyists are among the strongest backers of the array of business-harassing regulatory schemes that are smothering small businesses across the nation under mountains of Federally imposed paperwork. The number-one reason that Washington, if it acts at all, will pass a tax cut devoid of fairness to American taxpayers or benefit to the economy is the opposition of the union political machine. The overall tax burden, as a percentage of income, is the highest it has ever been in peacetime. Federal tax receipts have jumped 49% since 1992. It is no coincidence that the growth in government spending has accompanied a continuing expansion of union control over government workers. Today, 43% of them are subject to union monopoly-bargaining contracts, and many are compelled to pay dues as a condition of employment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe it's even worse here in Canada because we have no "right to work" laws

Just because you believe something, does not make it a fact.

Many conservatives believed in the trickle-down economic program by Ronald Reagan...it triggered the western worlds largest economic meltdown since the great deprepression.

But you are free to believe anything you want. I hear there is a vibrant non-profit society that proclaims that the world is indeed flat...perhaps you could join them too?

Right-to-work laws are a stupid misnomer. They drive wages and working conditions down in every jurisdiction that they are in place...and it does little to 'protect the rights of the non union worker' (which are the same rights of a union worker, by the way).

If right-to-work laws are so great, then why has President George W. Bush allowed for tax cuts and incentives to outsource these jobs to foreign countries at pennies per hour? - from the very jurisdictions that have the right-to-work laws? And its not just rank and file, blue collar jobs, but more highly skilled white-collar jobs too.

Right to work laws do not protect anyone but the big corporations that lobbied for their creation in the first place. The laws are designed to break communities and create a WalMart economy.

August1991 · April 20, 2004

Many conservatives believed in the trickle-down economic program by Ronald Reagan...it triggered the western worlds largest economic meltdown since the great deprepression.

US real GDP per person went from $22,666 in 1980 to $28,434 in 1990 (measured in constant 2000 dollars).

US GDP

Right-to-work laws are a stupid misnomer. They drive wages and working conditions down in every jurisdiction that they are in place...and it does little to 'protect the rights of the non union worker' (which are the same rights of a union worker, by the way).

US private sector trade union membership reached a peak of 39% in 1958 and has declined since to 9% in 2000 (about what it was in 1900).

US Trade Union membership

No one has yet explained to me why "outsourcing" is bad? We let foreigners do certain jobs so that we can do something else. Then we trade with the foreigners.

Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese do not send us goods or services for free. We have to send something to them in return.

Do you make your own clothes? Do you bake your own bread? Do you have your own chickens for eggs? Why has almost everyone "outsourced" these tasks from their households?

Michael Hardner · April 20, 2004

August:

So you mean Indians will now provide us a good or service that we used to produce ourselves.
Has it occurred to you that the Indians will not provide this service to us for free? That we will have to provide something to them in return? People will be employed to produce something the Indians want.

As little as I know about economics, that HAS occurred to me. What will they want ? Probably manufactured goods that are largely produced elsewhere - electronics, running shoes etc.

Trade, outsourcing and new technology all result in the same thing and have the same effect. They are good because it means we can produce widgets more easily.
Bar code scanners are great inventions.

No one has yet explained to me why "outsourcing" is bad? We let foreigners do certain jobs so that we can do something else. Then we trade with the foreigners.

What is that "something else" for someone who previously was employed in manufacturing ? Working at Home Depot or some other lower paying job is a likely answer.

Outsourcing can't be easily pigeonholed as "bad" or "good". For the American continent, it reduces the costs of manufacturing and also exports those wages to another country.

Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese do not send us goods or services for free. We have to send something to them in return.
Do you make your own clothes? Do you bake your own bread? Do you have your own chickens for eggs? Why has almost everyone "outsourced" these tasks from their households?

My clothes come from China. My bread comes from a local company that won't be shipping bread to China or Indonesia. Likewise for my eggs.

BigGunner · April 20, 2004

Many conservatives believed in the trickle-down economic program by Ronald Reagan...it triggered the western worlds largest economic meltdown since the great deprepression.
US real GDP per person went from $22,666 in 1980 to $28,434 in 1990 (measured in constant 2000 dollars).
US GDP

Right-to-work laws are a stupid misnomer. They drive wages and working conditions down in every jurisdiction that they are in place...and it does little to 'protect the rights of the non union worker' (which are the same rights of a union worker, by the way).

US private sector trade union membership reached a peak of 39% in 1958 and has declined since to 9% in 2000 (about what it was in 1900).

US Trade Union membership

No one has yet explained to me why "outsourcing" is bad? We let foreigners do certain jobs so that we can do something else. Then we trade with the foreigners.

Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese do not send us goods or services for free. We have to send something to them in return.

Do you make your own clothes? Do you bake your own bread? Do you have your own chickens for eggs? Why has almost everyone "outsourced" these tasks from their households?

Were you alive during the 80's recession?

That GDP per person stat that you quote, did that source also provide a number for the mean-average? What had happened is that more of the wealth was concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, and they increased their wealth...so while the average went up, more people earned less.

Lets talk of outsourcing...

We got a dose of that thanks to our free trade agreements that allowed large employers to leave Canada and set up in Mexico. All of their decent paid (union or non-union) staff were laid off.

Where did they go? Some found work elsewhere at lower wages, some went into business for themselves, and some moved away from the town or city altogether.

Do you realise what happens when you take a large, well paid workforce and end their employment? Look at the ghost towns of Northern BC and Vancouver Island thanks to outsourcing and raw log exports.

And its not just the union workers that pay the price. Small town merchants are forced into bankruptcy since they do not qualify for EI. All of this increases the pressure on the taxpayer because of a dramatic expansion of the unemployed.

When a company oursources jobs to foreign countries, the only 'benifit' that is returned is the increased profit margin of the domestic company that exported the jobs in the first place. In America, George Bush has rewarded these companies with a tax cut.

How many jobs should North America kill off that used to pay decent wages and supported thousands of other service jobs before we realise that it is consumers spending power that drives the economy?

When all of the good paying jobs are gone and no one has a penny left at the end of the day?

These are the policitics of a government and politicians that hate the people they govern.