Unions in Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't you think that in the case of what happen in the US with the banks and the auto sector that the CEO's came out on top and not the unions? The unions had to fight along the way to keep the pensions for their pensioners. Some financial companies walked away with millions and the workers got nothing!

Why should the workers get anything...they were at-will employees, and made a handsome wage to boot. Few would have joined a union. Are the financial workers in Canada unionized, or is this just a US joint?

Unless a person can work for a company that treats them as well as themselves, then there will always be a place for unions even though the business world wants them gone.

A lot of employees want the unions and their tactics gone too.

[Oleg Bach]

No comment........never said that before - just practing ---looks like your little friend has gone to hide under his blankie...Unions....have now become corporations run by the new rich - the old rich are less corrupt - they are more adjusted to power - and hide their lusts better.

[bush_cheney2004]

No comment........never said that before - just practing ---looks like your little friend has gone to hide under his blankie...Unions....have now become corporations run by the new rich - the old rich are less corrupt - they are more adjusted to power - and hide their lusts better.

Jimmy Hoffa salutes you from his cement grave.

[Oleg Bach]

Jimmy Hoffa salutes you from his cement grave.

I thought that was Mussilin's hand stick up out of the 401.......thanks for the cheer up ----so how yah doing jimmy? been a long time....BC - you're not really Jimmy Hoffa are you....if so - I smell a book deal ----------------50% for me and 50% for me ----you will get a bonus after I recover my costs....thanks again - you never fail to bring a smile to Stalins face...ooops - let me tell you about life extention Jimmy ----I mean BC..

[Peter F]

There are way too many corporate apologists around here. Managers and good, workers are bad. I get it. There are two completely different standards for the behaviour of people. If managers are greedy and want a bigger paycheque, it is the free market in action and they should be praised, even if it is blatantly unfair to everyone else. If workers unionize and want a bigger paycheque, they are scum who do not think about their fellow workers in other professions.

Class Guilt.

Hear Hear!

[Wilber]

Unless a person can work for a company that treats them as well as themselves, then there will always be a place for unions even though the business world wants them gone.

This I agree with. For the most part companies get unions because they earned them. Southwest Airlines is often held up as an example of how to run a airline and it is mostly union. It's employees are also some of the best motivated and highest paid in the industry. The difference is management, not the employees or unions. Employees are just people and they don't differ much wherever they live or work. Ultimately it is always management that determines the direction, success or failure of a company, not the employees. Employees don't bankrupt companies, piss poor management does.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Wilber

[g_bambino]

Those labour laws wouldn't be there without the union movement that created a large working middle-class in the first place! I'll make a deal with anyone who wants to abolish unions and go back to the good old days when the employer held all of the cards...

You appear to have missed my point: the work of unions is done; note how you employed the past tense in your response. It would of course be inane to reverse everything to pre-union times, as that would merely recreate the need for unions. Leave the laws as they are and minimise the role - and thus power - of unions. That is, if they aren't left to their own inevitable self-destruction.

[Michael Hardner]

Auguste

Both Peter and Michael, I strongly disagree.

Michael (and Argus), as I pointed out above, all of your criticsms of public sector management ignore the fact that in Canada, public sector employees are increasingly unionized and these public sector unions are increasingly militant. Strikes are rare in Canada now except in the public sector (or in a sector where a government subsidy is possible).

Unions operate by seniority, and I gave the example of teacher's unions where reforms of Canada's education system is basically impossible because any reform would immediately conflict with unions and seniority. Michael, your ideas are interesting but meaningless and impractical. You don't understand how Canadian governments work.

Bad Management does not make Strong Unions. Public Sector Unions make Public Sector Management difficult. In the private sector, strong unions raise theprice of goods sold and eventually invite competitors into the market. (eg. GM.)

I don't have statistics, but we have been saying that union participation in the private sector is on the decline. We need to look at how shops become unionized today. The public sector has been unionized for a long time, so I don't know if you can say they're "increasingly unionized". I base my ideas on having worked for and with government organizations. CUPE was formed in 1963, and I can't find anything that supports the idea that it was in response to bad management back then, but those were different times.

If you think my ideas are meaningless and impractical then say why.

Governments don't waste $650 million dollars on an eHealth initiative, or $1 billion on a gun registry because the janitors are making $20 an hour. They do it because the generals running the show don't know how to do it.

Politics as management are to blame, at the root. The leader of a company inevitably is accountable for their bottom line, but there is no such equivalent metric for success in a public endeavor. There is an unsolvable conflict-of-interest because the ultimate goal of a public organization is to help the minister responsible for the portfolio to win elections.

[Craig1]

You appear to have missed my point: the work of unions is done; note how you employed the past tense in your response. It would of course be inane to reverse everything to pre-union times, as that would merely recreate the need for unions. Leave the laws as they are and minimise the role - and thus power - of unions. That is, if they aren't left to their own inevitable self-destruction.

I would hope that your not just thinking about destroying the working mans union as the WTO, NAFTA the UN allong with many corperate body's are all union. I think you would send us back to the cave man

[Hydraboss]

I would hope that your not just thinking about destroying the working mans union as the WTO, NAFTA the UN allong with many corperate body's are all union. I think you would send us back to the cave man

Uhmm...I know you're 16 and you are doing admirably well on this board so far, but you have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about in this post. Please research what "NAFTA" stands for and try to draw a line between it and unions.

Thanks,

[Craig1]

Uhmm...I know you're 16 and you are doing admirably well on this board so far, but you have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about in this post. Please research what "NAFTA" stands for and try to draw a line between it and unions.

Thanks,

correct me if I am wrong but is it not a trade agreement between Canada, the US and mexico? (It is kinda like a union). Some say it will lead to the Amero and even in Canada it has resulted in building the CAnamex highway to link all 3 together. I know allot of corperate interest is to reduce borders to make us like the Europian union.

[Bonam]

This seems to be directed contradicted by the existance of the golden parachute, which minimizes the cost of upper management of losing their jobs.

There are way too many corporate apologists around here. Managers and good, workers are bad. I get it. There are two completely different standards for the behaviour of people. If managers are greedy and want a bigger paycheque, it is the free market in action and they should be praised, even if it is blatantly unfair to everyone else. If workers unionize and want a bigger paycheque, they are scum who do not think about their fellow workers in other professions.

Class Guilt.

Where did I say that workers are "bad"? Workers have every right to earn whatever money the job they perform is worth. If their skill and expertise is in demand, then they stand to earn more money, if there is an oversupply of workers in a given field, then they stand to earn less. This is the same with managers, and with professionals, they get and keep jobs based on their own merits and market conditions. Workers have every right to want to get as much money and other compensation for their work as they can, on their own merit. However, when the unions get involved, it quickly becomes a situation not of compensation based on merit, but of politics, seniority, etc. Union administration eats up a fair chunk of money itself, that goes neither to the workers nor to the company. I have absolutely no beef with workers, just unions.

And militant unions can actually decrease the ability to compete of a company over time, eventually causing more workers to lose their jobs, as we saw in several recent cases. Of course, this also involved bad management, but unions were certainly part of the problem in those cases.

Anyway, in my opinion, workers need to get a bit more educated and skilled and operate as professionals rather than as undifferentiated commodity labor. The time when we need humans performing mindless automaton tasks is fast ending. And if the task requires intellect, then a non-unionized worker who is good at the job can differentiate themselves and thus keep their job and get better compensation based on their own merits, rather than on union demands.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Bonam

[Hydraboss]

correct me if I am wrong but is it not a trade agreement between Canada, the US and mexico? (It is kinda like a union). Some say it will lead to the Amero and even in Canada it has resulted in building the CAnamex highway to link all 3 together. I know allot of corperate interest is to reduce borders to make us like the Europian union.

You are right about the tri-lateral agreement, but it is nothing like a union (managment and workers). Think more along the lines of the Cold War. We agree not to shoot each other in the foot, and we all prosper. The whole Amero thing ranks right up there with Area 51 (bring on the tin foil hats.....)

[Pliny]

The reason people want those public sector jobs is that they are deemed safe from the ravages of the free market economy.

One of the benefits. They are safe as long as CRA can squeeze the cost of government out of the economy.

[Craig1]

You are right about the tri-lateral agreement, but it is nothing like a union (managment and workers). Think more along the lines of the Cold War. We agree not to shoot each other in the foot, and we all prosper. The whole Amero thing ranks right up there with Area 51 (bring on the tin foil hats.....)

I am getting sleepy past my bedtime but....I found something interesting on the Canadian government website talking about a mobalized workforce wich is planned for 2012 headed by a long list of corperations. I remember Bell on the list but there are about 20 other corperations on the list. would not the corperations be the managment and the mobilized workers be the workers? this allows them full rain of its workers to move them freely between country's. Like a standard union they move travel cards between provinces to do these projects. now would this not be like a union?

[Pliny]

The biggest problem with unions is that the individual loses sight of the fact he is contributing, by his labour, to his own welfare. There is a disconnection. I am of the opinion that most people in union jobs do not particularly like their jobs but the pay and benefits make those jobs tolerable. Being expected to act like an automaton for 8 hours a day is not conducive to creating incentives or innovation to improve productivity. It is more likely the person will look forward to the end of the day or the weekend or his 3 weeks off or ensuring he gets his coffee break and lunch break and statutory holidays.

I disagree that Unions actually improved the standard of living. There is only one thing that can improve the standard of living and that is productivity. An economy can only support as much as it's productivity can bear. Unions contribute to unemployment in the general populace, less productivity over time and at a greater cost.

Now, the argument is always made by socialists and Unions that capitalists are concerned primarily about profit and they are greedy pigs and the usual blah-blah-blah that stems from basic ignorance of how an economy works and a concept of entitlement that fosters that disconnection from productivity. The capitalist, in the purest sense of the word is perhaps, deserving of those labels. These are people who make money from money. Investors and money lenders, they also have a disconnect from what improves the standard of living of the general populace. This type of capitalist is all about the money and making a profit. Both the union member and the capitalist suffer from this disconnect, in my opinion.

The real world deals with products and services, their production and distribution and the increase of such through the division of labour, competition - which acts as an incentive to innovation and ingenuity - other contributors of increased productivity. The entrepreneur or businessman is a capitalist as he capitalizes on perceived opportunity and takes the risks necessary to operating a business. His prime concern is providing a product or service in demand by the consumer. That he can deliver those things to the consumer with the quality and cost that the consumer is willing to pay is what determines his success and sustenance as an enterprise. The importance of this is lost to both the pure capitalist and the union worker and it is no surprise they both despise each other.

I have to qualify the above by stating that the above is a generalization and it should be understood that not all capitalists and union members operate with this frame of mind; that of a disconnection from the actual purpose of their activities. I am saying though that Unions facilitate this idea of disconnection and even fosters an adversarial feeling towards the employer.

Many union members are glad to have a union job. They sell themselves short though. They have learned the lesson that they cannot do any better and they accept it as true. What's left as a choice? Demand bigger and better paychecks and benefits. They should realize that their productivity should improve as well - Management works on that, I suppose - it's part of the job description.

Unions overall are detrimental to improved standards of living, they may benefit a few people but not society as a whole over time. Pure Capitalists can also be detrimental. Both of them could be called greedy in general.

That's my view.

[WIP]

The middle class is made up of non-unionized professionals, not of unskilled unionized laborers.

And what percentage of the population do non-union professionals make up? Conservatives want to keep the middle class a small segment of the population. They want the majority of people to be impoverished.....although I should add that many professionals, including lawyers, doctors and chartered accountants ARE UNIONIZED, since practicing the trade means membership in their professional societies that regulate the number of new entries each year. By any other name, it's a closed union shop.

Manual unskilled labor is disappearing as a requirement in Western countries due to the greater prevalence of both automation and globalization.

Labour is disappearing due to globalization, since unfettered import of goods will lead to production being done in the cheapest market available. Canadian and American workers should not have to compete with Indonesians making 50c an hour. Globalization has led many corporations to close down their manufacturing operations and move them overseas. Automation may have reduced the number of employees needed in manufacturing, but it is not responsible for closing the factories?

If the middle class is disappearing, it is only because of increasingly socialist policies that tax the middle class more and more to pay for extravagant social projects and wealth redistribution schemes.

Or, it could be because the former steel workers and auto workers are now working at Walmart and Tim Hortons!

False. People's real incomes have dropped only when compared to the price of real estate, which I'll explain later.

I'll explain now. A house is the most expensive thing the average person will buy in their lifetime, so what sense does it make to remove real estate from a comparison of purchasing power?

People today enjoy vastly more goods and services that were either much more expensive or entirely non-existent several decades ago.

Technological changes obviously cannot be compared with periods prior to their existence. The basic needs of a family: their house, car, groceries, education, health care -- the comparison of today's average family with the typical family of 40 years ago shows most of us struggling to accomplish with two incomes what used to be done with one!

Vacations several times a year to foreign countries,

And middle class people can afford this?

large screen TVs, multiple cars per family, computers and the internet, mobile gadgets, etc. The quality of these goods continues to increase over time. For example, a computer that was worth $2000 5 years ago would be worth almost nothing now, and a new computer would outperform that 5 year old computer by hundreds or thousands of times. This is a huge deflationary factor that most people fail to consider. The goods we buy today represent far more value than equivalent goods that we bought years or decades ago. A 2009 car is not the same as a 1960s car, it is packed full of features, technologies, and safeties that did not exist in the 1960s.

These gadgets hardly qualify as necessities of life, and do not make up for the fact that food prices are rising....and so is the cost of post-secondary education; I can't help noticing that you didn't include that on your list.

That was because in the 60s, more and more women started working. They did so not because it was financially required of them at the time, but because of the ideas of equality and the feminist movement in general.

Bullshit. Women started entering the workforce to supplement the family income, and over the last 25 years have felt the pressure to work longer hours to maintain the same standard of living. There may have been social pressures to keep married women out of the workforce before 30 years ago, but the main motive is still economic necessity, not gender equality......otherwise, married men would have increased their share of the housework.

However, since families generally continue to live together in one house, the number of houses on the market did not change appreciably, while most families started bringing in significantly higher combined incomes. Since houses are traded on a free market, and families are willing to spend a large % of their total combined income to purchase as good a house in as good a location as they can afford, the price of houses went way up, so as to eat up roughly the same % (or even higher) of a family's combined income as before.

You realize that up until about 25 to 30 years ago, banks wouldn't normally include the wife's income in the mortgage affordability calculations. The assumption was that most working mothers would not be in the workforce on a permanent basis, so the husband had to demonstrate that he could afford to carry a mortgage on his own. Needless to say that this prejudice of the loan officers helped to keep real estate prices from spiraling out of control.

Corporations pay a worker what they are worth. When a labor market is not in demand, someone that provides manual labor is easily replaceable, so if they quit, it's no big deal, as you can hire a replacement.

I'm guessing that you don't work with you hands!

When a manual labor market is in high demand, wages go up. For example, the cost of construction went way up in BC in the last few years before the recession, due to the combined effect of the booming economy and the Olympic construction. Executives in a company generally have (or, at least, should have) deep knowledge of the company and extensive experience that would be difficult (or, in some cases, impossible) for the company to replace. Hence they are paid more to ensure they keep the job. This is also the case for professionals in some companies - an engineer with 30 years experience at a company, who knows things about their products and designs that no one else has a good understanding of, can make a salary well in the 6 figure range.

Okay, now if it's all about supply and demand, could you explain to me why CEO salaries and compensations have increased exponentially both here and in the U.S.:

In the past 12 years, there’s been a 444 per cent salary increase for Canada’s top CEOs. The top 10 earners collected a total of $60.7 million in 1995—by 2007, that number had jumped to $330.3 million.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/05/01/the-ris...as-top-50-ceos/

Yesterday we learned that Citibank -- yes, the same one bailed out by the U.S. government TARP Fund -- is planning pay raises as high as 50% for some employees. Market forces of supply and demand only seem to apply to those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display.../06/24/pm_citi/

[Moonbox]

And what percentage of the population do non-union professionals make up? Conservatives want to keep the middle class a small segment of the population. They want the majority of people to be impoverished

Get ur tinfoil hats out! Conservatives WANT you to be poor!

.....although I should add that many professionals, including lawyers, doctors and chartered accountants ARE UNIONIZED, since practicing the trade means membership in their professional societies that regulate the number of new entries each year. By any other name, it's a closed union shop.

Huge difference. On one hand you have professional societies that set out to ensure their members follow a standard of conduct, diligence and competence so that people feel they can trust and depend on their services. These societies aren't there to collectively nickel and dime companies, but rather to GOVERN the conduct of their members.

Labour is disappearing due to globalization, since unfettered import of goods will lead to production being done in the cheapest market available. Canadian and American workers should not have to compete with Indonesians making 50c an hour. Globalization has led many corporations to close down their manufacturing operations and move them overseas.

You're right to an extent, but unions are not the solution. If anything, the unions artificially inflate the wages people should be paid in Canada which forces even further production to be moved overseas.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Get ur tinfoil hats out! Conservatives WANT you to be poor!

Huge difference. On one hand you have professional societies that set out to ensure their members follow a standard of conduct, diligence and competence so that people feel they can trust and depend on their services. These societies aren't there to collectively nickel and dime companies, but rather to GOVERN the conduct of their members.

You're right to an extent, but unions are not the solution. If anything, the unions artificially inflate the wages people should be paid in Canada which forces even further production to be moved overseas.

The answer to production costs and economic development is not to reduce the standard of living of workers here with respect to wage earnings. The reality that standards of living are improving elsewhere due to their productive efforts is not to be derided either. The truth is that the answer to the problem lays within an automated production process where labor costs are not merely lowered but instead eliminated to the extent possible. We have the technology to do this, and we have the resources to do this. We should do this.

The existing labour force needs to be converted from production line employees to civil engineers, software designers and highly trained technicians to produce and maintain the means of automation. We can build factories and we can build robots, so there is no technical reason not to put two pieces of the puzzle together and create a picture.

This nation also has sufficient resource wealth to provide the raw materials of production needed at lower costs than in some other locations. So we have an advantage from which we can build upon. The level of education in this nation is also relatively high as well, so we have the technical expertise and the ability to innovate whatever we find that we require to implement an automated production system as well. Secondary industry is legendary for its ability to create employment opportunities, and the efforts expended in applying advanced technologies in this field of endeavor will most likely result in very similar realizations.

With all due respect the unions do exactly what the capitalistic free market lets them do by charging whatever the market will bear for their services. The real issue is not unions at all, but instead cost of production. That is not the fault of the worker, but the problem of the employer. The worker only does as they are told and are paid for what they do. Management or administration is responsible for the business decisions and marketing end of the production equation. Business needs to stop leaning on governments for legislative efforts on their behalf just as much as labour does. Government should concern itself with legislative efforts relevant to public safety and service deliver of its programs.

[Oleg Bach]

Corporate heads look at powerful unions as competition. Even if the unions never effected the corporate bottom line - the corporates are mean spirited and want to empoverish as many as possible because they were sadistic as children - and are just as bored and sadistic as adults - I really see no other reason for cruel behavior other that some personality disorder that rides high in the minds of the born rich crowd..they have enough - but they get a kick out of others having absolutely nothing - and if they could - they would have garbage men picking up their waste products for 50 cents an hour..and sleeping at the dump in a ten - that would make the wealthy power mongers - feel important - the fact is they are not any more important than the rest..they all excrete human waste and all consume creating garbage..in the end they are rendered to being human waste - at the crematorium or the burial plot - I just wish that those on top would mature and behave like human beings instead of demi-god - because they are not gods..gods don't poop. They poop like the rest of us - but deny doing so - like a self absorbed fashion model who swears she never excretes..

[Pliny]

Get ur tinfoil hats out! Conservatives WANT you to be poor!

Heh! Heh! just like WIP to expose the conspiracy.

You're right to an extent, but unions are not the solution. If anything, the unions artificially inflate the wages people should be paid in Canada which forces even further production to be moved overseas.

In the long run you are correct. If a business wishes to remain competitive and viable it must meet market costs and demand.

It is only when overseas areas raise their living standards high enough that they can become competitive. that means the people must be secure enough from extortion from the crimmanl element as well as from petty dictators.

It seems those countries that are providing competition are raising their productivity levels and thus their standard of living. Do gooders go in and call it exploitation when they see people working for $1/day when in fact a dollar a day is the best thing that could have happened to the village, it supports three families. I exaggerate, perhaps but there is a time when that labour is difficult in order to establish a hgiher standard. Our grandparents went through it and everyone's ancestors contributed to raising the standard of living if they were at all able to enjoy the fruits of their labour and not have it ripped off by greedy governmental regimes demanding to live off the labour of others, no matter how convincing they are that it is for the collective good.

[Renegade]

Thanks. But whats your point? Is it that its the Unions fault that government doesnt enforce the law? Its the Unions fault that police wont arrest stikers for behaving in an illegal manner? Is the fault that Unions have too much control of the Police? of Management? of government?

No, I'm not blaming Unions. I fully expect that unions will act to maximize their self interest. If there is no enforcement they have no downside for them breaking the law.

What I fault is a system which doesn't work. Laws are supposed to be there to counterbalance the monopoly power unions have, but laws are useless if they aren't enforced. Legislative powers are supposed to be used to balance the power public-sector unions have in witholding necessary services to the public, however those powers are useless if they are rarely or not used.

I'm suggesting a more effective system would be one which ends a union monolopy on public sector labour.

[Moonbox]

With all due respect the unions do exactly what the capitalistic free market lets them do by charging whatever the market will bear for their services. The real issue is not unions at all, but instead cost of production. That is not the fault of the worker, but the problem of the employer. The worker only does as they are told and are paid for what they do. Management or administration is responsible for the business decisions and marketing end of the production equation. Business needs to stop leaning on governments for legislative efforts on their behalf just as much as labour does. Government should concern itself with legislative efforts relevant to public safety and service deliver of its programs.

You're right to an extent, but then you also have to look at how businesses are operated and expanded. When you have a large corporation, or even just a leveraged company, sometimes it costs too much NOT to give into a union's demands. What the market can bear works both ways. It's a matter of what the companies can accept and what workers will accept in the overall market.

Clearly the labour market could support the wages and pay offered by Honda and Toyota. That should be the starting point for any wage negotiations. It's not like they aren't well paid there. $75/hour including benefits at GM was not something the market supported, and thus GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. People weren't willing to pay for $30/hour UAW labour premiums. Unfortunately for us, however, the government stepped in and supported the UAW/CAW's over-generous pensions and consequently it's now the STATE supporting their labor contracts.

Public sector unions are the exact same thing. They should have comparable wages and benefits to the private sector. The private sector is the market benchmark. When Unions hold cities and governments hostage for wage increases over and beyond what the MARKET determines, that's where I feel the need to throw rocks at the striking workers. It's not a case of what the MARKET will bear, but rather what the unions think they can screw the taxpayer's out of.

[WIP]

Get ur tinfoil hats out! Conservatives WANT you to be poor!

And all we need for evidence that conservatives want a more stratified economy is go back to the work of conservative icon - political scientist Leo Strauss, who argued that the majority of people needed to be led, and could not be trusted with too much political or economic freedom. Sociologist Robert Barker points out in his essay, that Strauss was following in the footsteps of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton - two founding fathers who represented the authoritarian wing of the revolutionary movement:

Then, in the 60s and '70s, a group of alarmed conservative ideologues viewed the predominantly middle class US social upheavals as detriments. Women demanding equal pay and reproductive rights, African-Americans standing up for voting rights, working people pushing for fair wages, activists screaming for a clean environment, anti war, all spelled bad news for extreme conservative ideologies.

Suddenly the far right ideologues thought what they were seeing were indications of our social order disintegrating. It confirmed their trepidation, which echoed an alarm of the early founders like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, who argued that augmented democracy could lead to social anarchy. A ruling elite op erating under the "pretext" of democracy loomed as the most steadfast form of government to these people.

And a strong middle strata like we developed in the '60s and '70s meant people had too much time on their hands; and too little fear.

As a sociologist it is obvious to me that the industrial, commercial, service rendering mid social stratification is the hallmark of national economic success. And citizen's standing up for their Constitutional rights is to my thinking very American; to the right wing ideologues it caused trepidation.

In reaction to the liberated sixties enters the philosopher and far right ideologues, disciples of Leo Strauss and his elitist, nihilist, domination theory. Reminiscent of Nietzsche, Strauss beli eved in the ruling eli te or autocracy as the best form of government. Illusions of nationalism morals religion and democracy he taught them to practice, while surreptitiously tearing these populous precepts and paradigms apart.

In the sixties and early seventies {He died in1971} Leo Strauss preached a feigned adherence to the principles of democracy while causing the weakening and ultimate demise of the same.

http://www.populistamerica.com/neocons_leo...he_middle_class

Huge difference. On one hand you have professional societies that set out to ensure their members follow a standard of conduct, diligence and competence so that people feel they can trust and depend on their services. These societies aren't there to collectively nickel and dime companies, but rather to GOVERN the conduct of their members.

Yes! Thank God those lawyers are only concerned with the public good!

You're right to an extent, but unions are not the solution. If anything, the unions artificially inflate the wages people should be paid in Canada which forces even further production to be moved overseas.

Sure, those wages are inflated in comparison with people in China working for a dollar an hour. But manufacturing workers here wouldn't have to compete with desperate throngs in third world countries if our political parties (Liberal and Conservative) hadn't allowed corporations to outsource production and intellectual capital, in the case of India, without any economic penalties.

Most working people are realistic about their expectations, and the unionized workers in steel manufacturing and auto production have made a string of concessions as a result, during the last decade or so. The problems with these industries are being blamed on the Steelworkers Union and the CAW/UAW by greedy corporate elitists; greedy investors only concerned about their share values; and jealous fools working in non-union workplaces who would rather try to knock down everyone who makes more than they do, rather than doing something proactive to improve their working conditions!

[Bonam]

Yes! Thank God those lawyers are only concerned with the public good!

You honestly can't see the difference between a union and a professional association? Unions demand specific pay, benefits, vacation, etc, for their members. They can go on strike as a group. Professional associations do not set pay, they do not demand specific benefits or vacation - these are left to be determined in the contracts between the professionals and their employers. Professional associations cannot go on strike as a group.

The purpose of professional associations is to regulate the members and make sure they follow ethical practices, as well as providing insurance in case of malpractice and ensuring that only appropriately qualified people can claim to be a professional in a given field. The purpose of unions is to ensure the best possible pay, benefits, and working conditions for their members.

Does the distinction really escape you? Have you ever been a member of a professional association?