Worker's Unions and Activism in Foreign Policy

[Bonam]

I was just reading this article:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/27/full-comment-forum-canadian-posties-pay-for-unions-anti-israel-policies/

It is about the Canadian postal workers union's preoccupation with foreign policy, even as they scale back and fail to modernize service in Canada. Should unions be allowed to spend their money on political activism, especially foreign political activism? I think the role of unions needs to be strictly defined: they should be looking after their members and stfu about everything else, most especially foreign policy. If I had a union job and the union leaders were spewing this kind of crap, I'd probably quit.

[Jack Weber]

On foreign policy issues,I tend to agree...

How 'bout being able to comment on economic policy that directly affects the standard of living of union,and non-union workers,alike?

Or how 'bout RTW?

Edited August 28, 2010 by Jack Weber

[scribblet]

IMO they should not be allowed to spend union dues on political activism, unless it is specifically related to labour issues. Not sure if things have changed but a union employee should be able to opt out of at least some portion of union dues if they object to their money going to a political cause they disagree with.

Unions should stick to protecting and helping their employees.

[g_bambino]

Should unions be allowed to spend their money on political activism, especially foreign political activism?

It seems an awful waste of both their time and money, driven more by an arrogant belief on the part of unions that they have themselves attained the position of quasi-sovereign governments than it is by any sense of charitable duty. However, it's their money, collected from their members, so they should be able to spend it on what they want.

[Wild Bill]

It seems an awful waste of both their time and money, driven more by an arrogant belief on the part of unions that they have themselves attained the position of quasi-sovereign governments than it is by any sense of charitable duty. However, it's their money, collected from their members, so they should be able to spend it on what they want.

I disagree! Canadian organizations acting in foreign environments reflect on our country as a whole. Worse yet, they tend to claim the will of a far larger percentage of Canadian citizens than they are entitled. The perception the world sees is that Canada's people believe contrary to the policies of their legitimate government.

Unions represent their own members and nobody else! What's more, when they take international political stands they NEVER represent even the majority of their own members!

All these unions are accomplishing is diminishing Canada's stature on the world stage. If there isn't some law to charge them with then there damn well should be!

If these union apparatchiks want political power then they should run for office and let citizens VOTE for them!

Of course, it's obvious they know that if they did, they would never win. That's why they use these back door, sneaky techniques.

[Topaz]

Well, majority rules and I haven't heard anyone in the union say anything against but not to worry Harper has the backing of the Jewish Canadians, at least , he did until the long census came up.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, majority rules and I haven't heard anyone in the union say anything against but not to worry Harper has the backing of the Jewish Canadians, at least , he did until the long census came up.

So what is significant about the "Jewish" Canadians over all others?

[Argus]

Well, majority rules and I haven't heard anyone in the union say anything against but not to worry Harper has the backing of the Jewish Canadians, at least , he did until the long census came up.

What the hell do Jews have to do with this subject??

[g_bambino]

Canadian organizations acting in foreign environments reflect on our country as a whole. Worse yet, they tend to claim the will of a far larger percentage of Canadian citizens than they are entitled. The perception the world sees is that Canada's people believe contrary to the policies of their legitimate government.

I'm sympathetic to your complaints, but I don't think Crown imposed restrictions on speech and spending will solve anything; in fact, my feeling is that it would simply cause even more problems. The root of the issue seems to me to lie with the combined facts that such unions have grown to an immense size while simultaneously becoming more and more redundant; some unions have multiple tens of thousands of members and encompass not only multiple companies but multiple professions as well, yet legislation has long ago enshrined the rights of workers. What else are leaders of such immense organisations supposed to do to make themselves appear useful but crusade for frivolous luxuries as though they were stolen entitlements and meddle in ever bigger political causes as though they were a government on par with the country's?

I doubt anyone outside of the union (and probably a few within the union itself) takes this posturing very seriously. But, limiting the size and scope of unions might go a long way towards ensuring the present situation doesn't get any worse.

I hear the Lady Thatcher isn't presently employed...

[sp]

Edited August 28, 2010 by g_bambino

[Argus]

It is about the Canadian postal workers union's preoccupation with foreign policy, even as they scale back and fail to modernize service in Canada. Should unions be allowed to spend their money on political activism, especially foreign political activism? I think the role of unions needs to be strictly defined: they should be looking after their members and stfu about everything else, most especially foreign policy. If I had a union job and the union leaders were spewing this kind of crap, I'd probably quit.

I agree completely.

I belong to a union, The Union of Taxation Employees, which is a component of The Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Now I used to be one of those who had no time for unions. A lifetime ago. But after working in the private sector most of my life and being subjected to the arbitrary changes in working conditions, shift hours, not to mention unfair and sometimes arbitrary discipline, I did find some comfort on joining a union. The government has its share of idiot managers, directors and executives, and having someone to negotiate and intercede with them is often useful.

But... I have no use for those who climb the union hierarchy with the means of using their union positions to campaign on behalf of anything other than their members' direct interests. I don't need my union using my money on behalf of anyone other than me. If I want to donate money to whomever I can do that myself.

Have a look at the PSAC web site and tell me how many of these items you think are directly related to their members needs.

PSAC

Regardless of whether you think helping Pakistan, new immigrants, gay rights, or whatever, are good causes, a union should not be involving itself and using member funds on behalf of people who may or may not agree.

By comparison the UTE web site is primarily dedicated to union business. UTE

I've held discussions with senior UTE people over the last couple of years over various issues, and they seem to generally have an eye-rolling dismissal of PSAC and all its campaigns and political agitation.

[Bonam]

The root of the issue seems to me to lie with the combined facts that such unions have grown to an immense size while simultaneously becoming more and more redundant; some unions have multiple tens of thousands of members and encompass not only multiple companies but multiple professions as well, yet legislation has long ago enshrined the rights of workers. What else are leaders of such immense organisations supposed to do to make themselves appear useful but crusade for frivolous luxuries as though they were stolen entitlements and meddle in ever bigger political causes as though they were a government on par with the country's?

I doubt anyone outside of the union (and probably a few within the union itself) takes this posturing very seriously. But, limiting the size and scope of unions might go a long way towards ensuring the present situation doesn't get any worse.

Agreed. I'm all for limiting the size and scope of unions. I also think we should look at "open shop" rules along the lines of those used in some US states, where employees cannot be required to join or pay union dues in order to work for a certain employer. The union can still exist and look after its members, but those who wish to work outside it are allowed to do so.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

Agreed. I'm all for limiting the size and scope of unions. I also think we should look at "open shop" rules along the lines of those used in some US states, where employees cannot be required to join or pay union dues in order to work for a certain employer. The union can still exist and look after its members, but those who wish to work outside it are allowed to do so.

That does, however, undermine unions pretty considerably. It gives management considerable latitude to break unions' balls.

If we had much harsher labor laws, we might not need unions so much. I still think workers should have some far more serious protections against abuses, and employers have far more potent civil and criminal punishments imposed where they do things abusive to their employees. Look at the restaurant industry. There's an industry in desperate need of unionization.

[charter.rights]

Argus said:

I don't need my union using my money on behalf of anyone other than me.

You have every right to attend your local union meetings and express that viewpoint. However, unless you participate in the union process and volunteer your point of views, you don't get a say it what happens to the money they hold. That is just how democracy works.

[Bonam]

Look at the restaurant industry. There's an industry in desperate need of unionization.

Unionization of the restaurant industry would be a disaster. People working as waiters/waitresses need flexibility, the option to work just a little some days, a lot other days, the ability to informally trade shifts with their colleagues, the ability to be rewarded with tips if they do a good job, etc. Unions stand for none of these things. They just add new layers of bureaucracy, procedure, requirements. It would be pretty much impossible for a student to be able to arrange working as a waiter at a restaurant while having flexible hours for classes and school work if they had to do it within a unionized framework. Not to mention most restaurants barely turn a profit, barely scrape along; the costs of unionization and the related administrative burdens would force many out of business, while forcing others to raise their costs.

And of course the union dues, sucked forcefully out of the indebted students working at the restaurants, would be donated to some Palestinian flotilla group or something, or whatever else the pet issue of the day would be for the union leaders. Nothing but a disaster if you ask me.

[PIK]

What the hell do Jews have to do with this subject??

When in doubt blame the jews. But why is the postal people so worried about the palastines getting mail ,when the don't give a shit about canadian mail when the go on strike 2 weeks before christmas. There should be mass firing over this.

[Jack Weber]

Agreed. I'm all for limiting the size and scope of unions. I also think we should look at "open shop" rules along the lines of those used in some US states, where employees cannot be required to join or pay union dues in order to work for a certain employer. The union can still exist and look after its members, but those who wish to work outside it are allowed to do so.

So your for legislated union busting?

Because you're advocating for RTW/Open Shop,which is what RTW was design for...

Have you ever asked yourself who is behind the RTW movement in the US?

Edited August 28, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Shwa]

I was just reading this article:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/27/full-comment-forum-canadian-posties-pay-for-unions-anti-israel-policies/

It is about the Canadian postal workers union's preoccupation with foreign policy, even as they scale back and fail to modernize service in Canada. Should unions be allowed to spend their money on political activism, especially foreign political activism? I think the role of unions needs to be strictly defined: they should be looking after their members and stfu about everything else, most especially foreign policy. If I had a union job and the union leaders were spewing this kind of crap, I'd probably quit.

Very interesting question Bonam. So then are you arguing that, when it comes to the subject of unions, "Funadmental Freedoms" in Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should actually be more of a 'Fundamental-ish Sort of Freedoms? And if so, would you exempt banks from such "foreign policy" comments?

[ToadBrother]

Unionization of the restaurant industry would be a disaster. People working as waiters/waitresses need flexibility, the option to work just a little some days, a lot other days, the ability to informally trade shifts with their colleagues, the ability to be rewarded with tips if they do a good job, etc.

Oh give me a break. Where did you get that, Canadian Restaurant Association? I've seen the sorts of employer abuses; unpaid time, abuse of split shifts, refusal to pay overtime, wrongful dismissals, the list goes on and on. You act like the restaurant industry is some sort of worker's paradise. That's bullcrap.

Unions stand for none of these things. They just add new layers of bureaucracy, procedure, requirements. It would be pretty much impossible for a student to be able to arrange working as a waiter at a restaurant while having flexible hours for classes and school work if they had to do it within a unionized framework. Not to mention most restaurants barely turn a profit, barely scrape along; the costs of unionization and the related administrative burdens would force many out of business, while forcing others to raise their costs.

And of course the union dues, sucked forcefully out of the indebted students working at the restaurants, would be donated to some Palestinian flotilla group or something, or whatever else the pet issue of the day would be for the union leaders. Nothing but a disaster if you ask me.

Of course. Unions are just evils. People would be better off without them.

What I see is an industry renowned for its abuses of employees. If the government won't force employers into compliance, then maybe the threat of wide-spread unionization might.

[Jack Weber]

Oh give me a break. Where did you get that, Canadian Restaurant Association? I've seen the sorts of employer abuses; unpaid time, abuse of split shifts, refusal to pay overtime, wrongful dismissals, the list goes on and on. You act like the restaurant industry is some sort of worker's paradise. That's bullcrap.

Of course. Unions are just evils. People would be better off without them.

What I see is an industry renowned for its abuses of employees. If the government won't force employers into compliance, then maybe the threat of wide-spread unionization might.

Precisely...

Employers bring on unionization through poor labour practices...Not the other way around as the free marketeers would have everyone believe...

[g_bambino]

I've seen the sorts of employer abuses; unpaid time, abuse of split shifts, refusal to pay overtime, wrongful dismissals, the list goes on and on.

Those things are already illegal.

Of course. Unions are just evils. People would be better off without them.

Who said that?

[+]

Edited August 28, 2010 by g_bambino

[jefferiah]

Because you're advocating for RTW

You make this sound like a bad thing. What right do you have to tell me or my employer that I cannot work unless I'm part of your little club?

[Argus]

Agreed. I'm all for limiting the size and scope of unions. I also think we should look at "open shop" rules along the lines of those used in some US states, where employees cannot be required to join or pay union dues in order to work for a certain employer. The union can still exist and look after its members, but those who wish to work outside it are allowed to do so.

You realize the "open shop" concept was specifically designed to bust unions, and has been quite succesful at it?

Partly as a result, working conditions in many US private sector areas underserved by unions are extremly dangerous.

[Argus]

Argus said:

You have every right to attend your local union meetings and express that viewpoint. However, unless you participate in the union process and volunteer your point of views, you don't get a say it what happens to the money they hold. That is just how democracy works.

That's nice in theory. But I can tell you from what the people fairly high up in my union say, the big shots ignore everyone. They're in pursuit of their own political agenda, and since there isn't any direct voting they don't really care what the ordinary workers say, or even the lower ranking people within the union, such as shop stewards.

[Evening Star]

Those things are already illegal.

[+]

It can be hard to take on a large corporation or govt department on your own, though, even if laws are written on paper somewhere.

[g_bambino]

It can be hard to take on a large corporation or govt department on your own, though, even if laws are written on paper somewhere.

Well, we were talking about restaurants, specifically. But, otherwise, I personally never said unions are useless. I just think too many have grown too big.