Worker's Unions and Activism in Foreign Policy

[Evening Star]

After doing some adjunct teaching in NY state, where public sector unions exist but have extremely limited powers (incl no right to strike), and receiving $2000 to teach one class, not being paid on time, having the dept say they'll pay one thing and actually pay something else, etc, I never took Ontario's unions for granted again.

[Evening Star]

Anyway, I can see an argument for wanting e.g. political contributions or foreign policy actions to be ratified by union member votes but not for simply prohibiting unions from taking action on whatever issues they want.

(NB I'm not saying that it's necessarily wise for unions to get involved in e.g. Israeli-Arab conflicts, just that I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.)

[jefferiah]

(incl no right to strike)

You have a right to strike no matter what. You simply leave and say if you want me you have to pay me more. If they don't want to, you have now earned the right to a permanent strike. What makes you think that if you don't like your job you have the right to tell others whether or not they can also choose to work there?

[Evening Star]

The right to suck it up or quit <> the right to strike!

[jefferiah]

The right to suck it up or quit <> the right to strike!

What right do you have to tell someone else he must also strike?

[Bonam]

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?

How exactly does it interfere with any of the fundamental freedoms in section 2? If anything, being forced to join a union in order to be allowed to work is a violation of section 2 (freedom of association), not the other way around.

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.

I didn't get anything from any association. It's just my opinion, based on knowing lot's of people that work / have worked in restaurants. Why did they work in restaurants as opposed to somewhere else? Because they needed flexibility, often scheduled in very impromptu ways, and the restaurant industry is good for providing that.

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

Never said that, I recognize that unions have had some role in the improvement of working conditions.

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.

I don't doubt that laws that don't coerce people into joining unions in order to work in their chosen trades probably reduce the power of unions. I see nothing wrong with that, people who do not want to join a union should not have to do so, especially when some unions these days waste their money on foreign political causes, as in the example in my OP. As for "extremely dangerous" working conditions existing today, in the US, and resulting from the lack of sufficient union power in certain areas...I don't buy it, provide a cite if you want to make such a claim.

[Evening Star]

What makes you think that if you don't like your job you have the right to tell others whether or not they can also choose to work there?

And a majority of union members democratically voting to strike <> Me telling my co-workers what to do based on how I feel about my job

[jefferiah]

And a majority of union members democratically voting to strike <> Me telling my co-workers what to do based on how I feel about my job

So ganging up makes it right then?

The union should certainly have a right to decide democratically what their own course of action will be. What right do they have to decide that for others?

Edited August 29, 2010 by jefferiah

[ToadBrother]

Those things are already illegal.

And the fines surrounding them are considered simply a cost of doing business. Clearly, if you don't want unions involved, perhaps we should step up enforcement, and make the fines considerably higher.

[bush_cheney2004]

And a majority of union members democratically voting to strike <> Me telling my co-workers what to do based on how I feel about my job

...and your co-workers crossing the picket line to tell you what they think about how you "feel".

[ToadBrother]

So ganging up makes it right then?

The union should certainly have a right to decide democratically what their own course of action will be. What right do they have to decide that for others?

But that rather applies to any kind of democracy. Every kind of electoral process is going to have winners and losers.

[jefferiah]

But that rather applies to any kind of democracy. Every kind of electoral process is going to have winners and losers.

Except that a union is not a nation. As far as natural rights go unions ought to be able to form and exist. But what right do they have to say whether or not those outside their club can work or not. Why should the decisions of this so-called democracy apply to those who do not belong to it?

Edited August 29, 2010 by jefferiah

[ToadBrother]

I didn't get anything from any association. It's just my opinion, based on knowing lot's of people that work / have worked in restaurants. Why did they work in restaurants as opposed to somewhere else? Because they needed flexibility, often scheduled in very impromptu ways, and the restaurant industry is good for providing that.

Oh good, the well informed opinion... "Well, I know some people..."

Like I said, I saw the industry from something of an insider seat, and it's a sewer of employer malfeasance. If I had my way, there would be a labor monitor inspector inspecting payroll records twice a year, an an anonymous process for making complaints.

[ToadBrother]

Except that a union is not a nation. As far as natural rights go unions ought to be able to form and exist. But what right do they have to say whether or not those outside their club can work or not.

A non profit board of directors isn't a nation either. Do you think that if the majority votes for something, that the minority should be able to override it?

[Bonam]

Like I said, I saw the industry from something of an insider seat, and it's a sewer of employer malfeasance. If I had my way, there would be a labor monitor inspector inspecting payroll records twice a year, an an anonymous process for making complaints.

Sure, labor monitor away.

As far as natural rights go unions ought to be able to form and exist. But what right do they have to say whether or not those outside their club can work or not.

Exactly!

[Bonam]

A non profit board of directors isn't a nation either. Do you think that if the majority votes for something, that the minority should be able to override it?

In our society, we have a "constitution" that protects minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". We recognize that the majority shouldn't be able to force crap on the minority in many situations.

[jefferiah]

A non profit board of directors isn't a nation either. Do you think that if the majority votes for something, that the minority should be able to override it?

Your argument makes sense (in a sense). But it does not apply here. The minority vote you refer to (or at least the comparable one in your analogy to other democracies) is that of other union members who voted the other way. They chose to part of a democratic union, so as far as union affairs go of course they cannot over ride any decision the union makes democratically. But what gives the union this power over those outside the union?

Edited August 29, 2010 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

In our society, we have a "constitution" that protects minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". We recognize that the majority shouldn't be able to force crap on the minority in many situations.

You do not have to even make this argument Bonam. Since the comparable minority would only be union members who voted for the unpopular choice. He is right that a minority in a democratic vote naturally loses. What he is missing is that their democracy should only have power over itself and those who choose to be members.

[William Ashley]

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?

Its their money... of course.

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'm on the other side, I think all organizations should be deemed corporations including political parties. It is a fine line when businesses are less worthy of tax breaks than a church or group of politically active people. A church involved in harvesting timber should be treated no different than a union doing so, or a business doing so. I staunchy support individuals or corporations, there is no need to define NFP etc.. , if it doesn't make money --- why would it pay taxes? If it does make money you better believe there is some type of service involved... even the government should pay corporate taxes, and no that isn't inane.. and no I don't mean taxes in the form of bonds repayment, and debt servicing.

bear in mind I only support some industries as deserving corporate taxes.. and lobbying wouldn't be defined as one" selling campaign packages would be though. Its not the nature of the business, it is the nature of the businesses product.

This ties into the nature of wealth taxation. Intangibles shouldn't be taxed. Tangibles should be if they are not "free" that is products that are available to everyone. Only tangible production that is distributed for gain should be taxed, or those materials that are transfered to foreign partners or subsideraries.

Edited August 29, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

In our society, we have a "constitution" that protects minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". We recognize that the majority shouldn't be able to force crap on the minority in many situations.

No, in a limited number of situations, not in an infinite number. For instance, you still pay taxes for schools even if you have no children.

[ToadBrother]

Your argument makes sense (in a sense). But it does not apply here. The minority vote you refer to (or at least the comparable one in your analogy to other democracies) is that of other union members who voted the other way. They chose to part of a democratic union, so as far as union affairs go of course they cannot over ride any decision the union makes democratically. But what gives the union this power over those outside the union?

Because you might as well just ban unions if you're going to let them be broken up this way. I won't argue that unions go too far in some things, but the fact is that the only reason they exist is because of abusive practices. If employers can find ways to get some workers out of a union, the union's ability to hold management's ass to the fire decreases rapidly.

But like I said to Bonam, I'd gladly toss away unions if there were much stricter laws, but I doubt the corporate types who want to bust up unions actually want to play by government rules either. Until someone provides a better practical solution, I'm afraid unions are the best we have.

[ToadBrother]

Sure, labor monitor away.

Ah yes, so that we can maintain the system where whistle blowing employees can be fired. Wouldn't actually want to have workers having any rights.

[jefferiah]

Because you might as well just ban unions if you're going to let them be broken up this way. I won't argue that unions go too far in some things, but the fact is that the only reason they exist is because of abusive practices. If employers can find ways to get some workers out of a union, the union's ability to hold management's ass to the fire decreases rapidly.

But like I said to Bonam, I'd gladly toss away unions if there were much stricter laws, but I doubt the corporate types who want to bust up unions actually want to play by government rules either. Until someone provides a better practical solution, I'm afraid unions are the best we have.

Believe it or not, I am not here to give unions and union guys a hard time or anything. Some of my family are union.

[g_bambino]

And the fines surrounding them are considered simply a cost of doing business. Clearly, if you don't want unions involved, perhaps we should step up enforcement, and make the fines considerably higher.

I never said I don't want unions involved (though, having worked in a couple of restaurants myself, Bonam raises some valid points against them in the restaurant industry); in fact, I think I've said more than once now that unions aren't useless. But, sure, punishment for employee abuse could also be more severe.

[c/e]

Edited August 29, 2010 by g_bambino

[capricorn]

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.

At its 1991 Triennial Convention, the Public Service Alliance had budgeted $2M for collective bargaining. Of course, those funds were collected through membership dues. When public service bargaining was suspended in the 90s, the PSAC leadership decided that the $2M would be spent campaigning for certain candidates and against certain candidates running in the 1993 federal election. The idea of refunding the money to members was rejected because it was thought the amount of the refund would have been too small. So the $2M was spent on political activism. As would be expected, most members were oblivious to what was going on and those in the know didn't have a word to say about it. I'm sure things have not changed.