Jack Weber Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 Who says I am thinking of leaving any community or breaking any law? I am simply arguing in favor of allowing people to attain certain positions without being required to join a union. Employers should be able to make a contract with anyone. And anyone should be able to accept. So for instance I am not talking about leaving a union. I am talking about being a member of the political community who advocates for this freedom, all the meanwhile lawfully going about my business. What effect would this unfettered free agency have on the overall wages and benefit plans in any given industry over a 10 to 15 year period??? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
jefferiah Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 (edited) What effect would this unfettered free agency have on the overall wages and benefit plans in any given industry over a 10 to 15 year period??? How should I know? No one does. You might think you can make a good guess. You may be right. What right do you have to tell the owner of a business who would willingly hire me he cannot employ me because I am not union, and that I cannot work there because I do not belong to your club? That is the question! Ah anyways we will leave this one for another day. Enjoy your football Jack Edited August 29, 2010 by jefferiah Quote "Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling will spoil it." Lao Tzu
Jack Weber Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 (edited) How should I know? No one does. You might think you can make a good guess. You may be right. What right do you have to tell the owner of a business who would willingly hire me he cannot employ me because I am not union, and that I cannot work their because I do not belong to your club? That is the question! Oh...We already have the answer,and it's the one the free marketeering corporate class has been begging for years.. Essentially,a bunch of free agents out there,selling their skills by undercutting each other... That,coupled with global neoliberal economics,has the industrialized world in a state of wage stagnation and a lowering of our standard of living... And again,for the 5th time... You have no right to bust my union local,and your selfish self interest should not supercede the democratic will of the majority,in that case...You do have the right to work where ever you want in a non unionized environment...And that should'nt be hard siince almost 90% of the private workforce is unorganized... Edited August 29, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 Employers have almost all the power in any employee/employer relationship,union or not... I doubt that. I was talking to a friend of mine who manages 2 McDonalds stores about getting rid of undisreable employees.. She said it's almost impossible to do because of Human Rights commissions and thins like that...No union involved at all... I find it hard to believe that if an employee is screwing up that there's much risk of a human rights investigation. Can someone cite the last time someone was fired from McDonald's in Canada and got into such an investigation? And yes,if you have a strike vote and you end up with a 90% mandate for a strike,you could go out on strike... Sadly,for the 10% that did'nt want to,they have to go out also...Unless they want to be scabs and then we are in to another area... That's democracy. Quote
Jack Weber Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 (edited) I doubt that. I find it hard to believe that if an employee is screwing up that there's much risk of a human rights investigation. Can someone cite the last time someone was fired from McDonald's in Canada and got into such an investigation? That's democracy. She's in upper management of an umbrella company that owns a few stores... Her words exactly... "Unless I literally catch someone doing lines of blow on the counter next to the cash register,it is almost impossible to fire someone without giving them the benefit od the doubt first"... Taken from someone in upper management,so take it for what it's worth... As far as the employer/employee power dynamic goes,our local is in a situation right now(the specifics of that I'm not going to go into in a public forum)...Suffice to say,the employer can do whatever he/she wants because,at the end of the day,it's their business... Edited August 29, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 She's in upper management of an umbrella company that owns a few stores... Her words exactly... "Unless I literally catch someone doing lines of blow on the counter next to the cash register,it is almost impossible to fire someone without giving them the benefit od the doubt first"... Taken from someone in upper management,so take it for what it's worth... One of my kids works at McDonald's. People get canned there on occasion, and not for snorting cocaine. As far as the employer/employee power dynamic goes,our local is in a situation right now(the specifics of that I'm not going to go into in a public forum)...Suffice to say,the employer can do whatever he/she wants because,at the end of the day,it's their business... That is often the case. In the restaurant industry fines from violating labor laws are seen as a cost of doing business. They pay it out, and continue on their merry way. The only time I saw a restaurant personally get nailed was for failing to remit payroll deductions. You can screw your employees into the ground, but don't bugger up the tax man. Quote
Jack Weber Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 (edited) One of my kids works at McDonald's. People get canned there on occasion, and not for snorting cocaine. That is often the case. In the restaurant industry fines from violating labor laws are seen as a cost of doing business. They pay it out, and continue on their merry way. The only time I saw a restaurant personally get nailed was for failing to remit payroll deductions. You can screw your employees into the ground, but don't bugger up the tax man. Over 20 years ago,I worked under this woman at Micky D's...She said back then it was alot easier to can someone over alot less of an infraction.Now,it seems to be alot more difficult..That was her position... I cannot speak to the restaurant business,but it's well known that the service sector is where alot of employer abuse occurs.I work in blue collar manufacturing.As you can imagine,the employer/employee realtionship can get more than a little ugly... Edited August 29, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
charter.rights Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 If that goes away,as the free marketeers want,how long before the basic labour standards unions have fought for for the last 70 years go away?? It is already happening. Migrant workers and immigrants are taking lower paying unregulated jobs and their employers are putting them at risk. And then of course we have Walmart...... Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
ToadBrother Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 What right do you have to tell the owner of a business who would willingly hire me he cannot employ me because I am not union, and that I cannot work there because I do not belong to your club? Business owners don't have infinite latitude in hiring either. You can't hire a foreign national unless he or she has appropriate working papers, for instance. Quote
Shady Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 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. Most restaurants aren't large corporations. They're small businesses. Quote
Argus Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 (edited) 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. So do you feel also that people shouldn't be coerced into paying for local government services they don't need or want, and feel. That, in effect, they are FORCED to join a city or town, participate, whether they vote or not, in the community rules and regulatory framework, and be taxed accordingly? Should they be permitted to opt out? )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. Look up a company called British Petroleum some time. Edited August 29, 2010 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 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? What right do your neighbours have to decide whether you can use pesticides on your lawn or what colour you can paint your house or how high the fence can be? What right do they have to tell you whether you can burn leaves in the back yard or turn your music up so loud it can be heard blocks away? I mean, you didn't choose to join their little community governmental organization. Why should you be required to pay into it and abide by its rules just because you live in that area? Whether you like unions or not they are generally the only non corporate source of power and protection for individual workers. When corporations gather together in industry lobby groups and bribe politicians to cut back safety, health and worker protection laws, and to allow them to have free reign to pollute the environment, we call that capitalism? Certainly none of the people so critical of unions seem to object overmuch. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 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. But in most situations the majority does, in fact, get to force crap on the minority. Whatever your city council decides, you have no choice but to go along with, like it or not. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 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. I was forced to be "citizen" of Ottawa when the provincial government amalgamated my town with it. The city is grossly inefficient and has very high taxes. It provides particularly poor services for those of us beyond the core, lousy to non-existing transit, sparse, and incompetent policing - and yet we have no choice. We're not allowed to opt out. We're not allowed to say we refuse to vote or pay taxes or abide by your ridiculous bylaws. If we try they'll take our property away or put us in jail. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 What right do your neighbours have to decide whether you can use pesticides on your lawn or what colour you can paint your house or how high the fence can be? What right do they have to tell you whether you can burn leaves in the back yard or turn your music up so loud it can be heard blocks away? I mean, you didn't choose to join their little community governmental organization. Why should you be required to pay into it and abide by its rules just because you live in that area? Whether you like unions or not they are generally the only non corporate source of power and protection for individual workers. When corporations gather together in industry lobby groups and bribe politicians to cut back safety, health and worker protection laws, and to allow them to have free reign to pollute the environment, we call that capitalism? Certainly none of the people so critical of unions seem to object overmuch. I'm in agreement here. While I can't support everything unions do, and some unions are outrageously militant, at the same time they came into existence because governments alone were unwilling or unable to assure basic issues like safety and pay. Unions are like anything, some good, some bad, and most in multiple points on that scale. But without them, then what? And make no mistake, you remove the universal requirements and allowed mixed shops, you've just killed the union. Until someone can point out a suitable replacement that guarantees worker rights, unions are what we've got. And if they decide to send money abroad on ludicrous schemes, well, the membership do ultimately vote, so let them vote. This is like saying democracy is bad because the government made a law I didn't like. Quote
Argus Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 I realize that is how a democracy works. I have said so already. The point is why should this democracy have any power over anyone else but itself. Because it won't work otherwise. If you have half the people in a municipality opting out, refusing to pay taxes or participate, how the hell do you operate? How do you build roads? How do you control things? How do you fund things? If everyone who had no kids could opt out of paying school fees what would become of the schools? If everyone who didn't use public transit could opt out of paying, or everyone who lived right downtown and could walk to work could opt out of paying for roads and highways, well, it just wouldn't work. Similarly, unions don't work if a large number of workers can opt out while still retaining most of the benefits derived from union membership. If I had to pay union dues while the guy working next to me didn't, but we made the same money, well, why would I pay union dues? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Jack Weber Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 I'm in agreement here. While I can't support everything unions do, and some unions are outrageously militant, at the same time they came into existence because governments alone were unwilling or unable to assure basic issues like safety and pay. Unions are like anything, some good, some bad, and most in multiple points on that scale. But without them, then what? And make no mistake, you remove the universal requirements and allowed mixed shops, you've just killed the union. Until someone can point out a suitable replacement that guarantees worker rights, unions are what we've got. And if they decide to send money abroad on ludicrous schemes, well, the membership do ultimately vote, so let them vote. This is like saying democracy is bad because the government made a law I didn't like. That was a Babe Ruth tape measure blast out of the park!!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Argus Posted August 29, 2010 Report Posted August 29, 2010 I doubt that. Never been employed? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Evening Star Posted August 30, 2010 Report Posted August 30, 2010 Most restaurants aren't large corporations. They're small businesses. I guess I was thinking more about chains (where the situation is still probably better). Still, it is hard even to have to take on a small business on your own through the legal system, considering that you need to work in the meantime. ToadBrother, Argus, and Jack Weber have been arguing the union case quite well. Since this argument interests me, I brought it up on another board. These are some additional points people raised: "Since my taxes go into stocks now through CPP then in fact I am now being forced to provide money to anti-union organizations." "Canadian law generally requires employees in a unionized workplace to pay dues - not to join the union - because they benefit from the uniform wages, benefits etc. enshrined in the collective agreements bargained by the union. Even then, there is an exception based on religious belief, which allows the money to go to a charity instead." Quote
capricorn Posted August 30, 2010 Report Posted August 30, 2010 "Canadian law generally requires employees in a unionized workplace to pay dues - not to join the union - because they benefit from the uniform wages, benefits etc. enshrined in the collective agreements bargained by the union. It's called the Rand formula. In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off) is a workplace situation where the payment of trade union dues is mandatory regardless of the worker's union status. This formula is designed to ensure that no employee will opt out of the union simply to avoid dues yet reap the benefits of the union's accomplishments (such as ensuring higher wages, better job security or other benefits). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula Even then, there is an exception based on religious belief, which allows the money to go to a charity instead." I am aware of such an exemption for federal employees, but it is not applied in all cases. David MacDonald and Susan Comstock, both Catholics, objected to their union's stance on same sex marriage, tried to have their union dues diverted to a charity. Both were unsuccessful in the courts and at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Jack Weber Posted August 30, 2010 Report Posted August 30, 2010 It's called the Rand formula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula I am aware of such an exemption for federal employees, but it is not applied in all cases. David MacDonald and Susan Comstock, both Catholics, objected to their union's stance on same sex marriage, tried to have their union dues diverted to a charity. Both were unsuccessful in the courts and at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We've had guys who were Mennonites who objected to the union local on a religious basis...They had their dues donated to charity and got the tax deduction,as well... I would also say they had the decency(sp) to not really use the union apparatus for anything... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
capricorn Posted August 30, 2010 Report Posted August 30, 2010 I would also say they had the decency(sp) to not really use the union apparatus for anything... That's the right thing to do. But...if they had solid grounds to file a grievance they'd be up shit creek. That is, unless the local is of the forgiving type. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Jack Weber Posted August 30, 2010 Report Posted August 30, 2010 That's the right thing to do. But...if they had solid grounds to file a grievance they'd be up shit creek. That is, unless the local is of the forgiving type. No dues...No assistance... You wanna be a free agent,deal with your "friends" yourself...However,these guys were'nt really troublemakers...And...For an added bonus...They had members of their church in the front office... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
dre Posted August 30, 2010 Report Posted August 30, 2010 Both Unions AND Corporations should not be able to spend money on politicing without a binding vote by their membership (shareholders in the case of corporations) affirming each expenditure. And none of these people should be allowed to talk to our government AT ALL unless the cameras are rolling and the public can see every single word said. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
ToadBrother Posted August 30, 2010 Report Posted August 30, 2010 Both Unions AND Corporations should not be able to spend money on politicing without a binding vote by their membership (shareholders in the case of corporations) affirming each expenditure. And none of these people should be allowed to talk to our government AT ALL unless the cameras are rolling and the public can see every single word said. Someday I'll have to point out this thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to you... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.