Worker's Unions and Activism in Foreign Policy

[capricorn]

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.

The role unions have given themselves has expanded into areas that are outside their primary mandate. Political activism now seems an integral part of their operations. When you think about it, Canadian taxpayers subsidize some of this extra curricular activity. Union dues are tax deductible and reduce union members' taxable income, money that would otherwise make its way into the Treasury. The union, on the other hand, gets the full amount of the union dues collected from its membership.

[Jack Weber]

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?

I'll answer that with another question...

What right do you have to break my union local because you don't want to pay for it,yet take advantage of the assistance and protection it provides?

[Jack Weber]

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?

Yuo do realize that strikes,like contracts,are voted on democratically right?

[jefferiah]

I'll answer that with another question...

What right do you have to break my union local because you don't want to pay for it,yet take advantage of the assistance and protection it provides?

That makes no sense whatsoever. If I am not asking for your help in the first place, why are you upset if the employer gives me an equal wage. I am not demanding a wage increase. It matters not whether another person incidentally benefits from an action you have taken on behalf of yourself. This person owes you nothing.

It is like asking what right do you have to run me out of business by not shopping at my store?

Edited August 29, 2010 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Yuo do realize that strikes,like contracts,are voted on democratically right?

Yes, you are missing the point. The democracy is the union itself. So basically by the act of forming a union you have forced others who wish to be employed in this career to belong to the club, to strike when they decide to. The union can be a democracy all it wants and vote on what course of action the union ought to take. That's all fine and good. But they do not own the business. What right do they have to say who the employer can hire and who is allowed to work there?

Edited August 29, 2010 by jefferiah

[Jack Weber]

That makes no sense whatsoever. If I am not asking for your help in the first place, why are you upset if the employer gives me an equal wage.

It makes perfect sense..And you clearly don't understand what the provisions of Right to Work legislation entail...

You say it's unfair that you might be having money "extorted" by an organization you don't want to belong to..That's always the arguement the free marketeers use...

Fair enough...

In most RTW states,not only does the worker have the right to opt out of representation,and paying dues...

But the union local is still obliged to represent the individual if he,ot she, files a grievance(just and example).They must represent so well to the point that if that individual feels they were misrepresented,they can sue that union local that they pay no dues to.

Could you tell me how fair your RTW workers paradise is again?

How is it you should be able to have the legislative hammer to wreck my union local?

Edited August 29, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Yes, you are missing the point. The democracy is the union itself. So basically by the act of forming a union you have forced others who wish to be employed in this career to belong to the club, to strike when they decide to. The union can be a democracy all it wants and vote on what course of action the union ought to take. That's all fine and good. But they do not own the business. What right do they have to say who the employer can hire and who is allowed to work there?

Employers have almost all the power in any employee/employer relationship,union or not...

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...

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...

Edited August 29, 2010 by Jack Weber

[jefferiah]

It makes perfect sense..And you clearly don't understand what the provisions of Right to Work legislation entail...

You say it's unfair that you might be having money "extorted" by an organization you don't want to belong to..That's always the arguement the free marketeers use...

Fair enough...

In most RTW states,not only does the worker have the right to opt out of representation,and paying dues...

But the union local is still obliged to represent the individual if he,ot she, files a grievance(just and example).They must represent so well to the point that if that individual feels they were misrepresented,they can sue that union local that they pay no dues to.

Could you tell me how fair your RTW workers paradise again?

How is it you should be able to have the legislative hammer to wreck my union local?

I disagree with the second part. I am aware of that. However, I am using the term right to work in the literal sense of the word. RIGHT TO WORK. That's it.

[Jack Weber]

That makes no sense whatsoever. If I am not asking for your help in the first place, why are you upset if the employer gives me an equal wage. I am not demanding a wage increase. It matters not whether another person incidentally benefits from an action you have taken on behalf of yourself. This person owes you nothing.

It is like asking what right do you have to run me out of business by not shopping at my store?

Completely incorrect again...

Most union locals have proposal meetings long before contract time to vote on what exactly the issues that local will collectively bargain on...

Everyone knows what the score is going in....

[jefferiah]

Employers have almost all the power in any employee/employer relationship,union or not...

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...

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...

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.

[jefferiah]

Completely incorrect again...

Most union locals have proposal meetings long before contract time to vote on what exactly the issues that local will collectively bargain on...

Everyone knows what the score is going in....

I think you are misreading me entirely.

[Argus]

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?

By living in a community we cede a certain amount of our freedom in the interests of the general welfare and well-being of that community. This is done because, one way or another, we all benefit from the community's health. You might have no children, but you're obligated to pay for public education. Do you benefit? Well yes, because without it the next generation would not be able to maintain the community in which you live, and things would fall apart. You don't get to say you won't contribute to public education, or public transit because you don't use it. You benefit from its existance regardless.

Likewise, the union benefits everyone. What employer is going to pay non union staff significantly less than they do union staff who do the same work when that non-union staff is free to join the union any time they want? So whatever the union fights for, strikes for, the non-union staff get to benefit from without doing any work or contributing any dues. That's simply not fair. And of course, the lower the number of actual union members the weaker their bargaining position, in which case everyone gets less.

[Jack Weber]

I disagree with the second part. I am aware of that. However, I am using the term right to work in the literal sense of the word. RIGHT TO WORK. That's it.

You can disagree with it all you want...

It's the truth and it's not my fault you don't know this...

I suggest you look up RTW provisions in places like Alabama,Florida,South Carolina,Tennessee,Mississippi,Louisiana,West Virgina,Virgina,Akansas,North Carolina,Kentucky,and, almost all the Mid-Western states...

That's the way the law reads in most of those states,and that's what your advocating for...

Would you like a little information on wage and benefit disparity in RTW states as it relates to Closed Shop states?

Everyone has the right to work...And if you don't like the "extortion" of your money by an organization you feel you don't need to represent you,you have a very clear and easy choice..."Choice" is the buzzword the free marketeers like to use....

Simply quit,go down the road to the non-union shop that does the same work...Most likely take less money,have a poorer benny plan,and,be more likely to be injured and/or killed on the job...But do that on principle and not bust a union that others want to belong to...You should absolutely no right to bust a union...

[jefferiah]

You can disagree with it all you want...

It's the truth and it's not my fault you don't know this...

You still do not understand what I am saying.

I realize it is a part of the RTW legislation in the US. Who says that RTW has to be anything more than RTW? I disagree with the second clause. That should make you a bit happier. Shouldn't it.

[Jack Weber]

I think you are misreading me entirely.

No...I think I've read you take perfectly...

You feel you should havethe right to be a free agent an get whatever wage you want,keep the money you earn,and,not be encumbered by any workers organization...

And I agree with you...

What I don't agree with is you,as an individual,having the legal right to assist in the financial demise of my union local and still having the legal right to take advantage of things you don't want to pay for...

That is wrong,it's unfair,and, and it's nothing more than legislated union busting...

[Shwa]

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.

But your questions weren't about being force to join unions, they were about restricting what unions could do which, to me, could raise quite a few Charter questions about the fundamental freedoms regarding freedom of conscience, thought, belief or opinion:

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.

Now if you want to throw the 'forced into a union' red herring on the trail, that is fine. But my question this stands with regard to the OP.

[Jack Weber]

You still do not understand what I am saying.

I realize it is a part of the RTW legislation in the US. Who says that RTW has to be anything more than RTW? I disagree with the second clause. That should make you a bit happier. Shouldn't it.

Yes it does...

However you have a choice...Find work in a non union shop...That should'nt be that hard because only something like 10% of the private workforce is organized anymore...

Do you think there is a direct corelation between the decline in union membership since 1979 and the relative decline in our standard of living since then???

[jefferiah]

By living in a community we cede a certain amount of our freedom in the interests of the general welfare and well-being of that community. This is done because, one way or another, we all benefit from the community's health. You might have no children, but you're obligated to pay for public education. Do you benefit? Well yes, because without it the next generation would not be able to maintain the community in which you live, and things would fall apart. You don't get to say you won't contribute to public education, or public transit because you don't use it. You benefit from its existance regardless.

Likewise members in a community also speak their opinion. So for instance if public opinion were to shift in favor of Bonam and I, the community would have the power to decide if they like our view better. And ensuing changes could be made. That is what we do here at MLW isn't it?

[Jack Weber]

By living in a community we cede a certain amount of our freedom in the interests of the general welfare and well-being of that community. This is done because, one way or another, we all benefit from the community's health. You might have no children, but you're obligated to pay for public education. Do you benefit? Well yes, because without it the next generation would not be able to maintain the community in which you live, and things would fall apart. You don't get to say you won't contribute to public education, or public transit because you don't use it. You benefit from its existance regardless.

Likewise, the union benefits everyone. What employer is going to pay non union staff significantly less than they do union staff who do the same work when that non-union staff is free to join the union any time they want? So whatever the union fights for, strikes for, the non-union staff get to benefit from without doing any work or contributing any dues. That's simply not fair. And of course, the lower the number of actual union members the weaker their bargaining position, in which case everyone gets less.

Well said,Big Giant Head!!!

Trickle Down Economics works both way,does'nt it?

Of course,the neoliberal Friedmanites don't want to admit that bcause it goes against their free market ethos.

The union wage and benefit plan sets the bar in almost every industry.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??

[Argus]

Likewise members in a community also speak their opinion. So for instance if public opinion were to shift in favor of Bonam and I, the community would have the power to decide if they like our view better. And ensuing changes could be made. That is what we do here at MLW isn't it?

Yes, but you don't get to opt out of the community except by leaving. You don't get to say "Well, I think the city is being run by idiots, and I've had it with them. I don't need their services so I'm not going to be paying taxes to it any more." It just doesn't work that way. You benefit from the services of the community, you benefit from the existence, from the organization, and so whether you like it or not you pay taxes to it and you have to abide by the laws and rules, however dumb you think they are.

[Jack Weber]

Likewise members in a community also speak their opinion. So for instance if public opinion were to shift in favor of Bonam and I, the community would have the power to decide if they like our view better. And ensuing changes could be made. That is what we do here at MLW isn't it?

Frankly,your side has spoken,and it has essentially won...

And so goes our standard of living over the last 30 years...

[Jack Weber]

Yes, but you don't get to opt out of the community except by leaving. You don't get to say "Well, I think the city is being run by idiots, and I've had it with them. I don't need their services so I'm not going to be paying taxes to it any more." It just doesn't work that way. You benefit from the services of the community, you benefit from the existence, from the organization, and so whether you like it or not you pay taxes to it and you have to abide by the laws and rules, however dumb you think they are.

It where the phrase "Not paying your dues" comes from....

[jefferiah]

That's the way the law reads in most of those states,and that's what your advocating for...

No that is not what I am advocating for. I am simply advocating for Right to Work. We don't have to adopt the exact same legislation as the US. You will keep saying til your blue in the face "that is what Right to Work is" (that it is also the second clause)....ok if it makes you happy we will simple give it another name. We will call it "Dave". I advocate for Dave. Which is basically right to work without the second part.

Edited August 29, 2010 by jefferiah

[Jack Weber]

No that is not what I am advocating for. I am simply advocating for Right to Work. We don't have to adopt the exact same legislation as is required in the US. You will keep saying til your blue in the face "that is what Right to Work is" (that it is also the second clause)....ok if it makes you happy we will simple give it another name. We will call it "Dave". I advocate for Dave. Which is basically right to work without the second part.

Actually...The Western Rose Alliance Party in Alberta has this as part of their party's labour legislation platform...Because Big Oil is really getting squeezed by union subversive behaviour

There is also the Merit Shop groups in this country that advocate for precisely the things I'm talking about.All headed by employer groups with no input from workers...How shocking!

We also have "Yellow Dog" unions like CLAC in this country...

And I have stated now 3 times..You have the right to work...I understand what your saying about the larger sense of it.

What you don't understand is that by not paying dues,you undermine the effectiveness of a union,whether you think so or not...

That's completely unacceptable...

If you don't want to work in a unionized environment,simply quit and find a non union job...

It should'nt be hard seeing as almost 90% of the private workforce in this country is unorganized...

[jefferiah]

Yes, but you don't get to opt out of the community except by leaving. You don't get to say "Well, I think the city is being run by idiots, and I've had it with them. I don't need their services so I'm not going to be paying taxes to it any more." It just doesn't work that way. You benefit from the services of the community, you benefit from the existence, from the organization, and so whether you like it or not you pay taxes to it and you have to abide by the laws and rules, however dumb you think they are.

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.