Teacher Union Offers Perks to Teachers Who Campaign Against Tories

Jack Weber · June 11, 2011

Most schools now allow teachers a duty free lunch.

Lunch at the Duty Free???

Nice!!!

bloodyminded · June 11, 2011

Corporate executives however do not have access to my pay cheque, unless I grant it. I can choose to give them my money or not. Politicians (and public sector union executives) have a different access.

You choose to pay tax-funded subsidies?

Michael Hardner · June 11, 2011

Michael, more fundamentally, money does not make people rich. People are richer when they have more choices.
IMV, a civilized society should aim to give more choices to more people.

This post has been edited by August1991: Yesterday, 11:46 PM

I'll play along: giving people the choice to organize has been a successful progression in our society's ongoing endeavor to balance labour & business rights.

CPCFTW · June 11, 2011

I'll play along: giving people the choice to organize has been a successful progression in our society's ongoing endeavor to balance labour & business rights.

And the latest progressions of our society have been to instill a complete stakeholder view into corporate governance and the emergence of a competitive globalized economy in which it can be strongly argued that unionization and overtaxation destroys jobs and growth within any individual nation. When will you "progressives" join us in the 21st century?

Michael Hardner · June 11, 2011

And the latest progressions of our society have been to instill a complete stakeholder view into corporate governance and the emergence of a competitive globalized economy in which it can be strongly argued that unionization and overtaxation destroys jobs and growth within any individual nation. When will you "progressives" join us in the 21st century?

We are already here, but we retain our knowledge of history. What happens when society puts too much attention to the short term needs of investors? What happens when the recession arrives? The investors are sitting on the sidelines now, waiting for the storm to pass.

CPCFTW · June 11, 2011

We are already here, but we retain our knowledge of history. What happens when society puts too much attention to the short term needs of investors? What happens when the recession arrives? The investors are sitting on the sidelines now, waiting for the storm to pass.

The point of the stakeholder view is that all stakeholders (enmployees, plublic, etc.) are considered and not just investors. Public companies within a developed country are pressured to at least somewhat adopt this view as their share price will be impacted otherwise. Private companies will have difficulty raising sufficient capital to be competitive.

Michael Hardner · June 11, 2011

The point of the stakeholder view is that all stakeholders (enmployees, plublic, etc.) are considered and not just investors. Public companies within a developed country are pressured to at least somewhat adopt this view as their share price will be impacted otherwise. Private companies will have difficulty raising sufficient capital to be competitive.

That sounds good, but how are stakeholder concerns balanced? What information do they have?

CPCFTW · June 11, 2011

That sounds good, but how are stakeholder concerns balanced? What information do they have?

Stakeholder concerns are balanced by the media and market since the market will respond negatively to companies receiving bad press. For example, lets say there was no minimum wage and the media reported that McDonald's had cut wages to $0.05/hr or that they had dumped a bunch of radioactive waste from their burger production process ( :lol: ) into nearby lakes. The market would anticipate a change in consumer behaviour (boycotting) and the sales, share price, and capital raising ability of McDonald's would be impacted.

Edited June 11, 2011 by CPCFTW

Michael Hardner · June 11, 2011

Stakeholder concerns are balanced by the media and market since the market will respond negatively to companies receiving bad press. For example, lets say there was no minimum wage and the media reported that McDonald's had cut wages to $0.05/hr or that they had dumped a bunch of radioactive waste from their burger production process () into nearby lakes. The market would anticipate a change in consumer behaviour (boycotting) and the sales, share price, and capital raising ability of McDonald's would be impacted.

I agree that it is done that way. Your examples would indeed raise alarms, but there are many others that wouldn't find their way into the public consciousness.

CPCFTW · June 11, 2011

I agree that it is done that way. Your examples would indeed raise alarms, but there are many others that wouldn't find their way into the public consciousness.

I don't think that unions do a more effective job (and certainly not a cost-effective one) at bringing any unknown concerns to light. What concerns does the CUPW bring to light? That "Canada Post management does not listen to fresh ideas such as offering banking services". :lol:

Unions are a relic of past injustices that don't serve much of a purpose anymore.

Edited June 11, 2011 by CPCFTW

Michael Hardner · June 11, 2011

I don't think that unions do a more effective job (and certainly not a cost-effective one) at bringing any unknown concerns to light. What concerns does the CUPW bring to light? That "Canada Post management does not listen to fresh ideas such as offering banking services".

Unions are a relic of past injustices that don't serve much of a purpose anymore.

Their ways are also old.

bloodyminded · June 11, 2011

I agree that it is done that way. Your examples would indeed raise alarms, but there are many others that wouldn't find their way into the public consciousness.

Also, large corporations have expert, psychologically astute and highly effective PR experts on their payrolls; folks who have learned through trial and error the habits of consumers and the methods of sly politicking, as put forth concretely by propaganda experts like Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays (the former of which coined the phrase "manufacture of consent," which he viewed as necessary for the wise "elites" (as he termed them) to govern the "bewildered herd" (that's us).

Advertising works on simialr principles, and in fact is a componet of the self-same Public Relations industry.

(Incidentally, if anyone here has ever worked in the creative aspect of the advertising industry--as I did, briefly--they will know unequivocally that dishonesty, deception, and propagandistic manipulation is inherent to it. It's as normal as the air we breathe. To put it succinctly: no, Bill Cosby did not "prefer the New Coke"; and no, Beyonce does not use the seven dollar hair colouring products which she advocates for. But these are trivial examples of the way-of-life deception that is part-and-parcel of the industry.)

The Capitalism 101 theory--that consumerism is about "informed consumers making educated choices"--is continually and intentionally subverted by the PR/advertising industry on a literally everyday basis.

Edited June 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

CPCFTW · June 11, 2011

You'll get no defense from me for marketing/advertising. I think it's an unnecessary added cost in a world with the internet (where detailed product reviews and comparisons can be readily researched by the consumer).

Edited June 11, 2011 by CPCFTW

punked · June 11, 2011

Except that he's right. First, they're tax deductible. Second, I'll give you an example. I was a couple of years ago working as a substitute teacher. Half way through my time working, the substitute teachers became unionized. What did this mean? It meant higher wages....it also meant union dues. So, it went from about $75 a day to somewhere around $82. Then, union dues for MTS and the FTA were taken away....leaving me with just under $77.

So what happened there? The government gave me a pay raise (because the government pays teachers) and that pay raise went almost completely to unions.

Yah you also got a 3% pay raise if it went from 75 dollars to 77 dollars. That means if you were to earn 40000 dollars a year you would be taking home around 1200 more a year. Clearly you got nothing from the deal.

PS where were you working that subs got 77 dollars a day? Was it 20 years ago? I think the lowest subs get in the country is 150 dollars a day. Damn Unions.

Edited June 11, 2011 by punked

Bonam · June 12, 2011

Also, large corporations have expert, psychologically astute and highly effective PR experts on their payrolls; folks who have learned through trial and error the habits of consumers and the methods of sly politicking, as put forth concretely by propaganda experts like Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays (the former of which coined the phrase "manufacture of consent," which he viewed as necessary for the wise "elites" (as he termed them) to govern the "bewildered herd" (that's us).

Advertising works on simialr principles, and in fact is a componet of the self-same Public Relations industry.

(Incidentally, if anyone here has ever worked in the creative aspect of the advertising industry--as I did, briefly--they will know unequivocally that dishonesty, deception, and propagandistic manipulation is inherent to it. It's as normal as the air we breathe. To put it succinctly: no, Bill Cosby did not "prefer the New Coke"; and no, Beyonce does not use the seven dollar hair colouring products which she advocates for. But these are trivial examples of the way-of-life deception that is part-and-parcel of the industry.)

The Capitalism 101 theory--that consumerism is about "informed consumers making educated choices"--is continually and intentionally subverted by the PR/advertising industry on a literally everyday basis.

The PR/advertisement industry definitely does bend the truth as far as possible. Outright lies in ads are dangerous, as you can be sued for false advertising. Anyway, I don't know about you, but any time I make any purchase of significance, I do research on it: reading reviews from other users/consumers, learning about that class of product and how to evaluate its specifications for myself, trying it out in a store and comparing to others, etc. I don't go out and make impulse buys based on ads. And I don't think I'm the only one, either. For me, seeing ads raises my awareness of the existence of a product, and that's about it.

bloodyminded · June 12, 2011

You'll get no defense from me for marketing/advertising. I think it's an unnecessary added cost in a world with the internet (where detailed product reviews and comparisons can be readily researched by the consumer).

It may be, at least roughly, unnecessary from the consumers' point of view...since advertising (yes, with some exceptions) actively promotes untruth.

But it's very necessary from the sellers' standpoint, as the last thing they want is for consumers to know what they're doing.

And it's increasing in saturation, not decreasing. Hell, now when you take a piss in a public washroom you're looking at an advertisement for the Rav4. Which I suppose is somewhat appropriate, in a way.

Edited June 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

bloodyminded · June 12, 2011

The PR/advertisement industry definitely does bend the truth as far as possible. Outright lies in ads are dangerous, as you can be sued for false advertising.

Only within certain very lax parameters. And too intense of a stricture can clash with fundamental issues of free speech, so I can understand this.

But I think you're missing the point. Advertising is full of "outright lies," but it can get a pass for obvious reasons. As in my example: Beyonce does not use the seven dollar hair dye you find in the department store. She just doesn't. There's no way to prove it (and no sense in bothering about it) but I would bet a month's salary on it. So when she advocates for the hair dye, it is the company telling a falsehood. Openly, outright. (If not, why not?)

Because she's a "performer," as all human beings in advertisements are, it is viewed not as deception but as "acting" (in fact, it's both, as the "art" of acting is here done for no artistic purpose, but almost the opposite; whereas performance in the arts, while not totally separate from commerce, is about something more: "the truth behind the lie," as acting and writerly fiction have been termed).

Yes, it's trivial. I agree it's trivial, and I'm not in the least bothered by it; but without recognizing such factors, it remains simply one more component of objective reality which we are not comprehending. That in itself makes it worthwhile to recognize it. And while a small matter, by itself, it speaks to the culture of marketing itself, which is fundamentally deceptive.

Why would the industry be fundamentally deceptive? Because they want to sell us products, and they know that informed consumers are a problem. It's a combative relationship; not only a combative relationship, but that's part of it.

This is all intentional, by the way. It is taught in marketing school, and words like "deception" are used. There's no cultural doublethink here, except among people who aren't in the industry but feel compelled to defend it against...well, "communism," perhaps, I dunno.

Anyway, I don't know about you, but any time I make any purchase of significance, I do research on it: reading reviews from other users/consumers, learning about that class of product and how to evaluate its specifications for myself, trying it out in a store and comparing to others, etc. I don't go out and make impulse buys based on ads. And I don't think I'm the only one, either. For me, seeing ads raises my awareness of the existence of a product, and that's about it.

Of course you're not the only one, and I think it's a growing phenomenon, and that's a good thing. But marketers are working on ways to counter this phenomenon, to undermine it, not least by paying people to produce "customer reviews," or through "public service ads" that are a type of hidden marketing. (They may lose this particular battle, but time will tell.) It's the exact same method as paid political propagandists...and in fact, as I said, the two industries (PR and advertising) are actually one.

And even as you personally might not be one of the better targets for product marketing, the fact that so many people are and have been has directly affected your own choices of what (and what not) to buy, because the consumer culture itself has been to a large extent directed--engineered, even--by marketing.

What appears to be a feast of choice could well be something approaching the opposite...we'll never know completely, because all possible-but-not-extant choices have been engineered out of existence.

(Incidentally, I don't wish to convey the impression that this is a gigantic matter of outrage for me; it isn't, at all. I just find it endlessly fascinating, almost on a philosophical level.)

Edited June 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

Oleg Bach · June 13, 2011

The teachers pension fund is often used to leverage big business deals usually controlled by corporate socialists who live like right wing kings.

Bonam · June 13, 2011

Of course you're not the only one, and I think it's a growing phenomenon, and that's a good thing. But marketers are working on ways to counter this phenomenon, to undermine it, not least by paying people to produce "customer reviews," or through "public service ads" that are a type of hidden marketing. (They may lose this particular battle, but time will tell.)

I think they will indeed lose that battle, if they are indeed even trying to fight it. With real users free to post on the internet about their experiences with products, they will always far outnumber any paid advertisers in such media. Furthermore, legit reviews are relatively easy to differentiate from veiled ads. And if they get good enough in writing veiled ads to make them indistinguishable from real reviews, well, they will be revealing in gory details all the cons of their own product, not only the pros, which is the point of reading the review.

And even as you personally might not be one of the better targets for product marketing, the fact that so many people are and have been has directly affected your own choices of what (and what not) to buy, because the consumer culture itself has been to a large extent directed--engineered, even--by marketing.
What appears to be a feast of choice could well be something approaching the opposite...we'll never know completely, because all possible-but-not-extant choices have been engineered out of existence.

That may be true, and yet, our choices of products within any category keep getting broader, and entire new categories of products keep appearing on a continual basis. While I'm sure many choices are not available due to insufficient sales and resultant discontinuation due to the way marketing works, our spectrum of choices is nonetheless growing at a rapid pace. My view is that this growth in choices is stimulated by innovation, free enterprise, etc, which are results of our (mixed) capitalist system. We take the bad (in this case, deceptive marketing) with the good (innovation, progress, growth), and I think it's not a bad deal overall. Especially when compared with the possible alternatives.

(Incidentally, I don't wish to convey the impression that this is a gigantic matter of outrage for me; it isn't, at all. I just find it endlessly fascinating, almost on a philosophical level.)

I understand, I'm at that level on most issues that I debate here. Few are a matter of real emotional significance for me. It's more just something that I might find interesting, or sometimes just a way to kill a few minutes. Sometimes I learn something too, there have certainly been topics brought up here that I had no previous knowledge about. On the other hand, posters that are deeply emotionally invested in certain issues, of which we have numerous examples on this forum, are quite off-putting to debate with, especially regarding that issue(s).

Evening Star · June 13, 2011

Is there a source other than a talk radio station for the statement that the union is offering perks to teachers who will leave their classrooms for this purpose as opposed to just participating in a political campaign?

dre · June 13, 2011

I dont see any reason to distinguish between labor unions and other types of corporations.

But there IS a legitimate debate to be had over whether or not ANYBODY besides a voter should have any influence at all, but if you want to allow special interests and lobbys to participate then I dont see why youd exclude unions.

TimG · June 13, 2011

But there IS a legitimate debate to be had over whether or not ANYBODY besides a voter should have any influence at all, but if you want to allow special interests and lobbys to participate then I dont see why youd exclude unions.

The "average voter" does not have the resources to get heard so people organize into groups that can afford it. Based on your logic the only authorized groups should be political parties. Why should political parties have a monopoly on political debate? Edited June 13, 2011 by TimG

CPCFTW · June 13, 2011

I dont see any reason to distinguish between labor unions and other types of corporations.

But there IS a legitimate debate to be had over whether or not ANYBODY besides a voter should have any influence at all, but if you want to allow special interests and lobbys to participate then I dont see why youd exclude unions.

Are you serious? Did you even read the OP? These are public servants who are being compelled to campaign against a certain party while getting their time off paid for by taxpayers who have elected the very same party to a majority government.

What if the CBC told its employees that they would get paid days off work for campaigning for the conservatives? I'm sure you wouldn't be happy.

Edited June 13, 2011 by CPCFTW

Michael Hardner · June 13, 2011

Are you serious? Did you even read the OP? These are public servants who are being compelled to campaign against a certain party while getting their time off paid for by taxpayers who have elected the very same party to a majority government.

You're misrepresenting the situation. Their time is paid by the union, not the taxpayer. They're being asked to campaign, not being compelled to.

Compel, from Merriam-Webster online: "to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly"

Wilber · June 13, 2011

So called professional organizations that become politically active risk a loss of credibility among large segments of the population. However, that is their decision and I see no other reason why they shouldn't do so as long as they leave their activism outside the workplace.