OCCUPY

[blueblood]

The difference between racism in the South and in Canada during the Jim Crow era was the fact that segregation was legislated. As a business owner, you had to be racist, there was no choice. In Canada, business owners made the choice not to serve blacks and there was no law against it. In the US discriminating was the law. In that way, you could consider racism in Canada worse as it wasn't forced on people by legislation, instead they mad ethe choice to be racist. So yeah, black people were forced to be segregated because the law required it in the South and forced to be segregated in many places in Canada because society demanded without it being legislated.

And unions get the benefit of law to raid paychecks and force people to join the union in the work place and if workers dont want that they are shut out of the workplace and can go somewhere else. As bc2004 says the blacks in Jim crow were not forced to attend these segregated places, but they could not go to any place they wanted to. That is my problem, people who don't want to be in unions have to go to places where they might not want to go to in the first place, or don't have a job. That's why I don't use the residential school thing.

We had this problem in western Canada with the wheat board, by summer we won't have that problem anymore.

[Bonam]

If there were religious reasons why somebody couldn't join a union, then I would support this idea.

Why? What makes these "religious reasons" so special? What if someone has philosophical/ideological reasons to not join a union? Why are those not good enough?

[cybercoma]

And unions get the benefit of law to raid paychecks and force people to join the union in the work place and if workers dont want that they are shut out of the workplace and can go somewhere else. As bc2004 says the blacks in Jim crow were not forced to attend these segregated places, but they could not go to any place they wanted to. That is my problem, people who don't want to be in unions have to go to places where they might not want to go to in the first place, or don't have a job. That's why I don't use the residential school thing.

We had this problem in western Canada with the wheat board, by summer we won't have that problem anymore.

It's a terrible comparison. Just drop it. I don't have a problem with the point you want to make about unions, but comparing it to the segregated South is ridiculous and offensive.

[blueblood]

It's a terrible comparison. Just drop it. I don't have a problem with the point you want to make about unions, but comparing it to the segregated South is ridiculous and offensive.

That's it ridiculous? I show the similarities of minority rights being trampled and all I get back is ridiculous? Outstanding

[Michael Hardner]

Why? What makes these "religious reasons" so special? What if someone has philosophical/ideological reasons to not join a union? Why are those not good enough?

Because anybody could otherwise express a 'deep belief' in something to suit them... this is why the courts strictly interpret groups in the constitution.

[Michael Hardner]

That's it ridiculous? I show the similarities of minority rights being trampled and all I get back is ridiculous? Outstanding

You're expressing a level of outrage that seems excessive, given that you're proposing something that's not legally feasible, and pretty much unheard of.

[Michael Hardner]

Reading 1 page back - a poster proposed a new thread for the topic of residential schools...

I propose, similarly, a new thread for the question of legal challenges to labour laws based on conscience.

[blueblood]

Because anybody could otherwise express a 'deep belief' in something to suit them... this is why the courts strictly interpret groups in the constitution.

The freedom of association is also in the constitution. Yes workers are free to form an organization in the workplace, that's not the issue I have. The issue I have is taking away someone's right of freedom of association by forcing them to join this organization. Don't people have the right to choose who they want to associate with/not associate with or not.

This principle was one of the pillars that got rid of the wheat board monopoly and why we see union membership as a percentage of the workforce falling like a rock.

I can say with confidence the courts haven't heard the last of this issue, I think in the future this issue will be headed back there.

[Bonam]

Because anybody could otherwise express a 'deep belief' in something to suit them... this is why the courts strictly interpret groups in the constitution.

So why is a deep belief in some religion protected and a deep belief in a non-religious philosophy not protected? Why do we give fantastical stories about a mystical all powerful man in the sky this stature in our society?

[Michael Hardner]

The freedom of association is also in the constitution.

Please start a new thread if you'd like to continue with this topic. Thanks.

[Michael Hardner]

So why is a deep belief in some religion protected and a deep belief in a non-religious philosophy not protected? Why do we give fantastical stories about a mystical all powerful man in the sky this stature in our society?

I think I answered that above. In any case, this is drifting the thread - please start a new topic for this discussion.

[bud]

As bc2004 says the blacks in Jim crow were not forced to attend these segregated places, but they could not go to any place they wanted to.

segregated south? jesus fucking christ. grow up.

[Shwa]

Oh really, if I wanted to become a teacher I can't bargain for myself, have paycheck deductions, and have to join a union. What about the person who wants to be a teacher but doesn't want to join a union, what about their freedoms?

It a condition of employment as determined by fair and collective bargaining by the employer and representatives of the employees or a union. If you do not like the conditions of employment in a particular firm or sector, you are free to choose not to offend yourself.

[jacee]

Or govt got so big and had so much influence for sale to those contributors because of picking winners and losers through onerous regulations.

I'm waiting for more info about THIS, blueblood ...

[Handsome Rob]

I think I answered that above. In any case, this is drifting the thread - please start a new topic for this discussion.

Because anybody could otherwise express a 'deep belief' in something to suit them... this is why the courts strictly interpret groups in the constitution.

That doesn't explain specifically what validates religion as an excuse while discarding other ideas.

[blueblood]

It a condition of employment as determined by fair and collective bargaining by the employer and representatives of the employees or a union. If you do not like the conditions of employment in a particular firm or sector, you are free to choose not to offend yourself.

Just like Jim Crow was determined "fair" by voters and government of the deep south during the first half of the 20th century. And hell if the blacks didn't like it I guess they were free to leave too then huh?

[Michael Hardner]

I think that this topic should go into another thread, as it's a side discussion from 'OCCUPY'...

[blueblood]

I'm waiting for more info about THIS, blueblood ...

Have you looked at all 72,000 pages of the US tax code? Have you looked at all the onerous regulations? Why does the gov't need to be that big and have that much influence for sale?

[bush_cheney2004]

I think that this topic should go into another thread, as it's a side discussion from 'OCCUPY'...

No...it's the same discussion. You can't parse away the 'right to work' issues from the "OCCUPY" movement's objectives.

[Michael Hardner]

No...it's the same discussion. You can't parse away the 'right to work' issues from the "OCCUPY" movement's objectives.

To me the question of whether workers can opt-out of labour agreements due to conscience is an entirely different topic - but I will let the moderators decide.

[bush_cheney2004]

To me the question of whether workers can opt-out of labour agreements due to conscience is an entirely different topic - but I will let the moderators decide.

But the OCCUPY movement's ideological viewpoints are exactly along the same lines.

[WWWTT]

Ok as some here have predicted OCCUPY is starting to get ugly.

Saturday in Denver the police attemted to disasemble OCCUPY which triggered a confrontation.

The OCCUPY side claims they have the democratic right to peacefull protest.The local governments claim that OCCUPY is essentialy privatizing public property(or something like that),interfering with other events.Potentiall events like rememberance day ceremonies amongst others.

This made me think,is the OCCUPY message "more" important than rememberance day ceremonies?

I know the vets will claim that there sacrifices made allow us the freedom to public protest.However I will propose that the OCCUPY movement will continue our citizens further freedoms that future generations will benefit from!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

I know the vets will claim that there sacrifices made allow us the freedom to public protest.However I will propose that the OCCUPY movement will continue our citizens further freedoms that future generations will benefit from!

1) Demonstrations require a permit in Denver

2) Denver is not in Canada

[cybercoma]

It's really uncomfortable to have ceremonies about people fighting and dying for democratic institutions right alongside a protest about how those democratic institutions are no longer democratic.

[cybercoma]

1) Demonstrations require a permit in Denver

The First Amendment supercedes any bureaucratic nonsense about permits. Perhaps you should spend less time being an expert on Canada and more time understanding your own country.