Jack Weber Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Hmm. My local's budget is available to be examined by any member who asks. I admit to not having considered it, but I bet I could examine the books higher up, too, if I wanted to. And by the way, if you can't imagine they would want any of that to become public, doesn't that imply it ISN'T public? Which would lead me to ask -- how do you know about it? You and I are going to be in rare agreement... As a dues paying member,financials are available at any time...Particularily at the monthly meetings when the Local's Financial Officer and Treasurer announce the monthly...Financials!!! And if there are any discrepencies,they can be dealt with then in front of the members at the meeting... By the way,the group behind this is the Merit Shop movement...What they are after is Open Shop legislation,which is essentiallt Right to Work legislation... This little trojan horse is the thin edge of the wedge by our Canada Corp. government attempting to legislate union busting.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) Bill C-377 was not written for business. Maybe a NDP MP could introduce similar legislation for businesses. Umm...Yeah it is... http://www.meritcanada.ca Completely employer/union busting organization driven... Edited June 9, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 I fully support this great Bill! I hope it passes and I'm sure it will. For far too long now the unions and NDP have skirted democracy and this is a clear cut example of them skirting Transparency! Interesting... Do you feel private corporations should be forced to publicly declare transactions of...say...anything over $5000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 I disagree. Union dues are deducted from union members' income tax returns at 100%. That costs the Treasury a hefty sum in taxes it could have collected if such a deduction was unavailable. Since this translates into less money going into federal coffers to pay for federal programs, the public has a right to know where those funds are being spent. IMO, in order for unions to be considered private institutions, as a first step this income tax deduction for union dues has to go. Not necessarily true. Tax deductions are only applied for by the members and unions do not directly receive any moneys from the government. Union members earn extra money due to the vigilance of unions! In fact,government revenue would be considerable less without unions! So when all the unions go belly up where will the conservatives get the revenue from?Corporations? Man that's freekin funny! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Would you be for that? As I understand from reading the bill, its intent is that labour unions make public how membership dues are spent. So on that basis alone that bill could not be applied to commercial enterprises since they don't collect union dues. I personally don't have a problem with the idea of having businesses make public large donations to advocacy groups that are friendly to their enterprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Not necessarily true. Says you. Tax deductions are only applied for by the members and unions do not directly receive any moneys from the government. True. Man that's freekin funny! I chuckled right along with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I personally don't have a problem with the idea of having businesses make public large donations to advocacy groups that are friendly to their enterprise. My isn't that reasonable and measured. That is not what this bill is another false equivalence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 As I understand from reading the bill, its intent is that labour unions make public how membership dues are spent. So on that basis alone that bill could not be applied to commercial enterprises since they don't collect union dues. I personally don't have a problem with the idea of having businesses make public large donations to advocacy groups that are friendly to their enterprise. When people buy shares, should companies make public how that money is spent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anti-Am Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Being in many unions myself in my lifetime, I have no love for them because they keep slackers in and the good people end up leaving. However if there should be a law like this (which I do not agree with) then it should be fair for everybody. Corporations and businesses should also have to publicize their spending if it's more than 5000 dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 As I understand from reading the bill, its intent is that labour unions make public how membership dues are spent. So on that basis alone that bill could not be applied to commercial enterprises since they don't collect union dues. Not true,again! Dues are collected for services rendered for representation! Dues can be easily called fees or costs/price,etc,etc. You are implying that dues are somehow like donations.And this is not true! Keep in mind that depending what kind of business you are in,many things that you may need to purchase are tax deductible and in many cases 100% tax deductible! An example would be the purchase of a vehicle/fuel solely intended to operate a business.This purchase is 100% tax deductible.Does the manufacturer of the vehicle purchased now have to publicly disclose how they will spend the money they received from the sale?And if they did would they not be giving away private information that their competitors can use to their advantage? Union members as well must pay union dues in order to earn a wage so therefore their dues must be 100% deductible. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Being in many unions myself in my lifetime, I have no love for them because they keep slackers in and the good people end up leaving. However if there should be a law like this (which I do not agree with) then it should be fair for everybody. Corporations and businesses should also have to publicize their spending if it's more than 5000 dollars. And corporations/government and numerous/countless of other organizations are not like this??? Welcome to reality,pull up a chair and stay a while because it does not matter where you go you will find lazy people that have found a way to scam the system. It is up to you to do something about it! In fact if you do not do anything about it then it is you who is lazy and not contributing!!! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Not true,again! I suggest you read the bill again. Here's the link. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5303183&file=4 "The purpose of this bill is, in the first instance, to enhance the accountability of unions and union bosses to their members by requiring full disclosure of how those members' dues are spent," explained Joseph C. Ben-Ami, President of the CCPS. "By making that disclosure public, C-377 establishes a level of transparency that currently doesn't exist. This latter feature is essential given the immense and growing influence that unions exert over politics and the development of public policy in Canada." http://www.policystudies.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=444:think-tank-supports-union-reform-bill&catid=1:press-releases&Itemid=2 You are implying that dues are somehow like donations.And this is not true! I made no such implication. However, since you raise it being forced by law to pay union dues is probably viewed by many union members as an involuntary donation. Union members as well must pay union dues in order to earn a wage so therefore their dues must be 100% deductible. What's your point? Union dues are tax deductible because it is a provision of the Income Tax Act. If that deduction was removed, union members would still earn a wage. If those workers in the federal, provincial and municipal governments did not pay union dues, they'd still earn a wage. Millions of Canadians are not unionized, don't pay union dues and they still manage to earn a wage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubed Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Its just another poke at Unions from an anti-union gov't. If this was applied to all businesses, it wouldn't be an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anti-Am Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 And corporations/government and numerous/countless of other organizations are not like this??? Welcome to reality,pull up a chair and stay a while because it does not matter where you go you will find lazy people that have found a way to scam the system. It is up to you to do something about it! In fact if you do not do anything about it then it is you who is lazy and not contributing!!! WWWTT Dude, what is your problem? If you get this angry over what is said on a forum you should take a break. I'm not about to join the NDP and fight against the conservatives on this matter. In reality there is about a dozen other bills that are more offensive than this that I would rather focus on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) I suggest you read the bill again. Here's the link. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5303183&file=4 http://www.policystudies.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=444:think-tank-supports-union-reform-bill&catid=1:press-releases&Itemid=2 I made no such implication. However, since you raise it being forced by law to pay union dues is probably viewed by many union members as an involuntary donation. What's your point? Union dues are tax deductible because it is a provision of the Income Tax Act. If that deduction was removed, union members would still earn a wage. If those workers in the federal, provincial and municipal governments did not pay union dues, they'd still earn a wage. Millions of Canadians are not unionized, don't pay union dues and they still manage to earn a wage. You really should stop quoting anything that Joseph Ben Ami advocates for,as it relates to Labour Legislation... The CCPS is an admitted conservative think tank and is pro "free" market and diametrically opposed to anything that organized labour has to say or do...His fear-mongering about the increasing nature of unions over public policy is utterly laughable in the face of the anti labour actions of this government,including this bill,through Ms. Raitt and her constant meddling into the collective bargaining process... And in your wonderful new Open Shop workplace utopia,would those gains organized labour has made over the last 6 or 7 decades stay in place,or,would it tens to tilt back the other way?? Keep in mind the "free" market mindset of the people you are quoting,the groups advocating for this legislation,and,their ultimate goals for the workplace... Edited June 10, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 You really should stop quoting anything that Joseph Ben Ami advocates for,as it relates to Labour Legislation... You say that as if that Ami person is someone I quote regularly. This is the first time I ever linked to that site or this fellow (who I had never heard of before) simply because it's the only search result I found that stated the overall purpose of the bill. Other than government sources linking to the text of the bill, none of the other web search results mention the overriding purpose of the bill. And in your wonderful new Open Shop workplace utopia,would those gains organized labour has made over the last 6 or 7 decades stay in place,or,would it tens to tilt back the other way?? Don't be ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 You say that as if that Ami person is someone I quote regularly. This is the first time I ever linked to that site or this fellow (who I had never heard of before) simply because it's the only search result I found that stated the overall purpose of the bill. Other than government sources linking to the text of the bill, none of the other web search results mention the overriding purpose of the bill. Don't be ridiculous. I assume you agree with Mr. Ben Ami's position,however? And as far as you "don't be ridiculous" comment... Have you asked yourself what might be the ultimate goal of this legislation?? Have you considered the goals of the people advocating for this and why they might have a sympathetic ear with this current government? Then do a comparison of RTW states in the US and free bargaining jurisdictions... Then make the claim I'm being ridiculous... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I suggest you read the bill again. Here's the link. Yes I re-read my comment and it does appear I was wrong in calling you incorrect. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I made no such implication. However, since you raise it being forced by law to pay union dues is probably viewed by many union members as an involuntary donation. What's your point? Union dues are tax deductible because it is a provision of the Income Tax Act. If that deduction was removed, union members would still earn a wage. If those workers in the federal, provincial and municipal governments did not pay union dues, they'd still earn a wage. Millions of Canadians are not unionized, don't pay union dues and they still manage to earn a wage. Actually ALL Canadians as well are "forced" to pay taxes to! Can I call that a "donation"? Since unions provide services for the dues they charge and since paying dues are a condition of employment at unionized work places they must be tax deductible and therefore are not in any way a public expenditure. As far as the non unionized workers go I would tell them it's time to stand up and organize! Its your duty as a Canadian! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I assume you agree with Mr. Ben Ami's position,however? I agree with Ami's description of the intent of the bill and that's why I linked to it. Other than that I could not care less about his opinion on this or any other issue. Have you asked yourself what might be the ultimate goal of this legislation?? I have read the bill and no, I have not studied between the lines to find a hidden purpose or to predict unintended consequences. I'll leave that to the unions' head honchos and their partners. I haven't seen anything in the bill that prevents them from conducting business as usual. I have wondered though, why unions are so worried about divulging, other than within the union establishment, how they spend their members' dues. Have you considered the goals of the people advocating for this and why they might have a sympathetic ear with this current government?Then do a comparison of RTW states in the US and free bargaining jurisdictions... No and I don't intend to. Then make the claim I'm being ridiculous... It's ridiculous that you would claim I would support rolling back gains made by unions when I have never given any opinion anywhere, anytime here on anything remotely connected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Dude, what is your problem? If you get this angry over what is said on a forum you should take a break. I'm not about to join the NDP and fight against the conservatives on this matter. In reality there is about a dozen other bills that are more offensive than this that I would rather focus on. Oh so I have a problem now because I called you out on your blatant attempt to slander unions!?!? As far as your last sentence goes,you do realize that we are now debating in a thread that I started about bill C 377,no? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 As far as the non unionized workers go I would tell them it's time to stand up and organize! Its your duty as a Canadian! No it's not. Unions have plenty of organizers on staff that do just that and they get paid for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 I have read the bill and no, I have not studied between the lines to find a hidden purpose or to predict unintended consequences. I'll leave that to the unions' head honchos and their partners. I haven't seen anything in the bill that prevents them from conducting business as usual. I have wondered though, why unions are so worried about divulging, other than within the union establishment, how they spend their members' dues. I guess that you never heard about the right to privacy or constitutional rights? Ever thought that maybe from time to time these things matter and must be applied? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 No it's not. Unions have plenty of organizers on staff that do just that and they get paid for it. Its not if you do not want to significantly contribute to yourself improvement,your family and future generations!!! Not to mention Canada! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anti-Am Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Oh so I have a problem now because I called you out on your blatant attempt to slander unions!?!? As far as your last sentence goes,you do realize that we are now debating in a thread that I started about bill C 377,no? WWWTT Calm down, person. Unions do not fight this hard for their members. They really aren't worthy of defending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.