Topaz Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Ontario PC leader Hudak is going down the road to try and change labour law with unions. One of his changes is unions dues being paid by workers who don't want to pay them. Well, I guess if a worker applies to a job and knowing its a union, then that worker knows exactly what is expected of them. Another view is have non-union workers within a union BUT those workers wouldn't get the benfits of all the wages as an union worker. I'm wondering if Hudak as been talking to the feds, to try to get rid of unions, since the feds are reducing the size of unions. I think Hudak may feel the heat on this one. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1218910--tim-hudak-s-modest-proposal-are-unions-being-squeezed-by-a-lousy-economy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Wow!! What a shocker... Wine Tasting Tim wants to have Right to Work legislation in Ontario to keep things "competative"... In otherwords,he wants business to write the labour laws in the province because "business knows best"... I thought the Dominatrix of Labour in Ottawa would go after The Rand Formula,but obviously,she's working hand in hand with the Big Business/Union Busting "Merit" shop movement... Neocon Wine Tasting Tim to the rescue where the rubber meets the road ,as it relates to labour legislation provincially... What a gutless weasel Hudak is... It's a sad day when these gutless,coporate bootlicking cowards have any sway with the public at all.... Edited June 30, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 It applies there...It applies here... Right to Work for less... http://aflcio.org/Legislation-and-Politics/State-Legislative-Battles/Ongoing-State-Legislative-Attacks/Right-to-Work-for-Less Check out that $5,000 a year cut in pay folks'll take by accepting this!!! Check out that increase in death and injury on job increase that'll happen with this... Yeah...It's all about the individual workers freedom in the workplace... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Ontario PC leader Hudak is going down the road to try and change labour law with unions. One of his changes is unions dues being paid by workers who don't want to pay them. Well, I guess if a worker applies to a job and knowing its a union, then that worker knows exactly what is expected of them. Another view is have non-union workers within a union BUT those workers wouldn't get the benfits of all the wages as an union worker. I'm wondering if Hudak as been talking to the feds, to try to get rid of unions, since the feds are reducing the size of unions. I think Hudak may feel the heat on this one. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1218910--tim-hudak-s-modest-proposal-are-unions-being-squeezed-by-a-lousy-economy I think it's just going to apply to public sector unions. Because they don't operate under economic reality. Instead of their wages and benefits being based on revenues, like with private sector unions, they're based on the ability to just keep raising taxes. Which isn't sustainable. It's about damn time!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Right to Work for less... You're right. They will be working for less. Because the tax payer shouldn't be subsidizing inflated, unrealistic salaries and benefits that aren't based in economic reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) You're right. They will be working for less. Because the tax payer shouldn't be subsidizing inflated, unrealistic salaries and benefits that aren't based in economic reality. I've suspended my personal policy of putting folks like you on ignore for the moment because this is far too important... Seriously,what planet are you living on??? Do you understand the precedent setting nature that this proposed legislation by Hudak would have? Their is no way on God's green earth that this will only apply to the public sector! It will,necessarily,apply to the private sector as well!! And it's designed to do so!!! I have my problems with the public sector also,however,this is definately NOT what this is about...It is the provincial attack,started by the federal Tories( with regards to Bill C-377) to attack the Rand Formula and "compulsory" union membership.As I have illustrated many times,we work under the framework of Agency Shop" in this province and no one...NO ONE... is forced to join a union against his/her will... It's about pitting one worker against the other and forcing individual union locals to represent free ride members to the financial detriment of that local... And it,by definition,is designed to make people poorer under the guise of "personal freedom" and is being heavily lobbied by corporate entities who have an all too sympathetic ear in Ottawa,and clearly,in opposition at Queens Park... Edited June 30, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 I've suspended my personal policy of putting folks like you on ignore for the moment because this is far too important... Seriously,what planet are you living on??? Do you understand the precedent setting nature that this proposed legislation by Hudak would have? Their is no way on God's green earth that this will only apply to the public sector! It will,necessarily,apply to the private sector as well!! And it's designed to do so!!! I have my problems with the public sector also,however,this is definately NOT what this is about...It is the provincial attack,started by the federal Tories( with regards to Bill C-377) to attack the Rand Formula and "compulsory" union membership.As I have illustrated many times,we work under the framework of Agency Shop" in this province and no one...NO ONE... is forced to join a union against his/her will... It's about pitting one worker against the other and forcing individual union locals to represent free ride members to the financial detriment of that local... And it,by definition,id designed to make people poorer under the guise of "personal freedom" and is if being heavily lobbied by corporate entities who have an all too sympathetic ear in Ottawa,and clearly,in opposition at Queens Park... I don't need a union. Who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 I've suspended my personal policy of putting folks like you on ignore for the moment because this is far too important... Seriously,what planet are you living on??? Do you understand the precedent setting nature that this proposed legislation by Hudak would have? Their is no way on God's green earth that this will only apply to the public sector! It will,necessarily,apply to the private sector as well!! And it's designed to do so!!! I have my problems with the public sector also,however,this is definately NOT what this is about...It is the provincial attack,started by the federal Tories( with regards to Bill C-377) to attack the Rand Formula and "compulsory" union membership.As I have illustrated many times,we work under the framework of Agency Shop" in this province and no one...NO ONE... is forced to join a union against his/her will... It's about pitting one worker against the other and forcing individual union locals to represent free ride members to the financial detriment of that local... And it,by definition,is designed to make people poorer under the guise of "personal freedom" and is being heavily lobbied by corporate entities who have an all too sympathetic ear in Ottawa,and clearly,in opposition at Queens Park... Like I said before. Iv never such contempt directed at the people in society who do the real work... by a bunch of people that shuffle paper for a living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Like I said before. Iv never such contempt directed at the people in society who do the real work... by a bunch of people that shuffle paper for a living. That's it,isn't it... Over the last 30 years,people have almost become conditioned to demand those that make more than them make less!!... Never understanding that if that happens,thier standard of living will stagnate or even drop!!! And the downward spiral of our standard of living and working conditions continue and the folks at the top laugh at all of us because we've allowed ourselves to be conned and duped by those who would want to keep us down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 It applies there...It applies here... Right to Work for less... AFL-CIO = American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 And the downward spiral of our standard of living and working conditions continue and the folks at the top laugh at all of us because we've allowed ourselves to be conned and duped by those who would want to keep us down... Jack, I don't pretend to understand all the ramifications of changes to the law about unions but one thing I do know - we are going to keep losing jobs no matter what new laws might be enacted! That being said, can you name any instance in the last decade or so where having a union had saved jobs? Can you name any instance where having a union has attracted new employers to any town or region? Where having a union has CREATED jobs? Seems to me we're arguing politics on the deck of the Titanic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Can you name any instance where having a union has attracted new employers to any town or region? Where having a union has CREATED jobs? They don't. The whole purpose of a union is to negotiate higher pay for less work. Which is completely contrary to how a business becomes successful in the first place. In essense, unions work against the interests of the companies that were originally created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Slow your role here people. In actual economics not what you guys are talking about there are actually wage models. Now because of the union wage premium, organizations may want to avoid unionization. The easiest way for them to do this is to offer supracompetitive wages which means just for the fact that unions exist lots and lots of people get paid a higher wage. Just because they exist. Stop trying to make a very complex problem a simple one because you don't to put the time to understand all the variables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 You're right. They will be working for less. Because the tax payer shouldn't be subsidizing inflated, unrealistic salaries and benefits that aren't based in economic reality. From the way Hudak was talking on CKLW radio, he means ALL unions and especially the auto sector. After he left, the calls were coming in and they were all negative towards his ideas. BTW, what is a realistic wage to you? The cost of living in Canada is higher than were most of these jobs go, except the US,so like it or not workers here have to have a fair wage to be able to have a house, car and education for thir kids and one can't do that on 10.25. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 From the way Hudak was talking on CKLW radio, he means ALL unions and especially the auto sector. After he left, the calls were coming in and they were all negative towards his ideas. BTW, what is a realistic wage to you? The cost of living in Canada is higher than were most of these jobs go, except the US,so like it or not workers here have to have a fair wage to be able to have a house, car and education for thir kids and one can't do that on 10.25. A fair wage? That would be the $'s paid (and with benefits included), for the complexity,requirements and intricacies of the job and of course with due consideration of danger and physical requirements. However, life is not 'fair.' Janitors in schools might make more money and (unionized) have job security well beyond other more demanding jobs. Similarly, working conditions should be a factor. I.E. a postie shouldn't be making more than a teacher, but perhaps more than a janitor. Is the job one with a good deal of responsibility with others dependent on it? Is there hazardous aspects to the job? Fair wage should also recognize not only the benefits, pension, health care , environment, flex hours and vacation time, but also the stress perhaps. But, life isn't fair. Many public service workers as in city workers, have far more employees than necessary, while private industry might have piece work and manufacturing expectations/day/hour. Should someone working as a janitor in a school in Toronto expect higher wages than in Dunnville because the cost of living is higher? Should a janitor doing the same type of work in a non union shop be considered under paid if their wages are less, or, is the janitor in the union job overpaid for their duties and responsibilities and JOB SECURITY. Their is no 'fair wage.' That a political leader in a native reserve can be paid in six figures when there's only 3,500 'residents', is absurd. That someone in a public service job that in reality only performs three hours work a day, is watching porn the rest of the time, is unlikely to EVER be fired or criticized and is paid 30% more than the private sector worker doing (8 hrs./day), work of the same sort...well that's just not fair is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Ontario PC leader Hudak is going down the road to try and change labour law with unions. One of his changes is unions dues being paid by workers who don't want to pay them. Well, I guess if a worker applies to a job and knowing its a union, then that worker knows exactly what is expected of them. Another view is have non-union workers within a union BUT those workers wouldn't get the benfits of all the wages as an union worker. I'm wondering if Hudak as been talking to the feds, to try to get rid of unions, since the feds are reducing the size of unions. I think Hudak may feel the heat on this one. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1218910--tim-hudak-s-modest-proposal-are-unions-being-squeezed-by-a-lousy-economy Perhaps you're simplifying this just a bit. I paid dues. I signed up workers that didn't hold cards but paid dues under the Rand formula. I also knew what our union spent the dues on, contracts, working conditions, grievances and salaries for our executive. No big problem. Today the Sid Ryans and CUPE and other unions have their own political agendas and pet projects and expend monies worker dues to support demonstrating students in another province, boycotts in another country, demonstrators over G8- G 20, Occupiers and the like. That should not be funded by workers dues when dues are paid to provide leadership in union working conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Today the Sid Ryans and CUPE and other unions have their own political agendas and pet projects and expend monies worker dues to support demonstrating students in another province, boycotts in another country, demonstrators over G8- G 20, Occupiers and the like. That should not be funded by workers dues when dues are paid to provide leadership in union working conditions. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) You have to wonder why the cost of living is so high in this province. Is it because Union wages push them up? In these right to work states people can live relatively comfortably on $15/hour. Most people in the private sector aren't currently or have never been in a union. Employers in the private sector can decide whether to have a union or not. I think the main problem we're seeing in Canada is how public sector unions hold a monopoly on how public money is spent and how much to charge for services. Anyone pay attention to the situation at the Toronto District School Board? A perfect example of what happens when a union doesn't have to compete for providing a service. You get them charing $3,000 to install an electrical outlet, and no one can say shit about it. Edited June 30, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Perhaps you're simplifying this just a bit. I paid dues. I signed up workers that didn't hold cards but paid dues under the Rand formula. I also knew what our union spent the dues on, contracts, working conditions, grievances and salaries for our executive. No big problem. Today the Sid Ryans and CUPE and other unions have their own political agendas and pet projects and expend monies worker dues to support demonstrating students in another province, boycotts in another country, demonstrators over G8- G 20, Occupiers and the like. That should not be funded by workers dues when dues are paid to provide leadership in union working conditions. Then the workers should elect better union leadership and representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Jack, I don't pretend to understand all the ramifications of changes to the law about unions but one thing I do know - we are going to keep losing jobs no matter what new laws might be enacted! That being said, can you name any instance in the last decade or so where having a union had saved jobs? Can you name any instance where having a union has attracted new employers to any town or region? Where having a union has CREATED jobs? Seems to me we're arguing politics on the deck of the Titanic... Saved jobs or tried it's very best to save jobs only to be rooked by management in the end??? In the last 17 years I've worked at 3 unionized establishments where the union backed off and took less than it could have asked (in one case took a 5 year contract with no wage increases except for CPI) and still both companies effed the membership... The most recent case is just last weekend where we avoided a strike by signing a 4 year deal and took less than 2% in the first 3 years and 2% in the 4th...This is after management informed the bargaining cimmittee 3 weeks before potential job action that they had not paid a cent into the pension fund for two(2) years in direct contravention of the law.The bargaining committee came back and ssaid that we can,by law,compell you to make a 15 million dollar lump sum payment to top up the delinquent deficiency...The company shot back that they would have to liquidate assets to make good (which is total BS and even they knew it!)...However,the UNION came up with a comprimise solution to remedy the situation by allowing this upstanding individual to make up the $15 million deficiency over the life of the 4 year agreement...Nevermind the fact that we have mant retiree's,AND SOON TO BE RETIREE'S, who wont see a pesion increase because,by law,no increases can be made until the deficiency is topped up.AND THIS IS A FUND THAT IS FULLY AND COMPLETELY FUNDED AND ISN'T INDEXED!!!! So,to save the owner sorry,delinquent,law breaking hide,we had to take a hit... As to your contention that business doesn't want to deal with unions..Of course they don't...Unions are a correct check on their way to extreme profiteering.Look who's behind the Right to Work movement as it relates to lobbying in the US and it should tell you all you need to know about the reasons for anyone advocating for any form of RTW legislation... Then please look at the links I've provided from the AFL/CIO website...Before you assume the statistics are "union biased",most of the stats are from the US Department of Labour and are simply a reflection of the numbers provided...The ask yourself if that's the type of workplace environment you would want to work in??? Because that's what Mr. Hudak is aiming for and that is certainly what Minister Raitt and the Corporate Conservative Party of Canada is advocating for with Bill C-377... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Perhaps you're simplifying this just a bit. I paid dues. I signed up workers that didn't hold cards but paid dues under the Rand formula. I also knew what our union spent the dues on, contracts, working conditions, grievances and salaries for our executive. No big problem. Today the Sid Ryans and CUPE and other unions have their own political agendas and pet projects and expend monies worker dues to support demonstrating students in another province, boycotts in another country, demonstrators over G8- G 20, Occupiers and the like. That should not be funded by workers dues when dues are paid to provide leadership in union working conditions. Peeves... I don't disagree with any of this... And I can relate to this from something that happened to me recently... I'm a USWA member and I got robocall from Ken Neumann back in early March asking me to vote for Brian Topp for the leadership of the NDP.I'm not even an NDP member!!! So a small portion of my dues went to Ken Neumann to record a message to call me to vote for Brian Topp when I couldn't vote in that leadership event even if I wanted to!!! HOWEVER...This is small potatoes compared to what Mr. Hudak is proposing.Because,if one looks into what RTW legislation is all about,it's about legislative union busting under the guise of..You guessed it... "Individual Worker Freedom and Liberty!!!" Like the NAM or The Koch Bros. ever cared about that!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Then please look at the links I've provided from the AFL/CIO website... Are there any AFL-CIO locals in Canada? The "A" in AFL-CIO stands for "American". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Slow your role here people. In actual economics not what you guys are talking about there are actually wage models. Now because of the union wage premium, organizations may want to avoid unionization. The easiest way for them to do this is to offer supracompetitive wages which means just for the fact that unions exist lots and lots of people get paid a higher wage. Just because they exist. Stop trying to make a very complex problem a simple one because you don't to put the time to understand all the variables. Very true... Two examples that I can think of off the top of my head are the non-union auto sector in Ontario that pays very similar wage and benny packages as the Big Three plants... AND.. The steel producers,particularily in Hamilton....Dofasco (now Arcelor/Mittal) and Stelco (now U.S.Steel) have very similar wage and benny plans but only one is unionized (U.S.Steel)... Edited June 30, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 I don't need a union. Who cares? Lots of people care. Unions are very important for the well being of our economy. More unions members = stronger economy! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Lots of people care. Unions are very important for the well being of our economy. More unions members = stronger economy! WWWTT Hah! and add a derisive snort. 70% 0f workers are non union. Just 16 per cent of private sector workers now belong to unions. Do you think for a minute that any union cares about non union workers beyond concern if they lose a job to some firm/individual that isn't unionized? They couldn't give a shit if a non unionized worker is drowning if they don't get dues. 30% of Canadian 'workers' belong to unions, including, nurses, teachers, journalists and professional athletes, as well as the more traditionally (sometimes) unionized occupations like retail store clerks, manufacturing workers, miners, electricians and other construction trades workers. Cops and others have unions by another name. Try to get any of them fired for most any cause including non competence. Now since 70% of workers aren't union members and (probably) a sizable number wouldn't be had they a choice, just who do you think gives a shit about the 70%? Hudak has the right idea. Just where else does a law like our Rand formula force a worker to pay dues whether they want a union or not. This is what a union does when not controlled. And I quote! The work is performed by members of the Maintenance and Construction Skilled Trades Council, with whom the TDSB is required to contract for virtually all such projects. But even outside contractors, where they are permitted, must kick in a portion of their wages in "dues" to the Trades Council, much as the TDSB's in-house construction workers must.The Trades Council's president, Jimmy Hazel, is unapologetic. Asked by the Star about the electrical outlet, which took four hours but for which the board was billed 76, Hazel replied, "we don't need to f—ing prove anything to anybody about costs." http://www.canada.com/news/national/Coyne+Ontario+Tories+take+unions+about+time/6851160/story.html Edited June 30, 2012 by Peeves 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.