Guest Peeves Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 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!!! The best case for union busting and the best union busters are the public sector unions themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 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! http://www.canada.com/news/national/Coyne+Ontario+Tories+take+unions+about+time/6851160/story.html And I repeat,as someone who knows better than to believe the crap you've just posted... Under 'Agency Shop",no one...NO ONE ...Is forced to join a union if they don't want to.."Agency Shop" is the framework we work under in the province of Ontario..But,of course,you knew that... Hudak has the right idea?? To legislatively bust individual union locals to drive down the standard of living even more?? We know this will inevitably happen because we all know that the "Union Wage" sets the bar in industry... So does he and his willing legislative and corporate aparatchiks.... My suggestion is that you look at wage and benny plans in RTW states in the US to see where this would go if it were to pass... Let me guess..You're an advocate for the "meritocracy" of non-union employment?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Then the workers should elect better union leadership and representation. Ok I'll pass that brilliant observation on if you don't object. And this too. (Assuming they are indeed unionized workers.) Porn Surfing SEC Government Workers Not FiredI guess it takes an act of God or Democratic congress to fire Federal employees. Remember when, there were about 31 employees of the SEC (Security Exchange Commission- not Sexual Encounters Commission) who were caught watching porn on their computers instead of watching for thugs like Bernie Madoff who stole billions under their hair in the palm hands. From Ann Coulter: Taking only one performance problem in a single government office -- surfing Internet pornography at the Securities and Exchange Commission: In 2010, 31 employees were found to have spent their workdays downloading Internet porn in the 2 1/2 years during and preceding the financial crash that led to the greatest depression in nearly a century. (One of their favorite online porn sites was "Fannie Mae Hill," while those who prefer big girls were at "Too Big to Fail.") If only Bernie Madoff had posted naked videos of himself on the Internet, the SEC might have noticed him. Seventeen of the porn-surfers were being paid government salaries of $99,356 to $222,418. In another classic example of the left hand not wanting to know what the right hand was doing, an employee with the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance admitted watching up to five hours a day of pornography in his office. His favorite pornographic websites were bookmarked on his government computer, and he had both downloaded and uploaded pornographic videos to the numerous websites he had joined. Even after admitting to surfing porn all day on the taxpayers' dime, not one of the lonely SEC employees was fired, nor were their names released by the government, even in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. (Although most of them were referred for membership in D.C. sex clubs.) These are the true beneficiaries of big government -- or our "commitments," as Obama calls them -- not the poor, the elderly, the disadvantaged, and those about whom we say "There but for the grace of God, go I. http://www.anncoulter.com/ (April 27, 2011 article) And yet Harry Reid says there is no fat in the government. President Obama just can't seem to find any place to cut the budget. And yet, somehow, these perverts still have a job and not in jail. There should be a law or rule- if an employee in any government job has time to surf the web for pornography, not only should that person be fired immediately, but that job should be eliminated as well. If they have time to surf for porn, then that job just is not needed for government to function. But the Democrats want to protect these people and their jobs, along with others who violate work rules, like stealing, being late to work, sleeping on the job and maybe even attempted murder under the right circumstances. It's time to reform work rules in the Federal government ala Wisconsin, Ohio and maybe even Massachusetts and other States. It's also time to get rid of jobs that are not essential to keeping the Federal government working. Do that and we won't need to worry about raising the debt ceiling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Ok I'll pass that brilliant observation on if you don't object. And this too. (Assuming they are indeed unionized workers.) So Peeves.. Would your public sector union legislative union busting (essentially RTW legislation) apply to the private sector,as well? Edited June 30, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 And I repeat,as someone who knows better than to believe the crap you've just posted... Under 'Agency Shop",no one...NO ONE ...Is forced to join a union if they don't want to.."Agency Shop" is the framework we work under in the province of Ontario..But,of course,you knew that... Hudak has the right idea?? To legislatively bust individual union locals to drive down the standard of living even more?? We know this will inevitably happen because we all know that the "Union Wage" sets the bar in industry... So does he and his willing legislative and corporate aparatchiks.... My suggestion is that you look at wage and benny plans in RTW states in the US to see where this would go if it were to pass... Let me guess..You're an advocate for the "meritocracy" of non-union employment?? They are however forced to pay union dues, and, they are at times harassed if they won't sign a card. No I endorse the initial need and cause for unions. Those unions that work for their members and don't accept kick backs like in the example I posted. I worked for union wages when we had 48 hour weeks little vacation/health care or Ministry of Labour inspections/WCB or pensions. I know what a union can do. I maintain that what we have today is not what a union should stand for. The Public sector unions are a farce. The teacher's union gives a shit for no one but teachers. The cops won't give evidence but expect the public to do so. Construction unions work on kick backs. Poor teachers can't be fired and are rehired after retiring. Union workers were paid to switch jobs when there was no wage loss. A public service union worker can surf porn 5 hours a day and not get fired. Dues are spent promoting personal 'causes.' These aren't unions, they're just another form of fraud. I was a union rep, and I am ashamed that the union movement has become. Often a fraudulent black mailing supporter of over payment for civic workers jobs (and others) to the point of insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT 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... I do not believe you understand how our economy works or the concept of "middle class" When people earn a wage for providing a service or product they are then reimbursed with a monetary sum. In turn these people use their monetary sums to buy other services/products/pay taxes/save/etc. The more money that goes to the middle class,the more money circulated within the economy. Less money going to the middle class and more going to the 1% = bad news for the economy!!! If you do not understand the importance of this,or have forgotten then you it's pointless. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) They are however forced to pay union dues, and, they are at times harassed if they won't sign a card. No I endorse the initial need and cause for unions. Those unions that work for their members and don't accept kick backs like in the example I posted. I worked for union wages when we had 48 hour weeks little vacation/health care or Ministry of Labour inspections/WCB or pensions. I know what a union can do. I maintain that what we have today is not what a union should stand for. The Public sector unions are a farce. The teacher's union gives a shit for no one but teachers. The cops won't give evidence but expect the public to do so. Construction unions work on kick backs. Poor teachers can't be fired and are rehired after retiring. Union workers were paid to switch jobs when there was no wage loss. A public service union worker can surf porn 5 hours a day and not get fired. Dues are spent promoting personal 'causes.' These aren't unions, they're just another form of fraud. I was a union rep, and I am ashamed that the union movement has become. Often a fraudulent black mailing supporter of over payment for civic workers jobs (and others) to the point of insanity. Wrongo,sport... They are not forced to pay union dues...They can have those dues directed to the charity of their choice AND get the resulting tax break for this... I shouldn't have to tell a former union negotiator? about these legal matters,should I? This is done under the express knowledge that those INDIVIDUALS are declining representation and are on their own... Agency Shop...Look it up!!! This is far fairer than the corporate silliness that Mr. Hudak,and any other RTW loving fool,is promoting... The rest of your overly verbose drivel is blathering about the public sector and doesn't even scratch the surface of the real issue here... Back to "steward school",kiddo... 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 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%? That was quite the rant to edit for my reply. As Jack Weber has noted,there are many non union companies that are in direct competition with unionized shops.The non union shop employees receive direct benefit from competing with a unionized one! Our country would be doing better if there was more unionized workers! The only losers would be CEO's,vise presidents and share holders. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 I do not believe you understand how our economy works or the concept of "middle class" When people earn a wage for providing a service or product they are then reimbursed with a monetary sum. In turn these people use their monetary sums to buy other services/products/pay taxes/save/etc. The more money that goes to the middle class,the more money circulated within the economy. Less money going to the middle class and more going to the 1% = bad news for the economy!!! If you do not understand the importance of this,or have forgotten then you it's pointless. WWWTT Then why do any work at all? Why not just give everyone a government cheque and have it trickle all around to pay everyone? Are you suggesting that we don't need REAL jobs providing REAL goods and services? Are you suggesting manufacturers can ignore cheaper imports and give their workers raises even while their sales are drying up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 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... Jack, I think you are so upset you are confusing me with other posters. Those were not MY contentions! I would never deny that some companies bargain in bad faith. Just because I criticize one side does not make the other all saints. The world is not so black and white. Nonetheless, you didn't answer a single bloody thing I asked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Jack, I think you are so upset you are confusing me with other posters. Those were not MY contentions! I would never deny that some companies bargain in bad faith. Just because I criticize one side does not make the other all saints. The world is not so black and white. Nonetheless, you didn't answer a single bloody thing I asked! Yes I did.. But in your "classic liberal" infantile mindset,you can't get past your "Let the market be the market" foolishness... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Yes I did.. But in your "classic liberal" infantile mindset,you can't get past your "Let the market be the market" foolishness... Why must you insult everyone who disagrees with you. Name-calling is for little people. Take some anger management dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Yes I did.. But in your "classic liberal" infantile mindset,you can't get past your "Let the market be the market" foolishness... Here's my questions again, Jack. Forgive me if I'm blind but could you quote me those answers you claim you gave me? All I saw was a complaint than you had some bad management. Perhaps I missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Then why do any work at all? Why not just give everyone a government cheque and have it trickle all around to pay everyone? Are you suggesting that we don't need REAL jobs providing REAL goods and services? Are you suggesting manufacturers can ignore cheaper imports and give their workers raises even while their sales are drying up? We are not going to get far if you reply to my comments without/refusing to read the critically important parts! I clearly stated that I was referring to people who earn wages for providing a service/product. That means working! Maybe you did not understand that part. As far as the details go when a union goes into negotiating a new contract,that's between the company and the union. Unless there's been a third party assigned to arbitrate then it is not any one elses business(only because there are so many details that this is always a full time job) Just because some people have bits and pieces of the picture,that does not make them experts and they are now capable of wielding the power to make life impacting decisions! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Why must you insult everyone who disagrees with you. Name-calling is for little people. Take some anger management dude. Hey buddy back off! Its not easy watching your hard working colleagues take a kick for years while some fat cats get nice easy bonuses! And Wild Bill always ignores details in ppls comments to assert his own bias,he had it comin man! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 "The rest of your overly verbose drivel is blathering about the public sector and doesn't even scratch the surface of the real issue here..." Typical union negotiation . I'll leave you with that and the right to defend a anachronistic breed of Public (LIP Service ( Hah!) Workers. All one need do is read the papers where cities and other levels of government workers are now facing the reality of near bankruptcy and outrageous taxes do to decades of feeding at the taxpayer trough. Good luck on the union defense. All union supporters today can expect more disillusion from the public and more whining as unions shrink and shrink....to quote another 'Wicked" source..." I'm MELLLLLLLLLLLLTING! See I don't really care about your spouting off. More power to you. You are faced with the reality of defending the mainly indefensible, the unions of today. An impossible job. But, keep trying while the revelations of kick backs and over charging hit the fan in Ontario, Quebec and Wisconsin. I admire your quixotic enthusiasm, dead-ication, purse-erverance and rose coloured glasses.It's a thankless job like deck chairs on the Titanic, but some one has to do t. Sadly I see unions (most, not all) of today as akin to the last DoDo bird as it looked into the face of the guy with the outstretched hand not seeing the ax, just the apparent request for another buck, $$$$$. "Je te dis merde!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 "The rest of your overly verbose drivel is blathering about the public sector and doesn't even scratch the surface of the real issue here..." Typical union negotiation . I'll leave you with that and the right to defend a anachronistic breed of Public (LIP Service ( Hah!) Workers. All one need do is read the papers where cities and other levels of government workers are now facing the reality of near bankruptcy and outrageous taxes do to decades of feeding at the taxpayer trough. Good luck on the union defense. All union supporters today can expect more disillusion from the public and more whining as unions shrink and shrink....to quote another 'Wicked" source..." I'm MELLLLLLLLLLLLTING! See I don't really care about your spouting off. More power to you. You are faced with the reality of defending the mainly indefensible, the unions of today. An impossible job. But, keep trying while the revelations of kick backs and over charging hit the fan in Ontario, Quebec and Wisconsin. I admire your quixotic enthusiasm, dead-ication, purse-erverance and rose coloured glasses.It's a thankless job like deck chairs on the Titanic, but some one has to do t. Sadly I see unions (most, not all) of today as akin to the last DoDo bird as it looked into the face of the guy with the outstretched hand not seeing the ax, just the apparent request for another buck, $$$$$. "Je te dis merde!" Is this your best "Don Blankenship" impersonation??? The NAM thanks you for your obedience... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Union agenda is not necessarily their workers agenda! Forced Dues Blues Posted on 10 October 2011. Tags: free expression, freedom of association, labour reform, union dues, unions and politics, working families by Gerry Nicholls When it comes to running a political ad campaign,Ontario’s big union bosses have a pretty sweet deal. Here’s how it works: union bosses come up with the political agenda, while unionized employees are forced to come up with the cash. Or to put it another way, unionized employees in Ontario must pay for union boss propaganda campaigns whether they like it or not. And you can see this arrangement working right now in Ontario’s provincial election. Union bosses are currently squeezing money out of unionized workers’ pockets to finance a front group called Working Families, which has one goal and one goal only: to demonize Progressive Conservative Party leader Tim Hudak with TV attack ads. Most unionized employees don’t like such tactics. A recent Nanos Research survey, commissioned by the Canadian LabourWatch Association, showed 73% of unionized Canadians are opposed to the types of negative attack ads being run by unions or by union front groups. Yet even though employees might not like it, they still must finance these attack ads. That’s because under Ontario’s labour laws unionized employees must pay union dues; they have no choice. The idea is that since all unionized employees benefit from the collective bargaining process, all unionized employees should also pay dues. But the law also says it’s perfectly OK for union bosses to use those forced dues for purposes other than collective bargaining, including funding political advocacy campaigns, such as Working Families. You don’t have to be a legal scholar to see why this practice is wrong and undemocratic. It clearly infringes on every unionized employee’s right of free expression and free association. Just as we have the right to associate with a political cause, we should also have the right not to associate with a political cause. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” In the case of Working Families, there are likely many unionized employees who would vehemently disagree with a political campaign attacking the PCs, but who nevertheless are being forced through their dues to support such an effort. And using forced dues to subsidize Working Families is wrong even if just a minority of unionized workers oppose it. After all, a true democracy must protect the rights of the minority. Maybe this is why in other democracies unionized workers are not compelled to support the partisan political agendas of union bosses. AsJohn Mortimerof LabourWatch notes, “In virtually every other major economy, including the 47 nations composing the Council of Europe,Australiaand theUnited States, the law bars unions from forcing unionized workers to pay dues for politics or be fired from their jobs.” In other words, when it comes to protecting the rights of unionized employees Ontariois out of touch with the rest of the world. This must change; it’s time to restore a basic democratic freedom to unionized employees. That means reforming labour laws inOntarioto prevent union bosses from using forced dues to pay for politicking. It should be pointed out that such a reform would by no means stop union bosses from having a say during elections. They could still run negative media campaigns, but they would have pay for them with money that is voluntarily contributed specifically for that purpose. This is how other advocacy groups operate. They ask their members for voluntary donations to pay for political activity. Why can’t union bosses do the same? (Gerry Nicholls is editor of Freedom Forum. This article originally appeared in the National Post.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Wrongo,sport... They are not forced to pay union dues...They can have those dues directed to the charity of their choice AND get the resulting tax break for this... I shouldn't have to tell a former union negotiator? about these legal matters,should I? This is done under the express knowledge that those INDIVIDUALS are declining representation and are on their own... Agency Shop...Look it up!!! This is far fairer than the corporate silliness that Mr. Hudak,and any other RTW loving fool,is promoting... The rest of your overly verbose drivel is blathering about the public sector and doesn't even scratch the surface of the real issue here... Back to "steward school",kiddo... Perhaps a more definitive explanation and qualifier on obligatory dues. In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off) is a workplace situation where the payment of trade union dues is mandatory regardless of the worker's union status. This formula is designed to ensure that no employee will opt out of the union simply to avoid dues yet reap the benefits of the union's accomplishments (such as ensuring higher wages, better job security or other benefits). Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ivan Rand, the eponym of this law, introduced this formula in 1946 as an arbitration decision ending the Ford Strike of 1945 in Windsor, Ontario. The Canada Labour Code and the labour relations laws of a majority of provinces contain provisions requiring the Rand formula when certain conditions are met. In those provinces where the labour relations laws do not make the Rand formula mandatory, the automatic check-off of union dues may become part of the collective bargaining agreement if both parties (i.e., the employer and the trade union) agree. If there are religious objections to paying dues the dues may be donated to a mutually agreed upon charity per Canada Labour Code Section 70. (1)(Quoting Canada Labour Code Part I Section 70) "Compulsory Check-Off Union dues to be deducted 70. (1) Where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union forthwith. Religious objections (2) Where the Board is satisfied that an employee, because of their religious conviction or beliefs, objects to joining a trade union or to paying regular union dues to a trade union, the Board may order that the provision in a collective agreement requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a trade union or requiring the payment of regular union dues to a trade union does not apply to that employee so long as an amount equal to the amount of the regular union dues is paid by the employee, either directly or by way of deduction from their wages, to a registered charity mutually agreed on by the employee and the trade union. Designation by Board (3) Where an employee and the trade union are unable to agree on a registered charity for the purposes of subsection (2), the Board may designate any such charity as the charity to which payment should be made. " [edit] Freedom of association issue It has been argued that the Rand formula forces a person to join an association, thus violating his/her freedom of association. The Supreme Court of Canada determined that the Rand formula was indeed a violation of a person's freedom of association if the union does not use the fees it collects for the collective negotiation process (example : donations to a union in another country). This violation has although been, so far, determined as being justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [1]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Union agenda is not necessarily their workers agenda! I wonder if Gerry Nicholls is assisting MeritShop Canada in it's advocacy for Bill C-377?? 'Cause it's all about "the freedom",right? Another spectacular diversion,Peeves,from Wine Tasting Tim's attempt at RTW by stealth in Ontario... Kudos... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Gerry Nicholls Really Peeves?Nope no biased writing there, nope none whatsoever. The Conservative Ministry of Propaganda gave their blessing.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Perhaps a more definitive explanation and qualifier on obligatory dues etc. Unions are tax free like a charity but are not required to open their books. "Unions should be forced to release information on their finances and what they spend money on." That seems inappropriate as workers and the public should know if dues are going for nefarious purposes. seems to me a union dues payer should know and what their dues are going to support or 'buy.' Ex-Quebec union boss faces fraud chargesPQ reiterates call for construction inquiry Ex-union boss lived large at Quebec members' expense: CBC probe Quebec union denies Hells Angels link Play iconQuebec police have issued an arrest warrant on fraud charges for the former head of the construction arm of the province's biggest federation of labour unions. Jocelyn Dupuis is the former director of FTQ-Construction, an arm of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ, which represents more than 70,000 construction workers.Ex-Quebec union boss faces fraud charges2:17 Quebec police have issued an arrest warrant on fraud charges for the former head of the construction arm of the province's biggest federation of labour unions. Jocelyn Dupuis is the former director of FTQ-Construction, an arm of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ, which represents more than 70,000 construction workers. Jocelyn Dupuis, the former head of FTQ-Construction, the construction arm of Quebec's biggest federation of labour unions, faces three fraud charges.Jocelyn Dupuis, the former head of FTQ-Construction, the construction arm of Quebec's biggest federation of labour unions, faces three fraud charges. (CBC Archives) He faces three charges, including the fabrication of false documents, police said Thursday. Dupuis, who resigned from the union in September 2008, is now in Florida and is expected to report to police on his return. I am Peeves and I endorse this 'white paper.' Labour overhaul Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives released a “white paper” calling for an overhaul of labour laws to give unions less power in the workplace. “The world has changed, and our economy has changed with it,” Tory leader Tim Hudak said. Among the suggested changes: Provincial rules should be changed to block the mandatory paycheque deductions of union dues, and give workers the option of not joining a union in workplaces with collective agreements Unions should be forced to release information on their finances and what they spend money on Workplace insurance, currently exclusively provided by the Workplace Safety Insurance Board for some industries, should be opened up to competition from the private sector End the practice of “closed tendering” for government contracts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 Really Peeves? Nope no biased writing there, nope none whatsoever. The Conservative Ministry of Propaganda gave their blessing.... I have a bias, most do, so refute the charges not a name. What does your post serve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) Unions are tax free like a charity but are not required to open their books. "Unions should be forced to release information on their finances and what they spend money on." That seems inappropriate as workers and the public should know if dues are going for nefarious purposes. seems to me a union dues payer should know and what their dues are going to support or 'buy.' I am Peeves and I endorse this 'white paper.' Labour overhaul Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives released a “white paper” calling for an overhaul of labour laws to give unions less power in the workplace. “The world has changed, and our economy has changed with it,” Tory leader Tim Hudak said. Among the suggested changes: Provincial rules should be changed to block the mandatory paycheque deductions of union dues, and give workers the option of not joining a union in workplaces with collective agreements Unions should be forced to release information on their finances and what they spend money on Workplace insurance, currently exclusively provided by the Workplace Safety Insurance Board for some industries, should be opened up to competition from the private sector End the practice of “closed tendering” for government contracts Who cares who you are AND you advocate for a poorly informed "white paper" because you don't even understand the labour legislation in Ontario... Still on the compulsory union membership thing,huh? I hope you also are advocating for all PRIVATE business to open up thier books to public,as well... Being a former union member,you should know that all financials are available to any member who requests it and is announced at the monthly meetings for DUES PAYING MEMBERS... MeritCanada,The Fraser Institute,and,The National Citizens Coalition thanks you for defending workplace "FREEDOM"... Edited July 1, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted July 1, 2012 Report Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) Being a former union member,you should know that all financials are available to any member who requests it and is announced at the monthly meetings for DUES PAYING MEMBERS... Thx. I'll drink to that. BTW unions gave me lots of work when I went into private practice. Uh... Oh, no, it wasn't working for them. Edited July 1, 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.