Fletch 27 Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 Will it pass? Should it pass? How will this impact union membership? Will be interesting considering how Michigan voted yesterday Quote
Argus Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 Some decades back, corporate America, began a concerted effort at taking control of government. In 1971 there were 150 lobbyists in Washington. There are now 30,000. Think about that a minute. There are 30,000 lobbyists all spending money trying to bribe the government into doing things corporate American wants. Among the things it wanted were a series of tax breaks shifting the tax burden onto the middle class and away from them. They also wanted less government regulation in their businesses, and they wanted to get rid of unions. They've been largely successful in all of these. Giant corporations which earn billions in profit don't pay any taxes, and regulations have been cut away, producing a series of disastrous financial messes. Union membership shrinks every year as various well-paid politicians impose rules and regulations that benefit business and attack unions. News media, particularly 'conservative' ones like FOX, have been on a non-stop campaign to portray unions as evil, and responsible for all that is bad in the world. Every possible bad story about unions is played to the hilt, but nothing good. This reporting bill is part and parcel with the above. It plays into the belief, now widespread among conservatives who have drank the koolaid, that unions are anti-business, and cost jobs. And, of course, the federal Conservatives don't mind playing to that constituency since union leaders in Canada have been dead set opposed to the party since its inception. This bill is simply an ideological strike at unions. It will accomplish nothing of value, but those behind it hope it will help to engender more dislike of unions so that an environment can be established in which union strength is pruned back further by more anti-union laws. An interesting note. The government is insisting that it's important that unions are transparent about how they're spending money, even though the books are pretty much completely open to any member who asks. Meanwhile the government won't turn over even basic information on its budgetary cutbacks to the parliamentary budget officer without a lawsuit. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Posted December 13, 2012 Lisa Raitt was just on and stated that her Mother is a CAW member! And would like transparency. I'm okay with transparency regardless of if it's just to show the average Joe where the money goes. I don't think it should only be management that keeps the books. Just my opinion Quote
Argus Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Lisa Raitt was just on and stated that her Mother is a CAW member! And would like transparency. I'm okay with transparency regardless of if it's just to show the average Joe where the money goes. I don't think it should only be management that keeps the books. Just my opinion If her mother is a CAW member then her mother should ask her local executive to see the books. But I bet her mother never bothers to go near any of the meetings or ask. Transparency of union financing is not designed to enlighten members, it's designed to let the companies know how much money the union has on its books, including for a possible future strike. It's always nice to know how much money is in the union strike fund if you're a company considering making demands, right? Btw, management books are not open to the public unless it's a publicly owned company. Edited December 13, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Wayward Son Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 I basically agree with the statement below. I have nothing good to say about my previous union, but I fail to see how this bill would accomplish anything to have made my previous union any more accountable to myself. It is none of the business of non-union members what a union is spending its money on, and it should not matter whether non-union members. Small limited government only when they care to be I guess. Some Conservative MPs are expected to vote against the bill. Edmonton-St. Albert MP Brent Rathgeber said the amendments would improve it, but he plans to oppose it because it is based on a “fallacious” premise that receiving a tax deduction is the same as getting federal tax dollars. Mr. Rathgeber, a former labour lawyer who represented management, said he expects other Conservative MPs to join him in voting against the bill. “As a legislator, I’m just having a difficult time determining exactly what the public interest is in this type of legislation,” he said. Mr. Rathgeber said unions are essentially private clubs like law societies or industry associations that benefit from tax deductions. “So I just cannot accept the premise that tax-deducted union dues is somehow akin to public dollars and therefore creating a public interest,” he said. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Posted December 13, 2012 All public companies open the books... All. What's fair is fair... Why is the union afraid of a clear transparent governing process? Quote
Wayward Son Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Lisa Raitt was just on and stated that her Mother is a CAW member! And would like transparency. I'm okay with transparency regardless of if it's just to show the average Joe where the money goes. And anyone who has no connection to the union should be allowed to know exactly how the union is spending their money why? Private citiziens needing to report their firearms to the government is big intrusive government (I agree), but private organziations needing to report all their financial information to everyone in the country is A-ok. Look if CAW members feel they need more transparency from their union, then that is something they should demand and fight for, and if need be government legislation may need to be enacted to help them out. However, there appears to be no push from ordinary union members for this legislation, but instead a push from the most vocal anti-union people in the country. That makes it more then clear that this legislation has zero to do with helping out average joe union member get transparency from his union. Quote
Wayward Son Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 All public companies open the books... All. Unions are not public. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Posted December 13, 2012 Who's anti union? The feds employ thousands of union workers! i am very ok with finding out where opseu, teacher dues, federal employees union dues go! I may not be a member but I think this will be very good for the understanding of my unions Quote
Argus Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 All public companies open the books... All. What's fair is fair... Why is the union afraid of a clear transparent governing process? Hell, the government doesn't even open its books. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Yay it passed! Do you feel relieved at being so free now? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
TimG Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) So I just cannot accept the premise that tax-deducted union dues is somehow akin to public dollars and therefore creating a public interest,” he said.The Rand formula states makes it clear that unions are not simply private clubs and people can be compelled to join the union or pay the equivalent in dues to a charity. This protection in law makes union finances a public affair. If unions want to keep their finances private then they should stop forcing people to join the union. If they think the ability to force people to join is more important then they should have no problem making their books public. Edited December 13, 2012 by TimG Quote
Bonam Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Do you feel relieved at being so free now? Yes. No more will unions be allowed to waste millions on hateful political causes and hide such activities from the light of day. Quote
Argus Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Yes. No more will unions be allowed to waste millions on hateful political causes and hide such activities from the light of day. Have unions ever hidden their support, both in terms of political action, and donations, of the causes and politicians they support? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Posted December 13, 2012 This will certainly influence votes. This is a good thing.... Transparency. Now we can see if a union spreads money to the communist party, CPC, greens, Palestine etc.etc. FINALLY transparency. I for one am very glad we can see whom in Ontario is the "family" party and who's backing them. If Marc Garneu had a good position on funding or halting this sort of thing... He may very well get my vote... As a swing voter Quote
Argus Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 This will certainly influence votes. This is a good thing.... Transparency. Now we can see if a union spreads money to the communist party, CPC, greens, Palestine etc.etc. FINALLY transparency. I for one am very glad we can see whom in Ontario is the "family" party and who's backing them. If Marc Garneu had a good position on funding or halting this sort of thing... He may very well get my vote... As a swing voter I suspect that would not thrill him. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Topaz Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 I find the Tories govern by do as I SAY not what I do. Did the Tories given true figures on the F-35 no, and yet they want the FN and unions to open their books. I say the government should lead by example. Now, that the Tories are going home for the holidays, they will have to face their supporters who may be in a union and don't agree with them. I see this govrnemt going nothing but causing undue upheaval for Canadians. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Posted December 13, 2012 I dunno! He seems pretty smart! He was a scientist after all! I think this will have great repercussions for the better.. Again, I'm just a swing voter here.. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Posted December 13, 2012 find the unions as "say as I tell you, if not, your out"... Things are changing fast! Transparency darn you! Transparency now! Quote
Bonam Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Have unions ever hidden their support, both in terms of political action, and donations, of the causes and politicians they support? Perhaps or perhaps not. Now we'll know. Quote
TimG Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Did the Tories given true figures on the F-35 noYet despite the reluctance of the Tories the processes that we have in place resulted in those true figures coming out. The F-35 fiasco illustrates how important these public disclosure processes are. Edited December 13, 2012 by TimG Quote
Topaz Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 Just wait down the road when the Tories try the "right of work" act and they will after all we have to harmonize with the US because the corporation are the ones running the countries. Quote
TimG Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Just wait down the road when the Tories try the "right of work" actNothing but an attempt at propaganda. You are trying to create fear by suggesting policies that *might* be introduced in the future. Get back to us when some one in the Conservative government actually suggests that such policies should be adopted in Canada. Edited December 13, 2012 by TimG Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Posted December 13, 2012 THIS must be the hidden agenda! It must be! What else can it be? I find it poetic that the "hidden agenda" is transparency! !!!!!!! Damn you hind-sight! Damn you! Quote
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.