Is it not time to get public service unions out of politics?

[Argus]

There are two issues with the amount of money government employee unions can put into election campaigns. The first is the buying of influence, which we've seen most pointedly in Ontario, where public service unions, including teachers, health care workers and even police, have put a lot of money into helping the provincial government stave off the Tories so they can be rewarded with fat salary and benefit increases.

The second issue is the whole notion that the public service ought to be neutral and unbiased in political terms, the honest employees who carry out whatever policy our elected politicians decide on, even when that policy changes abruptly.

On the federal level we saw last week that mostly public service unions put millions of dollars into unseating the federal tories in the last election. Why? For the most part, because they weren't getting the raises and benefits they wanted. They now expect to do better with the Liberals, and almost certainly will.

Governments, both federal and provincial, have learned that if you say no you soon get bombarded with television and radio ads lamenting your endangerment of education, or health care, or public safety. And if you aren't nice and grant them what you want they'll put their money into the opposition party and help them push you out. That tends to help a lot at the negotiation table, and helps explain why so much of the well-off middle class are now public servants.

But how is this good for the rest of us? When we have oversized, overpaid public services we get heavily taxed for very little in return. Education suffers when we don't have enough teachers, just as health care suffers without enough nurses and policing suffers without enough police - because the cost of each employee is so very high. At the federal level, we get highly paid clerks and billions of dollars directed at union approved ideologically driven programs.

Remember that the union leadership is not necessarily of the same mentality as the membership. The internal processes are such that ordinary people rarely even join the ranks of activists, let alone run for elections at conventions to move up the ladder. I will say this, as a one-time shop steward I never came across a union activist who cared a damn about wasting the public's money on anything he or she wanted to do. Even the ones concerned about wasting the union's money were in the minority. So what kind of political parties are they likely to support?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/third-parties-mostly-unions-spent-6m-to-influence-2015-election-minister-vows-crackdown

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/third-party-advertising-needs-to-be-reined-in-to-level-the-playing-field-in-ontario-elections-chief-electoral-officer

Edited April 2, 2016 by Argus

[Bryan]

It's long past time to get rid of public service unions altogether. They're just legalized extortion of the taxpayers.

[Argus]

It's long past time to get rid of public service unions altogether. They're just legalized extortion of the taxpayers.

Unions do serve a purpose in dealing with often management. I know that I spent most of my time as a shop steward interceding with managers on behalf of their staff because the managers were too stupid to understand what they could and could not do, and couldn't be bothered to learn. Even if an organization is reasonably fair that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of individual components who are jerks.

[SunnyWays]

The original wage concept of Public Service - at all levels of government was to accept less remuneration that the private sector in exchange for Job Security and a decent pension......and that was a fair bargain for all. It's pretty plain that this concept has flown out the window - wages are often greater that the private sector and benefits are gold-plated - making overall compensation as a whole greater than the private sector, on average.

How do we get back to the original concept? A wage freeze for 10 years seems a non-starter. New pay scales for new employees, put the brakes on raises for others?

[dre]

End ALL contributions and advertising by ALL groups and organizations. Cap personal contributions at $5 and make that contribution mandatory so each citizen contributes $5 to the party of their choice and nobody contributes more. Make it illegal for ANY money to enter the system outside of this limited framework.

[Peter F]

So what kind of political parties are they likely to support?

I suspect the Public Sector Unions seem likely to support those parties which you do not support and thus the need to remove PS Unions from the realm of Political discourse.

Your contention seems to be that Politicians pander to PS unions in order to get that unions support and that pandering will take the form of higher pay + benefits - Guaranteed! ... at least for elections.

You and I both know that votes are cast in secret ballots not in groups by union bosses.I know many a union guy that thought the union supporting the Liberals was atrocious because the Liberals were going to drive the country bankrupt. They went ahead - so they claimed - to vote conservative.

Of course they also went ahead and worked tons of overtime too - but I digress...

But how is this good for the rest of us? When we have oversized, overpaid public services we get heavily taxed for very little in return. Education suffers when we don't have enough teachers, just as health care suffers without enough nurses and policing suffers without enough police - because the cost of each employee is so very high. At the federal level, we get highly paid clerks...

Whats oversized about the public sector? Whats overpaid about the public sector? Whats getting little in return for taxes?

Treasury Board - like wizards - never hire too many or too few . There's always just enough workers to do the job that their managers tell them they need - within budget restrictions anyways. But then budgets are outside the bounds of Treasury Board. That responsibility lies in Cabinet.

You know damn well that workers go to whoever has the better pay/benefits. If government does not pay teachers enough then government will have a hard time fullfilling governments promises regarding education. If government does not pay BrainSurgeons enough then government will find they have a hard time fullfilling promised health care standards. They may even overpay them to make up for a competitors benefits in order to keep them on.

And may I add, Brain surgery only benefits a very few. So what do taxpayers get out of that? Why Nuthin of course.

[Peter F]

...and billions of dollars directed at union approved ideologically driven programs.

Union approved? Why do you suppose government seeks union approval? oh, wait you answered that

Governments, both federal and provincial, have learned that if you say no you soon get bombarded with television and radio ads lamenting your endangerment of education, or health care, or public safety. And if you aren't nice and grant them what you want they'll put their money into the opposition party and help them push you out. That tends to help a lot at the negotiation table, and helps explain why so much of the well-off middle class are now public servants.

So you already know why governments seek union approval.

So I ask myself, 'Self', I ask, 'what is it Argus wants?'

Governments not seek union approval and unions keep thier mouths shut.

Such a thing would require so much of the middle-class who are now public servants to remain silent. I'm sorry Argus. The middle class are not going

to keep thier mouths shut. They too pay taxes. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that they are going to shut the Eff up and take it.

The elected (often by acclimation because no one runs against them) union bosses know the above and pander to thier electorate. You see? Its called democracy.

What was it the PS unions were lamenting? The Conservatives are going to cut back on services ! Cutting services inevitably lead to job cuts. Was that something the tax-paying middle-class public sector employee's should approve? ... and if they disapprove should they remain silent? Should they

not pester thier union bosses to 'think of the children!' and actually Say something?

Should your opinion about you having no concern for them carry any weight with them at all?

[Bryan]

Unions do serve a purpose in dealing with often management.

That's one of their worst purposes -- interfering with the function of departments and legitimate human resources initiatives. Dead weight employees hide behind the union, and the union time and time again will go to bat for someone who should have been fired long ago.

[Peter F]

Dead weight employees hide behind the union, and the union time and time again will go to bat for someone who should have been fired long ago.

Damn right the union goes to bat for them. But thats not why the guy isn't sacked.

[eyeball]

Is it not time to get public service union...

Not unless they form One Big Union and invite anyone to join and go to bat for non-union workers everywhere, otherwise I could care less what happens to them. If they're not with us they're against us AFAIC.

[Argus]

End ALL contributions and advertising by ALL groups and organizations. Cap personal contributions at $5 and make that contribution mandatory so each citizen contributes $5 to the party of their choice and nobody contributes more. Make it illegal for ANY money to enter the system outside of this limited framework.

The problem lies in not suppressing freedom of speech of groups which want to protest against a particular policy, law or regulation. I don't have an issue with non-government unions taking out ads OUTSIDE election periods. I do have an issue with the way the current system works on a back-scratching basis where governments which are generous to their employees get paid off with union donations, union volunteers for their campaigns, and 'third party' advertising by unions in support of them and opposed to other parties.

[Argus]

I suspect the Public Sector Unions seem likely to support those parties which you do not support and thus the need to remove PS Unions from the realm of Political discourse.

Do you support unrestricted political support of government by big business, by corporations? I'm guessing the answer is no.

This is worse in that the relationship between government and government workers is closer and continuous.

Your contention seems to be that Politicians pander to PS unions in order to get that unions support and that pandering will take the form of higher pay + benefits - Guaranteed! ... at least for elections.

You and I both know that votes are cast in secret ballots not in groups by union bosses.

I am not suggesting the PS unions are able to convince their members to vote for or against a particular party. They do, however, spend their members money in large numbers to support the party of their choice - which is not necessarily the party of their members' choice.

Whats oversized about the public sector? Whats overpaid about the public sector? Whats getting little in return for taxes?

PS unions obviously support BIG government, the bigger the better. They will throw their economic weight behind parties which do likewise.

And let's face facts, public servants are largely overpaid for the complexity of the work they do, and the rarity of the skill set involved.

You know damn well that workers go to whoever has the better pay/benefits. If government does not pay teachers enough then government will have a hard time fullfilling governments promises regarding education.

And you know damn well we pay teachers too much, as witness the fact masses of new teachers graduate every year, far more than we can find room for or afford to pay.

[Argus]

Such a thing would require so much of the middle-class who are now public servants to remain silent.

It would not require them to do any such thing. It would require the government unions to remain uninvolved in politics.

The elected (often by acclimation because no one runs against them) union bosses know the above and pander to thier electorate.

I can't speak for all unions, of course. I can say that in my union not one in fifty people even knew the name of their local president, much less the regional officers above him. The turnout to vote in local elections was usually around 5% of local members. And of course, the membership at large does not get a vote in regional or national elections. Individual government workers, for example, do not get to vote for the PSAC president or any of the national board members.

You see? Its called democracy.

Kinda like what they have in Russia?

What was it the PS unions were lamenting? The Conservatives are going to cut back on services ! Cutting services inevitably lead to job cuts. Was that something the tax-paying middle-class public sector employee's should approve? ... and if they disapprove should they remain silent? Should they

not pester thier union bosses to 'think of the children!' and actually Say something?

It's not the norm to have employees take out TV campaigns which tell people how lousy their company is. Even if they could do that without getting fired they don't usually want to cost their company customers. Government unions have no such concern, of course. Their not interested in deficits or the budget. They only want what's best for themselves. The problem is what's best for them is often contrary to the best interest of Canadians at large.

The dangerous affects of this kind of thing was recognized by the past two governments, which banned union and other third party advertising during election campaigns. The problem is that law does not extend to the provinces, and the new set date for elections allows organizations - especially unions -- to make an end run around the law by pouring advertising out there in the weeks leading up to the writ being dropped.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

That's one of their worst purposes -- interfering with the function of departments and legitimate human resources initiatives. Dead weight employees hide behind the union, and the union time and time again will go to bat for someone who should have been fired long ago.

It happens. I've seen it. But I've also seen moron managers who bully and take advantage of employees by pressuring them to work unpaid overtime and harass them for taking legitimate time off due to illness.

[dre]

The problem lies in not suppressing freedom of speech of groups which want to protest against a particular policy, law or regulation. I don't have an issue with non-government unions taking out ads OUTSIDE election periods. I do have an issue with the way the current system works on a back-scratching basis where governments which are generous to their employees get paid off with union donations, union volunteers for their campaigns, and 'third party' advertising by unions in support of them and opposed to other parties.

Groups could still advocate within their own membership, and try to get their members to direct their $5 dollars towards the party who's policies would benefit them the most.

My proposal would completely solve the problem you are pointing out, but it would be universal instead of targeted at one specific group which you happened to be at odds with.

The purpose of democracy was to split political influence equally between illegible voters. That's why corporations and special interest groups were never given a way to vote. The rise of special interest groups subverts democracy and results in unequal influence between citizens. Just kill it all and have mandatory $5 donations per person. That fixed pool of election funding will keep elections small and short and take money out of politics.

Its fine for a "group" to have soft influence over their members and how those members vote and who they give their $5 to. A group could ask or recommend that its members or shareholders do a certain thing. That's ALL they should be able to do though.

My $5 dollar model would provide a federal election with 150 million in funding if it was per citizen or about 100 million in funding if it was per eligible voter. Attempts to marshal influence outside of this framework would be treated as election fraud.

Edited April 2, 2016 by dre

[Argus]

My $5 dollar model would provide a federal election with 150 million in funding if it was per citizen or about 100 million in funding if it was per eligible voter. Attempts to marshal influence outside of this framework would be treated as election fraud.

Your model requires forced contributions. I'm not in favour of that. If you have a good idea and can get support then people will donate money to your party. If your idea is stupid and people don't trust you then they won't. I like the simplicity of that. Neither the tories nor the NDP have had any trouble collecting enough money from their membership. The Liberals can do the same.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Argus

[Queenmandy85]

The reason the private sector doesn't get the same opportunities as Public sector is because union membership has declined in the private sector. A union is a corporation that sells labour on behalf of it's share holders, the membership. It has a duty, like any other corporation, to make as much money and win as many benefits as it can on behalf of its shareholders. An attack on unions is an attack on free enterprise.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Queenmandy85

[dre]

Your model requires forced contributions. I'm not in favor of that. If you have a good idea and can get support then people will donate money to your party. If your idea is stupid and people don't trust you then they won't. I like the simplicity of that.

Yes but its only $5 per person, and it ensures that political parties get funding proportional to the level of democrat support they enjoy, and it prevents wealthy individuals from purchasing way more influence than everyone else.

Plus the existing system involved forced contributions as well... for example a union allocating money from its treasury which members are forced to pay dues into without the consent of each member . Or corporations allocating money that belongs to shareholders without the consent of each shareholder.

[Argus]

The reason the private sector doesn't get the same opportunities as Public sector is because union membership has declined in the private sector. A union is a corporation that sells labour on behalf of it's share holders, the membership. It has a duty, like any other corporation, to make as much money and win as many benefits as it can on behalf of its shareholders. an attack on unions is an attack on free enterprise.

Were you snickering when you wrote that?

Unions are actually the antithesis of free enterprise given the membership has no choice but to be members and pay them.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Yes but its only $5 per person, and it ensures that political parties get funding proportional to the level of democrat support they enjoy, and it prevents wealthy individuals from purchasing way more influence than everyone else.

No, it ensures the political parties get funding proportional to the level of democratic support they used to hold. It also discourages the success of new political parties since last election they got little support and so have no money to advertise their views this time either.

Plus the existing system involved forced contributions as well... for example a union allocating money from its treasury which members are forced to pay dues into without the consent of each member . Or corporations allocating money that belongs to shareholders without the consent of each shareholder.

I don't think public service unions should be allowed to use that money for political purposes, period. And I think the federal rule against contributions from groups should be extended to the provinces.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Argus

[overthere]

It won't be long before Trudeau eliminates any significant contributions from unions and coporsations to federal , and tries to close the numerous backdoors via poltical action groups.

Oh, of cpourse that will be accompanid by legislation to force taxpayers to replace every penny of those election contributions, and more. Like it was before Harper cut off the piggies at the trough.

The 'radical initiative' will be packaged as part of the Liberals 'investment in democratic change', and the centerpiece of that will be the introduction of ranked ballots. Between that and 100% public election funding for national political parties, He'll have achieved His goal of numerous Liberal majorities. It is a huge priority for Trudeau, this kind of scam has to be done earlier before the broken promises and failures start to accumulate and the scorecard gets uncomfortably linked to a ballot.

Edited April 2, 2016 by overthere

[Queenmandy85]

Were you snickering when you wrote that?

Unions are actually the antithesis of free enterprise given the membership has no choice but to be members and pay them.

I am compelled to pay for my shares in Teck. I see no difference between that and paying my dues in CUPE. My vote in my Local's meetings carries more weight than my vote at Teck's stock holders meetings.

[Argus]

I am compelled to pay for my shares in Teck. I see no difference between that and paying my dues in CUPE. My vote in my Local's meetings carries more weight than my vote at Teck's stock holders meetings.

You are not compelled to buy shares in Teck. You are not compelled to join the Tory/Grit/NDP parties and contribute to them.

If you work for the government you are compelled to join the union, and through your forced dues, contribute to a political party you may despise.

[SunnyWays]

You know damn well that workers go to whoever has the better pay/benefits. If government does not pay teachers enough then government will have a hard time fullfilling governments promises regarding education. If government does not pay BrainSurgeons enough then government will find they have a hard time fullfilling promised health care standards. They may even overpay them to make up for a competitors benefits in order to keep them on.

And may I add, Brain surgery only benefits a very few. So what do taxpayers get out of that? Why Nuthin of course.

You forgot the law of Supply and Demand. There are thousands of teachers who cannot find a job - good, young, modern teachers. You could pay teachers anywhere from $40 to $75K and you'd still have a large supply. The Teacher's Union - as an example - has artificially inflated salaries and benefits, creating a closed model that protects it from Supply and Demand. No matter how you view teacher's wages, one can't deny that there are literally thousands of young, educated people who wanted dearly to get into teaching - but can't.

[Big Guy]

I think that a union should have the right to get involved in elections either to help fund parties or as third party advocates. I also think workers should have the choice to join that union or not.