National Citizens Coalition is a Sham

[mirror]

Stephen Harper vs. Canada

This NCC organization sounds like it is a scam. Funded by corporations with actually few or no members. Devoid of democratic principles. Organizations like this one, the Fraser Institute, and others of a similiar vein should be closed down, as they are not in the public interest.

[Riverwind]

This organization sounds like it is a scam. Funded by corporations with actually few or no members. Devoid of democratic principles. Organizations like this one, the Fraser Institute, and others of a similiar vein should be closed down, as they are not in the public interest.

There is no difference between the Center for Policy Alternatives and the Fraser Institute. Both exist to promote a political agenda.

[mirror]

Wait and see the results when the non corporate TV network starts broadcasting in 2007. I think it's impact will be huge. People are desperate to get away from the corporate BS.

[Mad_Michael]

Stephen Harper vs. Canada

This NCC organization sounds like it is a scam. Funded by corporations with actually few or no members. Devoid of democratic principles. Organizations like this one, the Fraser Institute, and others of a similiar vein should be closed down, as they are not in the public interest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unions aren't in the public interest either. Should they be 'banned' too?

Show me a socialist and I will show you an aspiring tyrant.

[Guest eureka]

What connection is there between a privately funded business front and a mass movement such as Unions.

Unions are in the public interest unless you consider the organized public to be a different public than the one you belong to.

Long time ago, I knew slightly Colin Brown, the founder of the NCC. He was a first rate prick and a wild - eyed believer in his own (and his class( superiority.

Nothing has changed.

[Argus]

Stephen Harper vs. Canada

This NCC organization sounds like it is a scam. Funded by corporations with actually few or no members. Devoid of democratic principles. Organizations like this one, the Fraser Institute, and others of a similiar vein should be closed down, as they are not in the public interest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mmmm, about what one would expect from a reader of Rabble.ca, a web site where only true believers are permitted to post - to each other, and where no freedom of expression of any kind if tolerated. Just banned, mirror? Don't you want them arrested, too? Perhaps put in labour camps? Tortured? Executed?

Why would you even post the knowledge-free opinion of a mindless leftist twit like this and then use it as a discusson? You don't have enough knowledge-free drivel of your own for us to shoot down?

The NCC has 40,000 members and it has a lot more democratic principles than rabble.ca. Not that a guy who clearly has no tolerance whatever for freedom of speech would be capable of understanding that.

[shoop]

Mmmm, about what one would expect from a reader of Rabble.ca, a web site where only true believers are permitted to post - to each other, and where no freedom of expression of any kind if tolerated. Just banned, mirror? Don't you want them arrested, too? Perhaps put in labour camps? Tortured? Executed?

Why would you even post the knowledge-free opinion of a mindless leftist twit like this and then use it as a discusson? You don't have enough knowledge-free drivel of your own for us to shoot down?

The NCC has 40,000 members and it has a lot more democratic principles than rabble.ca. Not that a guy who clearly has no tolerance whatever for freedom of speech would be capable of understanding that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right on. Leads to a much bigger point. The Canadian Left is all about ensuring individual rights and respecting diversity. Unless of course it is somebody expressing different political views than theirs. Then you are a "nazi", "reiligious wing nut", "christian" or some other equally offensive term.

That's ok. when Mirror is still working at the same coffee shop 20 years from now, he will always find solace on rabble...

[Argus]

What connection is there between a privately funded business front and a mass movement such as Unions.

Both lobby for political and social changes they believe in.

Unions are in the public interest unless you consider the organized public to be a different public than the one you belong to.

First of all, the NCC is the organized public. In fact, since it has the willing support of the membership it has more validity than unions. After all, those who join and contribute to the NCC do so on a voluntary basis. Either they join as individuals, or as owners (through stock) of companies and corporations which join. They may entirely withdraw at any time. Union membes have no choice in supporting causes and political parties. I, for example, am required to join my union. My union, though it shares few of the leftist political goals of the PSAC is a member for strategic reasons of self-interest. The PSAC supports leftist causes and gives money to the NDP, among others, whom I oppose. My money, and that of many tens of thousands of members who do not support the NDP, are nevertheless used to support the NDP. The PSAC supports and lobbies on behalf of numerous causes I and my colleagues oppose. It does so without ever asking the membership whether they care to contribute money because they know they would receive a resounding "NO!".

And yet you believe union political action is acceptable and in the public interest even though very few members of the public, not to mention very few union members support that action, while the NCC political action is somehow unacceptable because... because... oh, because they're business people and business people are evil and should have no rights.

There is no logic to that. It really boils down to you believe the unions are "legitimate" because you approve of their political stance while the NCC is "illegitimate" because you don't like their political stance. It gets no more complex than that.

[Guest eureka]

The NCC is a throwback to another time. Voluntary is not really a good word to describe what is an Employers Guild with nothing much more to it than tolobby for lower taxes and hang the social consequences.

Unions are not at all what you make them out to be and, I believe that you can refuse to have your dues used to support any one political party. The average trade uninist is probably almost as Conservative as you are: no reasonable person could be quite so far gone, though.

I live in a union city and it is a city that has had representation from all three parties but most, including the current members, Conservative. If very few members support the action of their unions, then you should have no problem in forcing a different course.

[scribblet]

Stephen Harper vs. Canada

T

Mmmm, about what one would expect from a reader of Rabble.ca, a web site where only true believers are permitted to post - to each other, and where no freedom of expression of any kind if tolerated. Just banned, mirror? Don't you want them arrested, too? Perhaps put in labour camps? Tortured? Executed?

Why would you even post the knowledge-free opinion of a mindless leftist twit like this and then use it as a discusson? You don't have enough knowledge-free drivel of your own for us to shoot down?

The NCC has 40,000 members and it has a lot more democratic principles than rabble.ca. Not that a guy who clearly has no tolerance whatever for freedom of speech would be capable of understanding that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agree with you there, not only is rabble completely undemocratic (left wing only please) but it is rude and allows swearing.

NCC is as legitimate as any organization which forms to promote political ideas and issues, and yes its voluntary, union dues are not. Left wingers hate the Fraser inst. too, but claiming it is biased does not eliminate the legitimacy of their information.

[Toro]

Unions are in the public interest unless you consider the organized public to be a different public than the one you belong to.

Unions are in their own interest. No different than corporations.

[Guest eureka]

And the self-interest of unions is in the public interest. That of corporations is not necessarily so.

[shoop]

And the self-interest of unions is in the public interest. That of corporations is not necessarily so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The self-interest of unions is the interests of their members, ideally, or their leadership, in many cases.

The self-interest of corporations is the interests of their shareholders, ideally, or their executives, in many cases.

If the ideal is attained in either case it is in the public interest in BOTH cases. Unfortunately, the leadership of these organizations often equate their own self-interet as being in the self-interest of who they are supposed to help.

Both are needed in our society. Neither are perfect.

[Toro]

Shoop's got it.

[Guest eureka]

What shoop has got is a very limited understanding of the place of unions in society. And, likening shareholding to unionism is also a very shallow view.

[shoop]

What shoop has got is a very limited understanding of the place of unions in society. And, likening shareholding to unionism is also a very shallow view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What eureka's got is the pompous self-righteous attitude of the Canadian Left. Coupled with the expected laziness. The pronouncement is so self-evident it requires no explanation or proof.

Please explain how my analogy how a two sentence reply explains how my understanding is 'limited' and 'shallow'.

I'll get into it if you want. Alas I am sure you will sit and throw barbs without providing anything in the way of real support or proof.

[Guest eureka]

What you have is the self-righteous complacency of a Colonel Blimp. What is good for shareholders is not at all a Public Good except by accident.

What is good for unionism is a Public Good. You limit this, in your thinking, by your blanket accusation that they are all out for themselves and their leaders are venal. You don't use those words, but that is what you are saying.

Unless you come from the group of "old wealth," everything that you enjoy today has been won for you by the union movement and the courage of the "pompous, self-righteous, Left" that your grandparents probably belonged to.

Whatever faults there are in individual unions or the leaders of unions ( and I know of real corruption in some unions), the movement transcends any individual interest.

I have never been a member of a union. I have been in management for most of my working life. That has not blinded me to history or to social needs. Nor has it made me feel superior to those who have needed protection.

So get into it if you want.

[shoop]

What you have is the self-righteous complacency of a Colonel Blimp. What is good for shareholders is not at all a Public Good except by accident.

What is good for unionism is a Public Good. You limit this, in your thinking, by your blanket accusation that they are all out for themselves and their leaders are venal. You don't use those words, but that is what you are saying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ohhh, what a freak.

Didn't use any blanket accusation at all. So if you want to get into it, f*ckstick at least accurately respond to me.

The competition induced by a free market society is in the best interest of our economy. (Government regulations are necessary, but this is the time-proven best economic model.) When operating effectively executives represent the best interests of the shareholders.

Unions are a necessary counter-balance to the monopolistic urges of management. When operating effectively union leaders represent the best interests of their members.

To modify a quote of John Kenneth Galbraith's - "The capacity of the businessman, and eureka, for self-delusion is infinite."

[Toro]

What is good for unionism is a Public Good.

Why? If corporations and unions both act in their own self-interest, why is one good and not the other?

[Argus]

The NCC is a throwback to another time. Voluntary is not really a good word to describe what is an Employers Guild with nothing much more to it than tolobby for lower taxes and hang the social consequences.

Call it what you want. All membership is entirely voluntary. And not everyone who belongs is rich, unless you use the term to describe everyone who isn't on welfare.

Unions are not at all what you make them out to be

What did I make them out to be? I pointed out membership was often involuntary.

and, I believe that you can refuse to have your dues used to support any one political party.

There could be such a rule somewhere, but few would be aware of it and it would be unlikely to make a difference if they were.

I live in a union city and it is a city that has had representation from all three parties but most, including the current members, Conservative. If very few members support the action of their unions, then you should have no problem in forcing a different course.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If unions were democratically inclined you'd be correct. They aren't. No one ever gets to vote for the senior membership of a union. You get to vote - and then only if you attend the meetings - for local leaders only. However, it is a fact of human nature that "ordinary" people rarely have anything to do with their union. Attendance at union meetings is tiny. So who attends? Those who are angry and dissatisfied and want things done about - whatever. And who climbs the ladders of unions? Politically ambitious people, usually with a cause of some kind. It's true that most union membership is conservative in nature. But most union leadership is made up of the hard left. Conservatives, you see, have work to do and lives to lead. Dedicated zealots of the left care about little but changing the world.

[Argus]

What is good for unionism is a Public Good.

Why? If corporations and unions both act in their own self-interest, why is one good and not the other?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Presumably because unions only want what's good for "people", while corporations only want what's good for "rich people". However, corporations are "owned" by hundreds of thousands of shareholders, most of whom are "people". That is something most on the left never seem to realize (probably because few have the skills neccesary to draw enough compensation to invest in anything). In fact, when unions lobby politicians it is either for what is good for their members in particular (ie, laws against scabs) or what the union's leadership regards as good causes (anti-racism, anti-capitalism, punishing... I mean, taxing rich people more heavily, etc.) In some cases the union leadership is willing to embrace political issues which are actually against the interests of their members. Which shows you why many of them have gone to the bother of climbing the greasy union ladder. Immigration, for example, is against the interests of workers because a bigger labour pool means lower compensation for workers. Affirmative action plans reward very few of their workers at the expense of the majority. Higher foreign aid is money taken from their members pockets to no good affect - at least not for their members.

So as I said in an earlier post, those who go to the effort of climbing up into the leadership of unions tend to be political zealots of the left with an axe to grind, not people whose primary motivation is the well-being of their union membership.

[August1991]

Why? If corporations and unions both act in their own self-interest, why is one good and not the other?

Unions are specifically exempt from anti-trust legislation; corporations obviously are not. In fact, unions are a legally-sanctioned form of cartel.

You are free to buy a Pontiac or a Toyota. But GM is not free to hire any employee it wants.

The better question to ask is why unions exist at all.

BTW, about 75% of employees in the public sector are unionized whereas about 25% in the private sector. Private sector unionization has been steadily dropping over the past few decades.

Unions are a necessary counter-balance to the monopolistic urges of management. When operating effectively union leaders represent the best interests of their members.

The best counter-balance to corporate managers are managers in other corporations, whether foreign or Canadian. If GM corporate managers are being rapacious, shareholders, employees and customers are all free to go to Ford or Toyota.

I would expect union leaders to reprersent the interests of their fellow union members.

[Toro]

I have no problems with the concept of unions. If capital is allowed to organize and accorded legal protection, i.e. within a corporation, why not labour?

[August1991]

I have no problems with the concept of unions.  If capital is allowed to organize and accorded legal protection, i.e. within a corporation, why not labour?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What legal protection is accorded a corporation?

GM can only hire workers who are members of the CAW. GM's customers have no such obligation.

The CAW is a monopoly, enforced by legal sanction. If GM wants to hire auto workers, the CAW is the only game in town.

Imagine if you wanted to buy a car, and GM was the only dealership in town.

[Toro]

If you invest, you are accorded legal protection as a limited liability corporation. So, if a corporation goes bankrupt, creditors cannot lay claim to any more than the capital supplied into the legal entity. (As opposed to a partnership such as Lloyds of London where you are liable for all legal claims.) This legal protection is a critical element in the the wealth we've created in the modern economy.

Its true that unions are monopolies within a workplace, but workers can de-certify or choose other unions. Also, its much more difficult to form a union. Ask the workers of Wal-Mart.