The Lively Seven fight the Steelworkers Union

[Canuck E Stan]

Free the Lively Seven

Their unanimous opposition didn’t matter to the Union or the CIRB. There was no vote. There was no hearing – just the way unions like things to go.

The CIRB forced unionization on these women in their workplace because over 50% of employees in eight branches in and around Sudbury signed union cards.

These courageous women want the law to protect their Charter Right to Freedom of Association, which includes the right to freely choose to associate with a union -- or NOT!

They want the law to protect them, as members of a free and democratic country, from being pressed into unions, forced to pay dues and be subject to discipline for not toeing the union line. They want the law to protect their wishes and their privacy at home.

Why are there no rights to NOT join unions?

[geoffrey]

Free the Lively Seven

Their unanimous opposition didn’t matter to the Union or the CIRB. There was no vote. There was no hearing – just the way unions like things to go.

The CIRB forced unionization on these women in their workplace because over 50% of employees in eight branches in and around Sudbury signed union cards.

These courageous women want the law to protect their Charter Right to Freedom of Association, which includes the right to freely choose to associate with a union -- or NOT!

They want the law to protect them, as members of a free and democratic country, from being pressed into unions, forced to pay dues and be subject to discipline for not toeing the union line. They want the law to protect their wishes and their privacy at home.

Why are there no rights to NOT join unions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can have the right to, but usually a collective barginning agreement will include some sort of clause such as said company can't hire non-union workers for x positions. I may be wrong on this, I am no lawyer, but that is my understanding anyways.

It's really too bad when this happens, unions only ever hurt both companies and the worker in the long run, but when a majority states their opinion, you must accept it. You'd have union types arguging the same, that because 5 of 500 employees want to start a union, they should be able to.

It's a problem either way.

[err]

Free the Lively Seven

Their unanimous opposition didn’t matter to the Union or the CIRB. There was no vote. There was no hearing – just the way unions like things to go.

The CIRB forced unionization on these women in their workplace because over 50% of employees in eight branches in and around Sudbury signed union cards.

They aught to check the definition of UNANIMOUS!!! If the MAJORITY of employees wanted to join the union, it is a bit of a stretch to say that seven (out of hundreds) constitutes a MAJORITY. It is a bastardization of the truth.... no... it's an outright LIE.

These courageous women want the law to protect their Charter Right to Freedom of Association, which includes the right to freely choose to associate with a union -- or NOT!

They can look for a job at a non-union shop if they don't want the rights and benefits that the union will guarantee them.....

They want the law to protect them, as members of a free and democratic country, from being pressed into unions, forced to pay dues and be subject to discipline for not toeing the union line. They want the law to protect their wishes and their privacy at home.

Like the law will protect them in event of a bank merger that throws half of them out on the steet.....

Why are there no rights to NOT join unions?

If it offends them so much to be part of a union shop... they do have choices... Too bad for them... they couldn't force their values on the majority of employees who chose to become a union shop....

[fellowtraveller]

Under long established Canadian law (from the early fifties at least, and the ruling is named after a judge whose name I have forgotten), you are NOT obliged to join a union in your workplace.

However, you are obliged to pay all the union dues and levies exactly as if you were a member.

And they call it democracy.......the tyranny of the majority.

For those capable and willing to negotiate their own terms and conditions of employment - go somewhere else-won't happen in Canada.

[Canuck E Stan]

fellowtraveller,

Your right about this ruling,it's called the Rand Formula of 1945.

The Rand Formula

[I Miss Trudeau]

You know.. I didn't vote for the Alberta Tories last election.. Alberta's electoral system violates my charter rights because I don't have the NDP government that I voted for!

[err]

fellowtraveller,

Your right about this ruling,it's called the  Rand Formula of 1945.

The rational for the principle was that every employee benefited from union representation.

Including those who don't want to belong....

[Canuck E Stan]

Sorta like being forced to paying dues to a union that you don't want to belong to, who in turn puts the dues money into a politcal party you don't support. Real democratic freedom of choice kinda stuff, isn't it?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Sorta like being forced to paying  dues to a union that you don't want to belong to, who in turn puts the dues money into a politcal party you don't support. Real democratic  freedom of choice kinda stuff, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, if the Lively Seven just go work at Walmart, they'll get to work in a union free utopia the rest of their lives. Go exercise your freedom of choice, Lively Seven!

[fellowtraveller]

You know, if the Lively Seven just go work at Walmart, they'll get to work in a union free utopia the rest of their lives. Go exercise your freedom of choice, Lively Seven!

What a dumb analogy.

Any group of individuals, and any union, is perfectly capable and free to establish a collective bargaining unit, then determine terms and conditons of employment for all the workers, on virtually any worksite in Canada.

An individual entering the very same worksite the next day is denied tyhose exact same rights and priveleges, and cannot negotiate anything with their employer. They are bound by somebodys elses relationship with that employer.

That is tyranny of the majority.

[I Miss Trudeau]

What a dumb analogy.

Any group of individuals, and any union, is perfectly capable and free to establish  a collective bargaining unit, then determine terms and conditons of employment for all the workers, on virtually any worksite in Canada.

An individual entering the very same worksite the next day is denied tyhose exact same rights and priveleges, and cannot negotiate anything with their employer.  They are bound by somebodys elses relationship with that employer.

That is tyranny of the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I assume that you are equally outraged by the electoral systems used across Canada. It must drive you nuts that so many that didn't vote for the alberta Tories are none-the-less bound by the tyranny of the majority.

[geoffrey]

What a dumb analogy.

Any group of individuals, and any union, is perfectly capable and free to establish  a collective bargaining unit, then determine terms and conditons of employment for all the workers, on virtually any worksite in Canada.

An individual entering the very same worksite the next day is denied tyhose exact same rights and priveleges, and cannot negotiate anything with their employer.  They are bound by somebodys elses relationship with that employer.

That is tyranny of the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I assume that you are equally outraged by the electoral systems used across Canada. It must drive you nuts that so many that didn't vote for the alberta Tories are none-the-less bound by the tyranny of the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Alberta Tories or any other political party don't prevent you from making a living. When a union strikes, some people are financially ruined. The option of crossing the picket line exists for some, but that is meet with violence and future trouble with the company.

It is not at all the same system, not whatsoever.

[err]

The Alberta Tories or any other political party don't prevent you from making a living. When a union strikes, some people are financially ruined.

More people are ruined because they don't/didn't have a union to protect them.

[err]

Any group of individuals, and any union, is perfectly capable and free to establish  a collective bargaining unit, then determine terms and conditons of employment for all the workers, on virtually any worksite in Canada.

Do you know of Aesop's fable "Belling the Cat". I recommend that you read it... the lone mouse doesnt stand much of a chance...

In a non-union workplace, what do you think happens to individuals who walk into their bosses office to demand raises, "fairness", equality, time off, etc... A good Capatalist enterprise will make a good example of this kind of employee, to make sure the others stay in line. With a union, workers can demand unreasonable things like raises, equality, time off, and security.... that the individual most often cannot.

An individual entering the very same worksite the next day is denied tyhose exact same rights and priveleges, (to negotiate by themselves with the company) and cannot negotiate anything with their employer.  They are bound by somebodys elses relationship with that employer.

That is tyranny of the majority.

Do you honestly think an individual off the steet can walk into a company and demand better wages and working conditions than a union can negotiate with an employer...

[Canuck E Stan]

More people are ruined because they don't/didn't have a union to protect them.

Excellent Err,

That explains why Toyota is thriving and the Big 3 are failing.

[err]

More people are ruined because they don't/didn't have a union to protect them.

Excellent Err,

That explains why Toyota is thriving and the Big 3 are failing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Big 3 went for those Stupud Useless Vehicles that had no pollution or economy conscience in their design and marketing... The big 3 deserve what they get for that Stupid Useless Venture. Now maybe they'll put some forethought into making, marketing, and promoting more economic vehicles to run...

It is a shame for all of the people who will lose their jobs over the foolishness of the auto companies, which incidentally, was promoted by the Whitehouse....

SUVs cost less to produce, and could sell for more money than normal cars:

The SUVs didn't have to meet many emissions standards (none if they weighed 6000 pounds or more)... Another reason they didn't cost as much to make was because they didn't have to meet the stringent safety standards that cars do... The US government has a 25% duty on imported "trucks", so there was no effective competition.... And Bush extended the amount companies could buy/lease tax free up to 100K... so they wouldn't be penalized for buying these big manly machines.... And then all it took was the advertising blitz, how only losers drove minivans... real men drove great big mombo manly trucks.... They were big and successful, so they could show their neighbours how it didnt matter that it guzzled gas... they were successful and could pay for it...

Well, the dream and bubble burst... High oil prices, combined with the Big 3's eggs all in the SUV basket.... That's why they're hurting....

You could try to blame tomorrow's weather on the unions, but probably only Conservatives like yourself would believe it....

[Canuck E Stan]

That's why they're hurting....

Stupid me,and I thought it was the high labour and benefit costs.

[err]

Stupid me,and I thought it was the high labour and benefit costs.

Don't be hard on yourself. You couldn't help it, being brainwashed with all of that Conservative ideology.....

[August1991]

The federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards set the fuel economy goals for new passenger cars at 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg). But under the law, SUVs are not considered cars - they are characterized as light trucks. Light trucks only have to achieve 20.7 mpg. It should be noted that this is an average for all light trucks, which is why it is possible to have SUVs on the road that only achieve 12 mpg. In fact, some SUV, like the massive Ford Excursion, are so large that they no longer qualify as "light trucks," and are not subject to any kind of fuel economy standards.

Some web site

err, the reason SUVs exist is because of environmental regulations created by the EPA in the 1970s. To meet the regulations (or to circumvent them if you prefer), car manufacturers invented the SUV. SUVs are a classic example of the law of unintended consequences:

The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or "unintended." Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it.

I have always found ironic the Left's criticism of SUVs. The Left wants more of the very policies that created SUVs in the first place.

----

What a dumb analogy.

Any group of individuals, and any union, is perfectly capable and free to establish  a collective bargaining unit, then determine terms and conditons of employment for all the workers, on virtually any worksite in Canada.

An individual entering the very same worksite the next day is denied tyhose exact same rights and priveleges, and cannot negotiate anything with their employer.  They are bound by somebodys elses relationship with that employer.

That is tyranny of the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I assume that you are equally outraged by the electoral systems used across Canada. It must drive you nuts that so many that didn't vote for the alberta Tories are none-the-less bound by the tyranny of the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Miss Trudeau, that is why we have a Charter of Rights, a federal system of government and complex parliamentary rules so that the majority cannot easily take decisions harmful to a minority.

The Alberta Tories or any other political party don't prevent you from making a living. When a union strikes, some people are financially ruined. The option of crossing the picket line exists for some, but that is meet with violence and future trouble with the company.

I disagree Geoffrey. Governments frequently tax people or pass laws affecting them, preventing the people from making a living and ruining them financially.

Whether unions or governments, at issue here is how to take collective decisions. Individual choice through free markets is usually better but sometimes it doesn't work.

[Canuck E Stan]

QUOTE(Canuck E Stan @ Oct 23 2005, 12:39 AM)

Stupid me,and I thought it was the high labour and benefit costs.

Don't be hard on yourself. You couldn't help it, being brainwashed with all of that Conservative ideology.....

Hey Err, I was right about the high labour and benefit costs.....and I hate to break it to you but this makes you the brainwashed one.

Check this link for why you're stupid.

Jobs bank programs

[err]

Hey Err, I was right about the high labour and benefit costs.....and I hate to break it to you but this makes you the brainwashed one.

Check this link for why you're stupid.

Jobs bank programs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The jobs bank was established during 1984 labor contract talks between the UAW and the Big Three. The union, still reeling from the loss of 500,000 jobs during the recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s, was determined to protect those who were left. Detroit automakers were eager to win union support to boost productivity through increased automation and more production flexibility.

The result was a plan to guarantee pay and benefits for union members whose jobs fell victim to technological progress or plant restructurings. In most cases, workers end up in the jobs bank only after they have exhausted their government unemployment benefits, which are also supplemented by the companies through a related program. In some cases, workers go directly into the program and the benefits can last until they are eligible to retire or return to the factory floor.

"Labor wants the (jobs bank) because they want protection for their members," Zullo said. But he added that the jobs bank was also designed to help the companies by ensuring that skilled workers did not take their talents elsewhere.

"Companies invest in training," he said. "It protects that investment."

The investment only makes sense when viewed from a long-term perspective, a vantage point Wall Street is not known to favor.

Montgomery, I'll agree that the deal that the Big 3 made with the UAW has resulted in a high labour cost for them relative to the amount of income they have now. However, the low income they are currently enjoying is a result of greed and stupidity of the Big 3 and the SUVs. All their eggs in one basket...

Thankfully, their stupidity has not thrown all these workers out of their wages, which consequently would have devasated many of their lives. Thankfully, the UAW had the foresight to put together a deal that would protect the workers.

The Big 3 will probably bounce back from their financial predicament by manufacturing practical vehicles for our times....

[I Miss Trudeau]

That's why they're hurting....

Stupid me,and I thought it was the high labour and benefit costs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, the biggest problem facing GM is poor management in the past. The benefit and pension deals that they made with the union aren't the problem, its that successive leaders decided that the books would look better if they kept profits high in the short term. So, instead of properly funding the retirement plan, for example, they put in a little money, and budgeted for above 10% return on it. Unfortunatly, they got closer to 4%. Do that for 10 years, and see what happens when its time to pay the piper. But hey, their profits looked pretty good for a while.

[Canuck E Stan]

However, the low income they are currently enjoying is a result of greed and stupidity of the Big 3 and the SUVs.

ERR ,

The Big Three and foreign car companies sell cars of all kinds not just SUV's.Take a look at their vehicle lines.GM has Cavaliers,Chrysler has Neons,Ford has Focus.Take your pick.

The people of Noth America WANT SUV's.

They are the consumers and they are who decide what vehicle they want.

The car companies do not force you to buy a SUV,that's your decision to purchase that type of vehicle.

You should direct your disgust at your fellow Canadians and not the car companies.

The big three is in business to SELL, I doubt very much if it matters to them if the consumer wants Econo boxes or SUV's,whatever sells they will make more of them.

Car manufacturers, like any manufacturing business are competitive and will make a product they hope will sell.

Why do you buy the goods that you do? No one is forcing you to buy that particular fridge or stove or TV.

Toyota has SUV's,GM has SUV's,Honda has SUV's.

The difference between these groups is the cost of Labour and benefits.

Toyota is lower than the Big Three companies that have Unions, so they have an edge.

They are not paying 4000 workers full wages to sit on the butts waiting for work.They don't have supplementary unemployment benefits that give them 90% of their take home pay when there is no work to do.

Toyota workers don't want a union,they can work without a union,and do it very well.

The same way the Lively Seven would also like to work without a union,because they don't need one.

[err]

However, the low income they are currently enjoying is a result of greed and stupidity of the Big 3 and the SUVs.

ERR ,

The Big Three and foreign car companies sell cars of all kinds not just SUV's.Take a look at their vehicle lines.GM has Cavaliers,Chrysler has Neons,Ford has Focus.Take your pick.

The people of Noth America WANT SUV's.

People are very suggestible... and advertising works very effectively. The Big 3 have a big interest in swinging interest to SUVs. I wasn't going to list some of them again, but for you, here's a few:

1) Reduced manufacturing cost due to reduced emissions and safety standards.

2) Reduced competition - 25% duty on imports.

3) Higher sale prices - Big manly vehicles not for penny conscious wimps....

Doesn't it make good sense to steer the public in a direction that you don't have competition in....

They are the consumers and they are who decide what vehicle they want.

The car companies do not force you to buy a SUV,that's your decision to purchase that type of vehicle.

You should direct your disgust at your fellow Canadians  and not the car companies.

Personally, I think that people who drive these big manly machines around the city to show eveyone just how successful they are.... are idiots... complete and total idiots ....

I think it was extremely irresponsible of our governments not to tighten standards for both safety and emissions from these big contraptions (especially with the global warming crisis)

I think it was irresponsible of the automotive companies to promote them as they did....

(You can say that it is the purchasers' fault only, just like the tobacco companies have nothing to do with teens smoking)

The big three is in business to SELL, I doubt very much if it matters to them if the consumer wants Econo boxes or SUV's,whatever sells they will make more of them.

Car manufacturers, like any manufacturing business are competitive and  will make a product they hope will sell.

Why do you buy the goods that you do? No one is forcing you to buy that particular fridge or stove or TV.

all eggs in one basket is pretty dumb...

Toyota has SUV's,GM has SUV's,Honda has SUV's.

and they have a 25% duty when brought into the USA... and the auto companies banked on this for their future, promoting the big mombo SUVs....

The difference between these groups is the cost of Labour and benefits.

Toyota is lower than the Big Three companies that have Unions, so they have an edge.

They are not paying 4000 workers full wages to sit on the butts waiting for work.They don't have supplementary unemployment benefits that give them 90% of their take home pay when there is no work to do.

Toyota workers don't want a union,they can work without a union,and do it very well.

The auto companies made this deal in return for cutting 500,000 jobs. A deal is a deal... Just because the auto companies gambled foolishly, and lost because of it... they still have to keep their deal... Hopefully they learn from it next time....

The same way the Lively Seven would also like to work without a union,because they don't need one.

It's too bad for them that they couldn't prevent the majority of workers in their offices from getting their way, isn't it... but I guess that's democracy... Most of the workers voted for the union...

I'm sure there are tons of non-unionized companies they could go to if they don't want job security or group benefits....

[Canuck E Stan]

The auto companies made this deal in return for cutting 500,000 jobs.

Where do you get this from?

(You can say that it is the purchasers' fault only, just like the tobacco companies have nothing to do with teens smoking)

Teen smoking is hardly relevant to buying big ticket items. Has tobacco advertising made you smoke? If it has then you have to be pretty gulliable if you believe enough to buy an item just through advertising.

I don't think you give people enough credit for making choices that they do.

Because you don't like SUV doesn't mean you can impose your rationale to prevent others from wanting to buy them.

The market will determine what will sell.The high cost of gas will change the market,just as the market changed the Van craze of the 70's.

Doesn't it make good sense to steer the public in a direction that you don't have competition in....

There is lots of competition,just look at your choices from all the car companies.

Your few reasons are only your opinions.Foreign vehicles still sell well regardless of the import duty,people feel safer in SUV's,Higher sale prices?Yes, everybody wants to pay more for a SUV because it makes them a manly man. Give me a break, who wants to pay more for anything?

Hopefully they learn from it next time....

They will learn,they will learn that other places are far cheaper to produce cars without the excesses that they have to pay in North America.Cars will go the route of cameras,tV's, stereos, and the latest is appliances that will soon be made in Mexico instead of the US or Canada.So will the unions learn, when more of these jobs are eliminated and lost to places that will produce them cheaper and better.

It's too bad for them that they couldn't prevent the majority of workers in their offices from getting their way, isn't it... but I guess that's democracy... Most of the workers voted for the union...

Yes it is too bad that seven people who work in one small bank in a small town outside Sudbury who are happy with their working conditions and their employer now have to get involved in a union that they don't need or don't want. And you rant about equality for people.