HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Harper/Hudak attack on workers' rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-26-2013, 05:32 PM
  #1
Inconceivable
Registered User
 
Inconceivable's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 511
vCash: 500
Harper/Hudak attack on workers' rights

The title of this thread is from a newsletter that I received at a union meeting yesterday. I work in a trade, and my union and other trade unions across ontario are preparing for a campaign against the Conservatives.

At the meeting one of the union bosses was looking for a few young people to go to the campaign launch at the Exibition Place on Saturday. I volunteered to go but unfortunately I don't feel like I know enough about the issue. I will start doing my own research as soon as I post this thread, but I figured it would be worthwhile to get your opinions in as some of you might have some good points to share. Here is a little excerpt from the newsletter:

Harper and Hudak are promoting a scheme that wod weaken unions, drive down wages and benefits - and harm Canadian society. They plan to change labour laws and then encourage union members to quit their unions and stop paying dues.

Thanks!

Inconceivable is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 06:04 PM
  #2
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 4,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inconceivable View Post
The title of this thread is from a newsletter that I received at a union meeting yesterday. I work in a trade, and my union and other trade unions across ontario are preparing for a campaign against the Conservatives.

At the meeting one of the union bosses was looking for a few young people to go to the campaign launch at the Exibition Place on Saturday. I volunteered to go but unfortunately I don't feel like I know enough about the issue. I will start doing my own research as soon as I post this thread, but I figured it would be worthwhile to get your opinions in as some of you might have some good points to share. Here is a little excerpt from the newsletter:

Harper and Hudak are promoting a scheme that wod weaken unions, drive down wages and benefits - and harm Canadian society. They plan to change labour laws and then encourage union members to quit their unions and stop paying dues.

Thanks!
Sounds like they've been studying the Right to Servitude states to the south. Got any references for this 'scheme'?

Johnnywhite is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 06:31 PM
  #3
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inconceivable View Post
The title of this thread is from a newsletter that I received at a union meeting yesterday. I work in a trade, and my union and other trade unions across ontario are preparing for a campaign against the Conservatives.

At the meeting one of the union bosses was looking for a few young people to go to the campaign launch at the Exibition Place on Saturday. I volunteered to go but unfortunately I don't feel like I know enough about the issue. I will start doing my own research as soon as I post this thread, but I figured it would be worthwhile to get your opinions in as some of you might have some good points to share. Here is a little excerpt from the newsletter:

Harper and Hudak are promoting a scheme that wod weaken unions, drive down wages and benefits - and harm Canadian society. They plan to change labour laws and then encourage union members to quit their unions and stop paying dues.

Thanks!
It would help if you actually provided details of this alleged "attack on workers' rights".

What laws are being proposed?

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 06:40 PM
  #4
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,784
vCash: 500
Not sure if this is a satirical thread or not. As for current union practices, workers absolutely should have the right to opt out of union participation/mandatory fees. It's inherently undemocratic not to grant them that option.

JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:15 PM
  #5
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 4,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysCyYoung View Post
Not sure if this is a satirical thread or not. As for current union practices, workers absolutely should have the right to opt out of union participation/mandatory fees. It's inherently undemocratic not to grant them that option.
100% rubbish. To be unionised has come through democratic process, dues are paid for collective bargaining & for Union representation in workplace disputes. Just as stupid as saying that it would be undemocratic for a citizen not to be allowed to opt out of taxation. The neat thing about the US Right to Servitude states is that the worker can opt out of the dues & participation, but the Union cannot opt out of representation & collective bargaining on behalf of that worker. It's purely a device to strangle Unions financially & I've no idea if that is what Harper has in mind, if indeed he has anything in mind.

Johnnywhite is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:34 PM
  #6
Free Kassian
Registered User
 
Free Kassian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,178
vCash: 500
My union is pathetic and does very little for me as a hardworking, young employee, but it's a closed shop. If I want my job, I have to pay dues, which are a very small amount of each paycheque that I can certainly afford. Oh well.

Free Kassian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:38 PM
  #7
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkP View Post
My union is pathetic and does very little for me as a hardworking, young employee, but it's a closed shop. If I want my job, I have to pay dues, which are a very small amount of each paycheque that I can certainly afford. Oh well.
Time to get involved as shop steward.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:44 PM
  #8
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 4,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Time to get involved as shop steward.
It certainly is & I spent over 20yrs doing that.

Johnnywhite is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:45 PM
  #9
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnywhite View Post
100% rubbish. To be unionised has come through democratic process, dues are paid for collective bargaining & for Union representation in workplace disputes. Just as stupid as saying that it would be undemocratic for a citizen not to be allowed to opt out of taxation. The neat thing about the US Right to Servitude states is that the worker can opt out of the dues & participation, but the Union cannot opt out of representation & collective bargaining on behalf of that worker. It's purely a device to strangle Unions financially & I've no idea if that is what Harper has in mind, if indeed he has anything in mind.
If a worker does not give his consent or does not agree with the political stances of the organization he should not have to pay mandatory dues. It absolutely is undemocratic as it does not provide them with an option to opt out or grant consent (and these are organizations purportedly looking out for their workers' welfare). Comparing it to taxation is hyperbolic and misguided as unions function essentially as private organizations that look after specific interests, and ones that are often contrary to the interests of the general public (which is what our tax dollars seek to address).

They're not even remotely comparable.

JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:49 PM
  #10
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 78,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnywhite View Post
100% rubbish. To be unionised has come through democratic process, dues are paid for collective bargaining & for Union representation in workplace disputes. Just as stupid as saying that it would be undemocratic for a citizen not to be allowed to opt out of taxation. The neat thing about the US Right to Servitude states is that the worker can opt out of the dues & participation, but the Union cannot opt out of representation & collective bargaining on behalf of that worker. It's purely a device to strangle Unions financially & I've no idea if that is what Harper has in mind, if indeed he has anything in mind.
That's nice. It also forces the union to actually do something for the people it represents in order to collect that money.

The unions in right to work states that are good unions that work hard for their workers get near 100% of the past dues that they would have received if not for the law. The Culinary Union in Las Vegas is a great example of this. That union is receiving near 100% contribution even in a right to work state.

So this is, of course, hogwash to sit there and say that right to work is "right to servitude." What a laughable statement.

The only thing it does is force unions to work better and harder than they did in the past. Unions that get results will get contributions.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
ECL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:50 PM
  #11
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 500
The job of a union is not to make a business profitable. It is to look after its employees. The business has lobbyists and lawyers; if the workers are toothless, guess what's going to happen?

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:50 PM
  #12
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 78,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkP View Post
My union is pathetic and does very little for me as a hardworking, young employee, but it's a closed shop. If I want my job, I have to pay dues, which are a very small amount of each paycheque that I can certainly afford. Oh well.
And this is exactly why right to work can actually help a worker like you. It would force your useless union to get off its ass and campaign for you and the others it represents if it wants to get any funds from you.

ECL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:52 PM
  #13
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 78,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
The job of a union is not to make a business profitable. It is to look after its employees. The business has lobbyists and lawyers; if the workers are toothless, guess what's going to happen?
I'd argue that right to work actually fills the workers with razor sharp claws and teeth. It forces the union to work harder -- otherwise it won't get DAT CASH MONEY.

ECL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:56 PM
  #14
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 4,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysCyYoung View Post
If a worker does not give his consent or does not agree with the political stances of the organization he should not have to pay mandatory dues. It absolutely is undemocratic as it does not provide them with an option to opt out or grant consent (and these are organizations purportedly looking out for their workers' welfare). Comparing it to taxation is hyperbolic and misguided as unions function essentially as private organizations that look after specific interests, and ones that are often contrary to the interests of the general public (which is what our tax dollars seek to address).

They're not even remotely comparable.
If you want to insist on continuing your Selfservative rubbish, go ahead. To unionise anywhere takes an elective process, a microcosm of provincial or federal process. I did not vote for or support Harper, along with 75% of the eligible, Canadian electorate, so to respect my democratic rights I should be excused paying into this govt. through taxation & be excused from obeying any new new legislation introduced as I see fit, merely democratic right? BTW it is comparable, just merely on macro or micro scale. Your silly lemming arguments about the function of Unions are beneath contempt.

Johnnywhite is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 07:57 PM
  #15
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnywhite View Post
If you want to insist on continuing your Selfservative rubbish, go ahead. To unionise anywhere takes an elective process, a microcosm of provincial or federal process. I did not vote for or support Harper, along with 75% of the eligible, Canadian electorate, so to respect my democratic rights I should be excused paying into this govt. through taxation & be excused from obeying any new new legislation introduced as I see fit, merely democratic right? BTW it is comparable, just merely on macro or micro scale. Your silly lemming arguments about the function of Unions are beneath contempt.
Is your next comment going to be talking about the perils of the "lamestream" media? Good Lord, I think I just got trolled.

But to take your bait, trying to draw a parallel between an organization that simply only looks out for the collective benefit of the small amount of workers that are employed by a company, and the funds necessary to support public institutions that are a fundamentally inalienable component of a functioning society is just foolhardy. There is no relevant comparison that a rational mind could draw between mandatory union dues and the taxes that we pay for garbage collection, snow removal, postal service, and a defence budget, to say nothing of the hundreds of small municipal or local civic level taxes and costs that are incurred by participating in society. The fact is that unions only look out for themselves. The government is still the body politik of a country and represents the interests of its citizens. If you want to opt out of paying taxes and go live in the woods you have that option at your disposal too. A union is nothing like paying required taxes that all citizens must contribute; it is a private organization and in most private organizations people have the right to choose not to be members or contribute. Unions should not be exempt.

And it was 60 percent of the voting public that did not vote for Harper, not 75 percent. Trying to make it sound worse by using the term "eligible" is misleading.


Last edited by JaysCyYoung: 02-26-2013 at 08:02 PM.
JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:01 PM
  #16
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 4,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
And this is exactly why right to work can actually help a worker like you. It would force your useless union to get off its ass and campaign for you and the others it represents if it wants to get any funds from you.
Rubbish. Right to Servitude has one function, to strangle the Union of funds, to weaken bargaining power & drive down wages. Works very nicely, cha-ching.

Johnnywhite is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:03 PM
  #17
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I'd argue that right to work actually fills the workers with razor sharp claws and teeth. It forces the union to work harder -- otherwise it won't get DAT CASH MONEY.
Have you been part of a union before? We just had our bargaining with the government, and money was basically not part of the negotiation. The idea that unions are all about grabbing as much money as possible from the taxpayers is a fallacy perpetuated by the right.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:08 PM
  #18
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 78,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnywhite View Post
Rubbish. Right to Servitude has one function, to strangle the Union of funds, to weaken bargaining power & drive down wages. Works very nicely, cha-ching.
lol. OK. So explain the Culinary Union, then. They get near full dues because they tirelessly work their ***** off for the employees.

All states should be right to work states. Hopefully that happens.

The only people afraid of right to work are the unions run by lazy ****ers who just want to sit back and collect the cash. Maybe you are one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Have you been part of a union before? We just had our bargaining with the government, and money was basically not part of the negotiation. The idea that unions are all about grabbing as much money as possible from the taxpayers is a fallacy perpetuated by the right.
Yes. When I was younger. Paid my dues and I would have paid them whether it was a right to work state or not since the union looked out for us. Everyone I know who worked with me felt the same way.

ECL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:10 PM
  #19
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Have you been part of a union before? We just had our bargaining with the government, and money was basically not part of the negotiation. The idea that unions are all about grabbing as much money as possible from the taxpayers is a fallacy perpetuated by the right.
Personally I'm not even opposed to unions. I think that they can effectively bargain for better working conditions, competitive pay, and ensure that workers' rights are respected properly. Otherwise we could see the type of tyranny and exploitation that was so prevalent up to the mid-part of the twentieth century, and oppression that still exists in many parts of the world. The part I object to on ideological grounds is the notion that workers have no decision in deciding whether or not it is beneficial for themselves to be a member or not. People shouldn't be forced into doing something that they might not agree with (as a private organization, keep in mind) simply under the paternalistic notion that it's good for them.

That's really the sticking point with me. If you and the other posters who have been in unions felt that they really represented you well and were proud members I have nothing personally against you or your union. I think it's great that they looked out for your interest individually and collectively.

JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:10 PM
  #20
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,528
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I'd argue that right to work actually fills the workers with razor sharp claws and teeth. It forces the union to work harder -- otherwise it won't get DAT CASH MONEY.
So has this right to work thing actually had a net benefit to workers where it's been implemented then?

RandV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:11 PM
  #21
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 78,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
BTW, just to clarify my position here.

I fully, 100% support unions. But I also fully, 100% support right to work laws. They can both co-exist (it's been proven a number of times). The good unions adapt.

Adapt or die.

ECL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:11 PM
  #22
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 4,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysCyYoung View Post
Is your next comment going to be talking about the perils of the "lamestream" media? Good Lord, I think I just got trolled.

But to take your bait, trying to draw a parallel between an organization that simply only looks out for the collective benefit of the small amount of workers that are employed by a company, and the funds necessary to support public institutions that are a fundamentally inalienable component of a functioning society is just foolhardy. There is no relevant comparison that a rational mind could draw between mandatory union dues and the taxes that we pay for garbage collection, snow removal, postal service, and a defence budget, to say nothing of the hundreds of small municipal or local civic level taxes and costs that are incurred by participating in society. The fact is that unions only look out for themselves. The government is still the body politik of a country and represents the interests of its citizens. If you want to opt out of paying taxes and go live in the woods you have that option at your disposal too. A union is nothing like paying required taxes that all citizens must contribute; it is a private organization and in most private organizations people have the right to choose not to be members or contribute. Unions should not be exempt.

And it was 60 percent of the voting public that did not vote for Harper, not 75 percent. Trying to make it sound worse by using the term "eligible" is misleading.
Bollox. I used the word 'eligible' because it was exactly what I meant, you're changing it around to 'turnout' which I did not say or even imply.

The rest of that essay is smoke & of course you conveniently forget that in the Right to Servitude jurisdictions, the Union is obliged to both bargain for & fully represent a worker who refuses dues.

Johnnywhite is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:11 PM
  #23
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 78,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
So has this right to work thing actually had a net benefit to workers where it's been implemented then?
Most of the laws are too new to fully grasp that. But the good unions are getting near full dues -- which would show that these unions are doing as good or a better job of representing their workers.

ECL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:12 PM
  #24
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
BTW, just to clarify my position here.

I fully, 100% support unions. But I also fully, 100% support right to work laws. They can both co-exist (it's been proven a number of times). The good unions adapt.

Adapt or die.
Used with zero sarcasm attached:


JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:14 PM
  #25
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 4,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Most of the laws are too new to fully grasp that. But the good unions are getting near full dues -- which would show that these unions are doing as good or a better job of representing their workers.
Sure, they only started getting enacted in the 1940s & 50s...way too new.

Johnnywhite is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.