# "Right to Work" in Canada ... thanks to PSAC's political stunt?



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2012)

> E.R. Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And now this - a proposal for a US style "right to work" law aimed at PSAC - according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisoons of he Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-mp-calls-for-new-rules-that-would-allow-public-servants-to-opt-out-of-union-dues/article4522932/


> Tory MP calls for new rules that would allow public servants to opt out of union dues
> 
> BILL CURRY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I doubt this will come forth as government sponsored legislation because, I think, it _potentially_ distracts from the Prime Minister's core agenda. But it could come forward as a private member's bill, winning the 'lottery' that is how such bills are chosen, and then I suspect it would receive unanimous Conservative support and pass. 

One thing you can say about Pierre Poilievre: he sure doesn't miss an opportunity, does he?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Sep 2012)

Nope,...but I can't say I blame him.

I've had disagreement's with my union in the past, but nothing that was a dealbreaker. However, if they ever came out and said what PSAC said then I would be taking advantage of this bill......


----------



## brihard (6 Sep 2012)

Frig, this is the first tha tI heard of PSAC supporting the PQ. I'm by no means an anti-union type, but if they're going to support a separatist party, screw 'em.  

I'll cautiously throw my support behind this kind of law.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Sep 2012)

As someone governed by the Rand formula (and the Supreme Court ruling on the topic, Lavigne v OPSEU) who pays dues to PSAC, this would be great.

Another option would be to open up the religious objection clause.  Right now, if you have a religious objection you can donate to a mutually agreeable charity instead of paying union dues.  Expanding that to permit anyone who objects to redirect to charity would work.  Indeed, it might be a better COA - who could possibly object to encouraging charitable donations?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Sep 2012)

The leadership of the union and of the Labour Congress of Canada, are extreme left wing/wannabe commies. They really don't give a shit what the rank and file think. Most union members are to busy at work and in their everyday lives to pay attention to the union management and the stupid stuff they do. Leaving the management free to muck around in the mud with free money.


----------



## exuberance (6 Sep 2012)

> “I cannot imagine how it could possibly be in the interests of a Canadian public servant for the union to back a separatist party,” Mr. Poilievre said in an interview. “And yet that is precisely what PSAC has done.”
> 
> A day before Tuesday’s Quebec election, the National Capital Region branch of the Public Service Alliance of Canada announced the *results of its assessment of the Quebec parties “on the basis of their positions on workers’ and citizens’ rights, public services and unions.”*
> Based on that criteria, it ranked the Parti Québécois first, Québec Solidaire (which also supports a sovereign Quebec) second, followed by the Liberal Party and the Coalition Avenir Québec.



According to PSAC the Bloc is better for Quebec workers, that's great to hear, why exactly would they be better for the workers than any other party?  What are the details, what does their policy have that the others don't?  

Lets forget about the fact that the bloc want to separate and see what they have to offer the hard working Canadians.  Then steal those ideas, make them our own and once that's finished continue to ostracize the separatists and their supporters...

I'm all for unions.  I love the fact that a large group of workers can get together and stick up for their selves.  Unless I'm directly benefiting from taking advantage of others, I'm siding with the unions everytime. Sorry.


----------



## exuberance (6 Sep 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Frig, this is the first tha tI heard of PSAC supporting the PQ. I'm by no means an anti-union type, but if they're going to support a separatist party, screw 'em.
> 
> I'll cautiously throw my support behind this kind of law.



Their assessment showed that the bloc's labour policies were the best for the worker.  I think that's the issue worth focussing on.  
but instead its just too easy to hear the word "bloc" and start freaking out.  "OMFG they want to separate, rah rah rah...  What was the issue again? they want to separate? PSAC wants to separate from canada, OMFG.  lets abolish unions...." it's madness.

PSAC is looking out for the hard working Canadains, they saw that the bloc has something to offer them.  big deal.  big.. effing deal... Does it mean they're twisting their arms to vote for separation during a referendum? I don't think so.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Sep 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As someone governed by the Rand formula (and the Supreme Court ruling on the topic, Lavigne v OPSEU) who pays dues to PSAC, this would be great.
> 
> Another option would be to open up the religious objection clause.  Right now, if you have a religious objection you can donate to a mutually agreeable charity instead of paying union dues.  Expanding that to permit anyone who objects to redirect to charity would work.  Indeed, it might be a better COA - who could possibly object to encouraging charitable donations?



I think we have a winner.............as long as the employee realizes that, although he would still get the same pay, benefits, raises, etc, he/she would not be entitled to representation should a "matter" come up.   Fair is fair................


----------



## Haletown (6 Sep 2012)

W-G said:
			
		

> I'm all for unions.  I love the fact that a large group of workers can get together and stick up for their selves.  Unless I'm directly benefiting from taking advantage of others, I'm siding with the unions everytime. Sorry.



I have nothing against free unions.

Closed shop unions, especially in the Public Sector are a perfect example of an anti democratic, anti free choice and anti human rights as there is in Canada.

A truly disgusting abomination of everything that we should cherish as free citizens in a free country.  

Forcing people to pay off a union just so they can work is right out of the Commissar's handbook.    I am truly encouraged that Poilievre is focusing on this. 

We need it all across Canada, in every province at all levels of government.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Sep 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Closed shop unions, especially in the Public Sector are a perfect example of an anti democratic, anti free choice and anti human rights as there is in Canada.



Leave it to somebody to derail the thread with mindless stupidity.......


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2012)

W-G said:
			
		

> According to PSAC the Bloc is better for Quebec workers, that's great to hear, why exactly would they be better for the workers than any other party?  What are the details, what does their policy have that the others don't?
> 
> Lets forget about the fact that the bloc want to separate and see what they have to offer the hard working Canadians.  Then steal those ideas, make them our own and once that's finished continue to ostracize the separatists and their supporters...
> 
> I'm all for unions.  I love the fact that a large group of workers can get together and stick up for their selves.  Unless I'm directly benefiting from taking advantage of others, I'm siding with the unions everytime. Sorry.




I would have changed the second highlighted sentence to read: "I love the fact that a large group of workers can get together and set the fair price of their labour in the free market." That is the most important role of unions; it is an absolutely *vital* service - effective and efficient capitalism depends upon knowing and using the values of all inputs in order to set a fair price and profit margin. Labour is a significant input to most enterprises so the fair price of labour needs to be set ... *in the free market*, without coercion by employers, goons, governments or courts.

I have no difficulty with organized labour being involved in politics. While I thought the _prairie populists_ of the old CCF were sold a bill of goods by David Lewis and the Canadian Labour Congress in 1960, the NDP is, of course, a wholly legitimate political movement; so is the PQ. But Canadian labour is not aligned with any party ~ witness Buzz Hargrove's _alliance_ with the Liberals and now Robyn Benson's flirtation with the PQ. The Canadian Labour movement is against Canadian Conservatives and, therefore, "for" anyone else who opposes the Conservatives - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and all that. In other words, Canadian Labour is anti the Conservatives but not "for" anything identifiable: that's a pretty weak piss poor political position.

Public sector unions in Canada were endowed, back in the '60s, with a "sweetheart" deal; public servants were, without doubt, relatively poorly paid but they had near iron clad job security. Because they were legislated into union, rather than having to 'fight,' in the free market, for a union, public servants got bargaining rights without having to surrender anything - something that never happened in the private sector. The result is that now, 50 years later, public servants are, broadly, better paid than their private sector confreres and they still have the old "iron rice bowl," solid, legally mandated job security. It's no wonder public service unions are disliked by their private sector counterparts.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> and they still have the old "iron rice bowl," solid, legally mandated job security.



Please show me where I have that....................if the Mike Harris folks weren't the modern day version of "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" I, nor any of my co-workers where we worked, would still be employed.

It must have been torture for Bob Runciman to sit in the same meetings with the idiots that surrounded Mr. Harris at the time...............


----------



## dapaterson (6 Sep 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think we have a winner.............as long as the employee realizes that, although he would still get the same pay, benefits, raises, etc, he/she would not be entitled to representation should a "matter" come up.   Fair is fair................



Given the ineffectiveness of much of the current PSAC, that's no great loss.  Trade in severance pay for increases that are less than inflation?  Check.  Change leave policies to favour length of service over operational requirements or performance?  Check.

I've been in a job notionally represented by PSAC for nearly four years.  I have yet to be contacted and offered membership.  I guess as long as they have my money they don't care.


And note that giving to charity is less beneficial (from an income tax perspective) than paying union dues.  Union dues are deducted from gross income, reducing tax payable.  Charitable donations are give a tax credit at varying levels, but are still counted in initial calculations of taxable income.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Please show me where I have that....................if the Mike Harris folks weren't the modern day version of "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" I, nor any of my co-workers where we worked, would still be employed.
> 
> It must have been torture for Bob Runciman to sit in the same meetings with the idiots that surrounded Mr. Harris at the time...............




We've debated this before. Your specific problems, in your specific circumstances, are as much a result of _labour's_ unwillingness (or inability) to organize itself as they are to the actions and inactions of any particular _regime_, none of which, including Bob Rae's NDP government, were "union friendly."

See this for an up to date look at provincial government labour relations, especially this paragraph, on the first page:



> The scope of Ontario’s broader public sector and the complexity of the labour relations environment is illustrated with a few statistics. As of October 25, 2010, there were 3,893 collective agreements covering 844,796 workers represented by no fewer than 79 unions. Some of the largest sectors are primary and secondary teachers (180,604 in five unions), school support workers (74,672 in 9 unions), Ontario Public Service (50,893 in 5 unions), hospital nurses (53,264 in two unions), hospital support workers (85,507 in 16 unions), nursing homes (48,466 in 20 unions), community services (34,337 in 26 unions), and municipal (70,289 in 11 unions) (Ontario Ministry of Labour, October 25 2010). This organizational diversity is further complicated by differing internal structures and political practices both between and within unions. Some unions have centralized decision-making structures, others less so. And politically, some unions have drifted closer toward the Ontario Liberals as a consequence of the decline of New Democratic electoral fortunes and the enduring threat posed by the populist Right Conservatives.



But I will repeat, confidently, that almost no private sector labour situation features a wage/job security model that is anywhere near as "good" (from the employee's perspective) as that enjoyed by most public sector workers, including correctional officers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Sep 2012)

I agree,......but please don't tell me I have that "bowl" thingy when I do not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But I will repeat, confidently, that almost no private sector labour situation features a wage/job security model that is anywhere near as "good" (from the employee's perspective) as that enjoyed by most public sector workers, including correctional officers.



Ever see a company try to get rid of a CAW member the union wants to keep? That's job security.

There has also been a fair bit of downsizing in the Ontario PS already, but I guess people will just strike out at whatever they _perceive_ to be a bigger slice of the pie than what they have. 

Government workers are easy to pick on, whether people understand the issues or not.


----------



## Haletown (6 Sep 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Leave it to somebody to derail the thread with mindless stupidity.......



You are welcome.  Still having that struggle with reality eh?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Sep 2012)

I'll let you help count the votes for my un-democratic local after the voting closes Sept. 19. I'm running for VP again, sure hope I don't have to start knee-capping people if what you believe is correct. :


----------



## dapaterson (6 Sep 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'll let you help count the votes for my un-democratic local after the voting closes Sept. 19. I'm running for VP again, sure hope I don't have to start knee-capping people if what you believe is correct. :



Kneecapping is sooo 1990s.

Today you just have to unFriend them on Facebook.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Sep 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> I have nothing against free unions.
> 
> Closed shop unions, especially in the Public Sector are a perfect example of an anti democratic, anti free choice and anti human rights as there is in Canada.
> 
> ...



Your post is nothing more than hyperbole and misinformation.

Tone down the fantastical rhetoric if you want to discuss something valid.

Otherwise, please don't muddy the thread with personal and ignorant prejudices.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Sep 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Kneecapping is sooo 1990s.
> 
> Today you just have to unFriend them on Facebook.



Well let's not get into torture here............. :-*



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's no wonder public service unions are disliked by their private sector counterparts.



Really?  The only complaint I've ever heard was when they helped with out picket lines and couldn't believe we were so easy on the scabs..........


----------



## exuberance (6 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I would have changed the second highlighted sentence to read: "I love the fact that a large group of workers can get together and set the fair price of their labour in the free market." That is the most important role of unions; it is an absolutely *vital* service - effective and efficient capitalism depends upon knowing and using the values of all inputs in order to set a fair price and profit margin. Labour is a significant input to most enterprises so the fair price of labour needs to be set ... *in the free market*, without coercion by employers, goons, governments or courts.



I'm curious.  I'm curious to know how much of a role these capitalists play in the free market.  When I say 'these capitalists' I'm referring to all the corporations that set up overseas and use a workforce that they're paying pennies in comparison to a Canadian worker.  (that happens right...)
Is the Canadian worker expected to do more for less while competing against that?  Is it good for Canadians to allow those nearly slave wage products into our 'free market'?



> I have no difficulty with organized labour being involved in politics. While I thought the _prairie populists_ of the old CCF were sold a bill of goods by David Lewis and the Canadian Labour Congress in 1960, the NDP is, of course, a wholly legitimate political movement; so is the PQ. But Canadian labour is not aligned with any party ~ witness Buzz Hargrove's _alliance_ with the Liberals and now Robyn Benson's flirtation with the PQ. The Canadian Labour movement is against Canadian Conservatives and, therefore, "for" anyone else who opposes the Conservatives - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and all that. In other words, Canadian Labour is anti the Conservatives but not "for" anything identifiable: that's a pretty weak piss poor political position.


  I didn't see any of that, probably because I wasn't aware of it.  I just took it for what it was.  Through their assessment, they found Bloc policies better for the workers.  the end.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from: E.R. Campbell on Today at 12:54:27
> 
> 
> > It's no wonder public service unions are disliked by their private sector counterparts.
> ...




Sorry, Bruce, poor wording on my part; I meant it's no wonder public sector unions are disliked by the public, at large, unionized or not.

A recent report (it took me a few minutes to find it) said:

My *emphasis* added.


> ...resentment of unions is a reality.
> 
> Public Response, *a pro-labour, left-of-centre public relations firm in Ottawa*, conducted an online survey last month that found a significant majority, 61 per cent, believe unions do "a good job of protecting their members' jobs."
> 
> ...




It doesn't matter if what 42% of the public believes is true or not, what matters is that the anti-labour "narrative" is gaining in popularity.

I'm not anti-union. In fact, I repeat: unions perform very useful *services*; they set the real cost of labour, they do important work in workplace health and safety, and so on. *But*: I believe the process through which public sector collective bargaining was introduced in Canada (and in America, Europe, etc) was badly flawed and is responsible for a cost structure which _might_ be unsustainable. Part of the problem, the problem I perceive, is that public sector unions (not workers, _per se_) have a vested interest in "featherbedding" of various sorts to increase their bottom line (members' dues) so they advocate for unnecessary or inefficiently delivered public services. (Anecdotally, a few years ago, but after I had retired, a friend in the civil service told me that he was working on a brief for very high level consumption that aimed to promote efficiency in the public service even as the union (association), on the executive of which he sat, was trying to promote inefficiencies in the same sectors in order to preserve (unnecessary) jobs.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2012)

W-G said:
			
		

> I'm curious.  I'm curious to know how much of a role these capitalists play in the free market.  When I say 'these capitalists' I'm referring to all the corporations that set up overseas and use a workforce that they're paying pennies in comparison to a Canadian worker.  (that happens right...)
> Is the Canadian worker expected to do more for less while competing against that?  Is it good for Canadians to allow those nearly slave wage products into our 'free market'?
> I didn't see any of that, probably because I wasn't aware of it.  I just took it for what it was.  Through their assessment, they found Bloc policies better for the workers.  the end.




I'm not going to address your points because I am fairly certain that you and I do not share a common understanding of capital and, therefore, capitalism or capitalists, and even of labour. I'm equally certain that we disagree on what e.g. globalization is and how it works. Given those apparent (to me) differences in comprehension we cannot have conversation - we're not speaking the same language.

But  I would ask one question: is this fellow not allowed to compete for a better job, even though he works for less?


----------



## cupper (6 Sep 2012)

W-G said:
			
		

> I'm curious.  I'm curious to know how much of a role these capitalists play in the free market.  When I say 'these capitalists' I'm referring to all the corporations that set up overseas and use a workforce that they're paying pennies in comparison to a Canadian worker.  (that happens right...)
> Is the Canadian worker expected to do more for less while competing against that?  Is it good for Canadians to allow those nearly slave wage products into our 'free market'?
> I didn't see any of that, probably because I wasn't aware of it.  I just took it for what it was.  Through their assessment, they found Bloc policies better for the workers.  the end.



Answer you own question with this: are you willing to pay significantly more for the same goods made byhigher paid workers in Canada or the US?


----------



## exuberance (6 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not going to address your points because I am fairly certain that you and I do not share a common understanding of capital and, therefore, capitalism or capitalists, and even of labour. I'm equally certain that we disagree on what e.g. globalization is and how it works. Given those apparent (to me) differences in comprehension we cannot have conversation - we're not speaking the same language.
> 
> But  I would ask one question: is this fellow not allowed to compete for a better job, even though he works for less?


  Why didn't you just ignore me?

The only reason I asked those questions is because I clearly don't understand.   but fair enough, who has time for dolts, certainly not army.ca forum posters.

and now I'll just leave here and go continue the conversation I was having with the wall earlier. thanks.


----------



## Scott (6 Sep 2012)

Don't go making promises you can't keep...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Sep 2012)

W-G said:
			
		

> Why didn't you just ignore me?
> 
> The only reason I asked those questions is because I clearly don't understand.   but fair enough, who has time for dolts, certainly not army.ca forum posters.
> 
> and now I'll just leave here and go continue the conversation I was having with the wall earlier. thanks.



Adios!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Sep 2012)

W-G said:
			
		

> Why didn't you just ignore me?
> 
> The only reason I asked those questions is because I clearly don't understand.   but fair enough, who has time for dolts, certainly not army.ca forum posters.
> 
> and now I'll just leave here and go continue the conversation I was having with the wall earlier. thanks.



Here, let me help you make a decision.

Offence: Trolling, for a start.

Muted for a couple of days so you can reflect on your membership here.

Next step for rules violation.............the Warning System.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## mariomike (7 Sep 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The only complaint I've ever heard was when they helped with out picket lines and couldn't believe we were so easy on the scabs..........



From what I have read, use of that term may be restricted in the future. 

July 6, 2012
The Lawyer's Weekly
Page 9

"B.C.'s Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court injunction against a union that restricts its actions on the picket line, including the use of the term "scab.":
http://www.lawyersweekly-digital.com/lawyersweekly/3210?pg=10#pg10


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Sep 2012)

Like that'll ever happen.............those clowns should run for Toronto city council and just get rid of gun crime by outlawing guns in Toronto. :



Maybe the picketers can just quietly point at a dictionary......

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scab
3

a: a contemptible person b (1): a worker who refuses to join a labor union (2): a union member who refuses to strike or returns to work before a strike has ended (3): a worker who accepts employment or replaces a union worker during a strike (4): one who works for less than union wages or on nonunion terms


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Sep 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given the ineffectiveness of much of the current PSAC, that's no great loss.  Trade in severance pay for increases that are less than inflation?  Check.  Change leave policies to favour length of service over operational requirements or performance?  Check.
> 
> I've been in a job notionally represented by PSAC for nearly four years.  I have yet to be contacted and offered membership.  I guess as long as they have my money they don't care.
> 
> ...



Only took PSAC 5 years to change my mailing address. They are a rather ineffective bunch with some local exceptions. Our shop steward and RDG went for coffee once a week to sort out various problems, worked quite well with 2 reasonable people doing their best within the constraints of a system imposed on both.

As for firing people in Public Service, I would say that a lot of the problem is a lack of will at the manager level and lack of support at senior manager  level, along with dismal service from HR who can't seem to hold onto to staff themselves. We have been trying to let go of a staff member who failed to show up for work, we have stopped pay, but the management and HR still get cold feet about sending the final letter. Everything is dumped into the local managers lap and everytime they go for advice they get a different HR person with a no knowledge of the file and different opinion. At this point HR should be taking the file, ensure the i's are dotted and T's crossed and the letter sent.


----------



## mariomike (7 Sep 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Maybe the picketers can just quietly point at a dictionary......



Maybe ...

June 2, 2012
"Legal decision means a thesaurus may become standard picket-line gear: 

So the B.C. Court of Appeal handed down a ruling yesterday (June 1) that prohibited, among other things, workers on strike against Great Canadian Railtour Company Ltd. from pointing at SCABS--er, strikebreakers, um, sorry, replacement workers--and calling them what, in fact, they truly are: SCABS.":
http://www.straight.com/article-700441/vancouver/striking-workers-forced-yell-fuckwits-scabs-after-bc-court-ruling

"Striking workers forced to yell "_ _ _ _wits" at scabs after B.C. court ruling restricts picket language."

Fortunately, although members of a public service union from our first day on the job, we were never on strike or locked out.


----------

