# Are we becoming a 'Police State'?



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2014)

This Ontario Provincial Police Association / Union has made attack ads against Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader, Tim Hudak.  It is questionable as to whether or not they have overstep their bounds and committed what many may consider an "illegal" act.  What would people think if the Canadian Armed Forces produced attack ads condemning one or another political leader?  Is a Police Force, or their Union, any different?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

LINK




> THE GLOBE AND MAIL
> 
> Union for Ontario Provincial Police releases attack ads targeting Hudak
> 
> ...




Public Civil Servants are expected to retain an appearance of neutrality.  This is not the case here.


More on LINK


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2014)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

LINK




> THE GLOBE AND MAIL
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The police get political
> ...




More on LINK.


----------



## Lightguns (3 Jun 2014)

I have not seen the ad, but I understand from other reports, that the ad has a uniformed officer speaking infront of an OPP cruiser.  If so, than, I would say this is the same difference between me mouthing of about Trudeau, in uniform, in front or LAV and mouthing off in civies on my lawn.  It is very unprofessional and gives the impression that this ad maybe the official policy of the OPP.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This Ontario Provincial Police Association / Union has made attack ads against Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader, Tim Hudak.  It is questionable as to whether or not they have overstep their bounds and committed what many may consider an "illegal" act.  What would people think if the Canadian Armed Forces produced attack ads condemning one or another political leader?  Is a Police Force, or their Union, any different?
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> ...


Caveat:  I haven't seen the ad yet, so I'm just considering the key principles.

I've been wrestling with this one.

On the one hand, I clearly understand why we don't want the politicization of those who can wield (up to and including) deadly force against citizens.  That's why police boards are generally separate from municipal councils.  We don't want those who protect us to be able to pick & choose who they obey/protect and why - history shows having armies and police forces "working for" specific political parties not being in society's best interests.

On the other hand, I'm looking at a full-page ad in the local paper here saying "if you vote Conservative or Liberal, you're essentially supporting privatization of government services".  The ad was paid for and approved by a union representing Ontario public servants.  I also see a union president representing federal public servants speaking to a Senate committee about proposed legislation "undermining collective bargaining."  So, at one level, if one union can lobby for better working conditions for its members, why can't the other?

Re:  unions representing armed bodies, the "unionization" of armed bodies happens elsewhere (the Dutch military apparently has 4 different "unions", some affiliated with national labour organizations), and I don't hear a lot of concerns about a military overthrow of the Dutch government.



			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> I have not seen the ad, but I understand from other reports, that the ad has a uniformed officer speaking infront of an OPP cruiser.  If so, than, I would say this is the same difference between me mouthing of about Trudeau, in uniform, in front or LAV and mouthing off in civies on my lawn.  It is very unprofessional and gives the impression that this ad maybe the official policy of the OPP.


I haven't seen the ad, either, but if this is the case, it could have been done VERY differently to distance "the Force" from "the Association".

Here's links (YouTube) to the ads in question here and here, as well as a public service announcement by the OPPA shared about a month ago here.

My read:  #1 risks accusations of "politicizing" police fallen over contract issues.  #2 shows more cop car, so could be similar to Lightguns' analogy.  #3 (PSA) shows cops doing good things for the community, so I can't see complaints coming from that.


----------



## Remius (3 Jun 2014)

I've seen the ads and in my mind they crossed the line.  Not anything illegal but the perception is that they are representing the OPP and not its association.  I don't the avergae person is going to see the difference.

Perception is everything and these adds just ruined a fair amount of legitimacy the OPP has/had. First off that this is happening in a democratic election period and also while the liberals are under criminal investigations.  There is a conflict there.

Contrast that to the Catholic Teachers' association ad.  No attacks or endorsements, just an encouragement to get all the facts and go vote.  Their facts are on there website.

I have no issues with the association looking out for its members or unions voicing their concerns but when you represent a body with law enforcement powers, you should not be seen as endorsing or not endorsing the people who may be the ones to create and safeguard those laws on behalf of the voters they represent.

Bad optics.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I'm looking at a full-page ad in the local paper here saying "if you vote Conservative or Liberal, you're essentially supporting privatization of government services".  The ad was paid for and approved by a union representing Ontario public servants.  I also see a union president representing federal public servants speaking to a Senate committee about proposed legislation "undermining collective bargaining."  So, at one level, if one union can lobby for better working conditions for its members, why can't the other?



Apples and Oranges (not the corrupt air ambulance) here.  In one case we see Unions trying to influence an (Provincial) election.  In the other case, we see a Union lobbying a government committee.  


And.....We are not the Dutch military.   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Apples and Oranges (not the corrupt air ambulance) here.  In one case we see Unions trying to influence an Provincial election.  In the other case, we see a Union lobbying a government committee.


I was considering the union testifying before a committee as trying to change the system in the union's favour - another type of advocacy/influencing government, but on a different part of the spectrum.  I'm OK with eliminating that example and just comparing OPSEU and OPPA ads.  

At that level, a public service union ad suggesting "Tory, Liberal are bad" = another public service union* ad suggesting "Tory is bad", no?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> And.....We are not the Dutch military.   ;D


I could tell _that_ just from the difference in haircuts ;D  Just showing that there _are_ liberal parliamentary democracies out there that don't appear to feel at risk of becoming a police/military state when those who bear arms are represented by (several) collective entities that advocate for their members. 

* - To be clear, I do understand what kind of "public servants" armed peace officers are, and that police "associations" are only sorta/kinda like a union.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Jun 2014)

I don't think we are at a police state (yet) but there have been several instances were police agencies (including the OPP) seem to act like a law unto themselves (Caledonia, High River, Ontario CFO and his attempt at a backdoor registry, several instances were OPP ignored court orders re:native protesters).  It's also interesting that the Police Service Act for Ontario specifically prohibits "municipal police officers" from engaging in political activity, but not OPP.  However at least on a certain level, it is recognized that police should not be engaging in political activities.


----------



## cupper (3 Jun 2014)

I don't know, I think it's pretty clear that these are ads put forth by the Union. But then again I am looking at this from the viewpoint of US electoral politics where you have no clue as to who is behind a certain attack ad unless you read the small print that flashes up for all of 2 seconds at the end of the ad (or a voiceover that runs at the same pace as medical disclaimers on viagra commercials).

But you do have to consider that the union represents the OPP members and that if they have issues or concerns with working conditions that are nor being addressed by the elected representatives that oversee the OPP, they do have the right to bring those issues to the forefront in the election.

Perhaps I'm jaded from living in the never ending US election cycle in the era of Citizens United, but the two ads you posted links to really don't stand out. I've seen worse ads put out by police brotherhoods in local elections, let alone state wide or national.  :dunno:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Apples and Oranges (not the corrupt air ambulance) here.  In one case we see Unions trying to influence an (Provincial) election.  In the other case, we see a Union lobbying a government committee.



This nothing different that than what other unions are doing. At least OPPA is 'somewhat' upfront about it. As opposed to the shell fronts like 'Working Families' that are nothing but paid union attack ads that are deceitfully trying to masquerade as something other than a pro union commercial.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> It's also interesting that the Police Service Act for Ontario specifically prohibits "municipal police officers" from engaging in political activity, but not OPP.


That IS interesting, considering it's provincial legislation - thanks for that.


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Jun 2014)

We are not a police state but what has many people worried is that the infrastructure for a police state is being built up. The laws allowing the minister of emergency preparedness or the AG's of the provinces to use the CSE and army domestically, wholesale data collection and the legal detention of citizens using dubious secret security certificates are good examples.  The wrong guy gets put in charge and it quickly turns into a total sh1tshow.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This nothing different that than what other unions are doing. At least OPPA is 'somewhat' upfront about it. As opposed to the shell fronts like 'Working Families' that are nothing but paid union attack ads that are deceitfully trying to masquerade as something other than a pro union commercial.



True.  The Nurses and Teachers Unions are posting attack ads as well, that contradict the posted PC Plan, and are nothing more than fear mongering.   The question is: do we consider the Police, the upholders of the Law and authority figures, to be held to the same standard as other public sector unions.   If we go back to the image of a Canadian Armed Forces member standing in front of an armoured vehicle doing an attack ad along a similar vein, how would that authority figure play into a political agenda?  Would it not come off as a form of intimidation?   The Police, unlike the other public sector unions, are considered authority figures, and ads like this can only be considered a form of intimidation.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> We are not a police state but what has many people worried is that the infrastructure for a police state is being built up. The laws allowing the minister of emergency preparedness or the AG's of the provinces to use the CSE and army domestically, wholesale data collection and the legal detention of citizens using dubious secret security certificates are good examples.  The wrong guy gets put in charge and it quickly turns into a total sh1tshow.



I wonder which sh1tshow you would prefer?  One that behind the scenes, protects us from evil minded invaders of our tranquil lives and freedoms or the one where barbarians come in unopposed and destroy all semblance of the freedoms we currently enjoy?

Your choice.

Personally, I think that if you really find our way of defending our liberties offensive, use the freedoms we guarantee you and leave to find your utopia somewhere else.


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Jun 2014)

These erosions of our freedoms are new and unnecessary. We were safer before the checks and balances on the power of the state were removed.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> These erosions of our freedoms are new and unnecessary. We were safer before the checks and balances on the power of the state were removed.



What erosions of your feedoms?  Checks and balances on the power of the 'state' have not been removed.  They are firmly in place to protect you.  

Is it necessary that you, individually, be privy to all the ministrations of the various agencies and organizations that protect your freedoms?  Absolutely NOT.  To do so would jeopardize your freedoms.  Law enforcement, military and other government organizations have worked behind the scenes since Confederation to maintain the freedoms that Canadians enjoy.  Your paranoia should not be cause for us to drop our guard against outside forces that jeopardize our way of life.


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Jun 2014)

I stated the three new powers that were unnecessary since internment during WWII.  We did not need them during Korea or the cold war. Removing the limits on power and then saying that no transparency is needed is  not wise.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I stated the three new powers that were unnecessary since internment during WWII.  We did not need them during Korea or the cold war. Removing the limits on power and then saying that no transparency is needed is  not wise.



Do you propose that we not monitor such organizations as these:

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
Al Jihad (AJ)
Al-Muwaqi'un Bil Dima
Al Qaida
Al Qaida in Iraq (AQI)
Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)
Al Shabaab
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade (AAMB)
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (AGAI)
Al-Ittihad Al-Islam (AIAI)
Ansar al-Islam (AI)
Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Asbat Al-Ansar (AAA) (The League of Partisans)
Aum Shinrikyo
Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC)
Babbar Khalsa International (BKI)
Boko Haram
Caucasus Emirate
Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN)
Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA)
Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC)
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Faction of the Hezb-e Islami, Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HIG)
Hamas (Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamiya) (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Haqqani Network
Harakat ul-Mudjahidin (HuM)
Hizballah
International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy - Canada
International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)
Islamic Army of Aden (IAA)
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Qods Force
Jabhat Al-Nusra
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)
Jemaah Islamiyyah (JI)
Kahane Chai (KACH)
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LJ)
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT)
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
Sendero Luminoso (SL)
Taliban
Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)
Vanguards of Conquest (VOC)
World Tamil Movement (WTM)



Do you by any chance subscribe to any of the above organizations?


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Jun 2014)

What was wrong with using a judge and a warrant? Why be able to lock up people on secret charges? Why does the  Minsister of Emergency Preparedness (now Public Safety) and the AG's need to be able to use the CSE and army domestically without public overisight or disclosure?

We monitored terrorists fine before. Why remove the protections that restricted state power permenently? I understood 5 years, but now they are perpetual. Not a wise move in the long run.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> What was wrong with using a judge and a warrant? Why be able to lock up people on secret charges? Why does the  Minsister of Emergency Preparedness (now Public Safety) and the AG's need to be able to use the CSE and army domestically without public overisight or disclosure?
> 
> We monitored terrorists fine before. Why remove the protections that restricted state power permenently? I understood 5 years, but now they are perpetual. Not a wise move in the long run.



Army?

 :facepalm:


WAIT!   Where have I heard that before?  "Soldiers in the streets.  Soldiers with guns."    anic:    :


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Jun 2014)

Your inability to honestly deal with the problem shows exactly why the state should not have unlimited power.

Do you not see any possible future scenario where the citizens of Canada may have to organize against a corrupted state?


----------



## CombatDoc (3 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do you by any chance subscribe to any of the above organizations?


This comment would appear to be similar to an anti-Godwin's law.  Any concerns about limits on the state's power to surveil the populace makes one a potential terrorist sympathizer.  

Very similar to the facile argument Vic Toews used to attempt to extend Bill C-30's  internet surveillance powers i.e. you're either "with us or with the child pornographers."


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Your inability to honestly deal with the problem shows exactly why the state should not have unlimited power.



Ummm?  Your paranoia really doesn't qualify you for your analysis of my condition.   Just a point; the state does not have unlimited power.  It is bound by numerous Laws, Policies and Regulations  which often restrict its efficient prosecution of its power.  We have no such thing as one sees in James Bond movies, "a Licence to Kill", in our reality.  This in fact gives the "bad guys" an advantage over us.  Yet, you seem to think they should gain more of an advantage.  Your logic in the protection of our freedoms and liberties escapes me.

Should I refer to your sig line and the Dunning-Kruger Effect?


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Jun 2014)

We didn't just survive we thrived under those restrictions. Why are these new sweeping powers needed perpetually?


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Jun 2014)

To go back to the original topic, I don't really see anything wrong with the ads themselves.  It's not impartial, but you can look at it as a 'third party check' to the general bs streaming from the political machines.  Public servants serve the people, not the politicians.  Should they not raise it up if they have concerns?

In general, the PC major campaign 'plans' are generally smoke and mirrors anyway, so they should have giant gaping holes punched through them.  They are running with the american myth of 'job creators' and pandering to the lowest common denominator that thinks public servants fill no useful role.  I would have thought the privatization of Ontario Hydro and the crap with private gas would have shown people that the public is the first one to be screwed (417 Hy, etc etc).


----------



## Tibbson (3 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I don't think we are at a police state (yet) but there have been several instances were police agencies (including the OPP) seem to act like a law unto themselves (Caledonia, High River, Ontario CFO and his attempt at a backdoor registry, several instances were OPP ignored court orders re:native protesters).  It's also interesting that the Police Service Act for Ontario specifically prohibits "municipal police officers" from engaging in political activity, but not OPP.  However at least on a certain level, it is recognized that police should not be engaging in political activities.



Given the fact that in areas where there is no established municipal force (Aliston and Angus Ontario for example) the OPP are contracted by the municipality does that not make them essentially municipal police on the front lines?  The town of Aliston has to pay the OPP for service in their community after all.  Highway patrol and special units would not be in my mind.  

At the same time, RCMP comtracted by the provinces and cities within those provinces would be considered provincial or municiple police based upon their assignments.  

I'm sure they wouldn't see it that way but I can see where the argument could be made and as such I don't think its appropriate for them to get political as an organization.


----------



## Tibbson (3 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I stated the three new powers that were unnecessary since internment during WWII.  We did not need them during Korea or the cold war. Removing the limits on power and then saying that no transparency is needed is  not wise.



I think the moderators need to do some maintenance on the site.  It seems we somehow got crosslinked with Alex Jones' online forum.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Jun 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I think the moderators need to do some maintenance on the site.  It seems we somehow got crosslinked with Alex Jones' online forum.



What's wrong?  Is your confirmation bias being threatened?  Not willing to consider an alternate view?  Need to resort to anonymous ad hominem attacks as soon as someone doesn't agree with you, or the mainstream of this site?


----------



## FJAG (4 Jun 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Given the fact that in areas where there is no established municipal force (Aliston and Angus Ontario for example) the OPP are contracted by the municipality does that not make them essentially municipal police on the front lines?



Not so much. I'm just  :stirpot: here a little and am no expert on Ontario law by any stretch of the imagination but here's my take.

The OPP, I believe, are public servants in Ontario hired and subject to the Ontario Public Service Act (2006) (see here: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06p35_e.htm#BK95) - Municipal Police officers per se are not provincial public servants and therefore in general are subject to the Police Services Act as far as political activity goes.

The OPP on the other hand, like all other public servants of Ontario, ought to be subject to Part V of the Public Services Act which severely limits political activities. 

On the other hand, the OPPA is an association and not an individual police officer. Like any collective bargaining unit it engages in small "p" political activities on behalf of its members when it believes their interests are threatened. (the officer in the ad or the individuals providing police equipment for the ad may perhaps be liable for a breach of the act)

Unfortunately it looks as if the OPPA may have taken a step onto a slippery slope that will undermine its appearance of impartiality. People will question if they are properly investigating the Gas Plant and Ornge issues if they seem to be favouring the Liberals (even though they are saying being anti Hudak does not mean they endorse the Liberals or the NDP - that's pretty fine Orwell doublespeak). 

It says a lot about the OPPA that the "first" time that they take a political stance in their history it's to protect their wallets instead of society. 

:cheers:


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jun 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> It says a lot about the OPPA that the "first" time that they take a political stance in their history it's to protect their wallets instead of society.
> 
> :cheers:


   :nod:


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Jun 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Not so much. I'm just  :stirpot: here a little and am no expert on Ontario law by any stretch of the imagination but here's my take.
> 
> The OPP, I believe, are public servants in Ontario hired and subject to the Ontario Public Service Act (2006) (see here: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06p35_e.htm#BK95) - Municipal Police officers per se are not provincial public servants and therefore in general are subject to the Police Services Act as far as political activity goes.
> 
> ...



The Police Services Act doesn't ignore the OPP though, infact there are several clauses specifically mentioning them, including their responsibility to provide municipal policing should a municipality be unable to do so itself.   http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p15_e.htm#BK22.


----------



## Robert0288 (4 Jun 2014)

> "The laws allowing the minister of emergency preparedness or the AG's of the provinces to use the CSE and army domestically"



You couldn't be more wrong about this.  

For example just to use the military, every single available resource, at the local, municipal, and provincial level have to be exhausted.  After that the provincial EMO has to formally state that they putting in an RFA (Request for assistance)  That letter gets sent to the Minister of Public Safety, who then sends it to the Minister of National Defense, who has to sign off on it.  Any response is then run by the province.  However the military can do some support locally through a Provision of Service.  This would include things like cots, beds, food etc...
Emergency Management Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-4.56/

And CSEC isn't even responsible to the Minister of Public Safety.  CSIS however is, and is governed by the CSIS act. (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23/)


----------



## Lightguns (4 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Army?
> 
> :facepalm:
> 
> ...



Not to agree with Nemo but the CSSA has been making a pretty big deal about the other door kickers and gun grabbers at High River, our own soldiers as shown in videos and photos.  Using the line that the Army employed it`s soldiers illegally in that capacity with no mandate from the AG to do so, they have tried to make traction on the issue.  Fortunately, for the Canadian Army, the Canadian press does not care about gun owner rights.

For the paranoid there is fodder for the police state theory, there are certainly issues with law enforcement that are not isolated but there is no organized attempt.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jun 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> To go back to the original topic, I don't really see anything wrong with the ads themselves.  It's not impartial, but you can look at it as a 'third party check' to the general bs streaming from the political machines.  Public servants serve the people, not the politicians.  Should they not raise it up if they have concerns?
> 
> In general, the PC major campaign 'plans' are generally smoke and mirrors anyway, so they should have giant gaping holes punched through them.  They are running with the american myth of 'job creators' and pandering to the lowest common denominator that thinks public servants fill no useful role.  I would have thought the privatization of Ontario Hydro and the crap with private gas would have shown people that the public is the first one to be screwed (417 Hy, etc etc).



As are the 'non' platforms of the other two major parties. No one has a lock on this. It's the way politics in Canada works now.

You can't use that paintbrush without getting an equal amount of coverage on the rest.


----------



## Lightguns (4 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> As are the 'non' platforms of the other two major parties. No one has a lock on this. It's the way politics in Canada works now.
> 
> You can't use that paintbrush without getting an equal amount of coverage on the rest.



We have had 60 years of ever increasing revenues and 40 years of liberal socialism to spend those revenues on.  In that time 2 generations of politicans have grown up with the practice of taking a dollar out of our wallets and giving us 50 cents worth of the services they claim we need in return.  It is the game they have learned and the only game they have.  Even as we move to second world status, they continue to ever grow government services at the expense of individual choices.  We are doomed unless a new political messiah comes along and fixes it with a radical approach and continuous majorities for 20 years.  But quite frankly, it is the situation that the voters want (the 40% that vote anyway).


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Jun 2014)

Well the legislation may have had loop holes, but the direction from the OPP Commissioner to his Officers is pretty blunt.  No more political activity. 

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/06/20140605-165132.html



> TORONTO -- OPP Commissioner Vince Hawkes says footage used in an Ontario Provincial Police Association (OPPA) attack ad against Tory Leader Tim Hudak was improper and not permissible.
> 
> The commissioner said he outlined his concerns personally Thursday to Jim Christie, president of the OPPA. He also issued a directive about the issue to 8,000 OPP officers.
> 
> ...


----------



## CombatDoc (5 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Well the legislation may have had loop holes, but the direction from the OPP Commissioner to his Officers is pretty blunt.  No more political activity.
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/06/20140605-165132.html


Horse, meet open barn door. /sarcasm off


----------



## Shrek1985 (7 Jun 2014)

I'm sure that the OPPA, have enough legal separation to allow them to legally do whatever they want politically. A very useful bit of legal deception, I am sure.

Not unlike the Association of Canadian Police Chiefs, a liberal mouth piece eagre to speak out in favour of the gun control most officers are against, at every opportunity, but more closely tied to police services.


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Jun 2014)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> I'm sure that the OPPA, have enough legal separation to allow them to legally do whatever they want politically. A very useful bit of legal deception, I am sure.



Not quite. They are all members of the OPP, their boss, the Commissioner has given them an order, they legally have to comply with that order.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jun 2014)

The OPP Commissionaire has come down on his union.  There are still the Nurses, Teachers, etc. all spreading disinformation in attack ads.  Just today, another very prominent union, that has a lot more influence on the public, has come out with direction to its members.  Unifor Local 87-M, historically known as the Southern Ontario Newsmedia Guild, has broken its traditional silence during elections by asking members not to vote Progressive Conservative.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1369533/media-union-breaks-silence-on-election



Has democracy ceased to exist in this country, that Unions can dictate to their membership and influence the general public to vote in a particular manner?  Subtle intimidation?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The OPP Commissionaire has come down on his union.  There are still the Nurses, Teachers, etc. all spreading disinformation in attack ads.  Just today, another very prominent union, that has a lot more influence on the public, has come out with direction to its members.  Unifor Local 87-M, historically known as the Southern Ontario Newsmedia Guild, has broken its traditional silence during elections by asking members not to vote Progressive Conservative.
> 
> http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1369533/media-union-breaks-silence-on-election
> 
> Has democracy ceased to exist in this country, that Unions can dictate to their membership and influence the general public to vote in a particular manner?  Subtle intimidation?



George,.....lay off the paranoid pills.
"Dictate"?..............not for a second.  They can however, JUST LIKE YOU and me, tell everyone who they think you should vote for.   If you think this is 'democracy ceasing" then you need to start some research right from the start.....


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> George,.....lay off the paranoid pills.
> "Dictate"?..............not for a second.  They can however, JUST LIKE YOU and me, tell everyone who they think you should vote for.   If you think this is 'democracy ceasing" then you need to start some research right from the start.....



Then Bruce, why go through the effort of creating attack ads and/or sending out letters to their membership as to whom to or not to vote for?  Obviously they are trying to influence someone.  They are not politicians.  They are not volunteers for one of the political parties.  Unions serve a purpose when they do 'Collective Bargaining" for their membership.  This is more like partisan "Electioneering".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jun 2014)

Better question George, this is Canada with all it's wonderful freedoms, so why can't they?


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Better question George, this is Canada with all it's wonderful freedoms, so why can't they?



In the case of Public Unions, I see it as conflict of interest.  They are funded, by member's who's salaries are derived from all taxpayers.  They (unions) obviously have a vested interest in maintaining a government that will be favourable to them come contract negotiations.  When unions/special interests funded by the broad tax base can spend more on advertising than the actual political parties, and especially when they all seem to be attacking only one party (and thereby implicitly supporting another) I think that is a huge problem in a democracy.  

Like it or not, not every tax payer likes to see the money they have to fork over to the government redistributed to organizations they don't get to have a say in, and whose message they might not agree with.


----------



## Remius (9 Jun 2014)

To play devil's advocate here the money is derived from employees not tax payers.  Tax payers pay for employees.  how employees use their own money is none of the tax payers' business.

I pay mess dues.  As far as I'm concerned the tax payer can go blow hot air about that.  Same as if I donate any part of my salary to whatever cause.

Edit to add: I agree though that public unions are in a conflict of interest but not for the same reasons.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Better question George, this is Canada with all it's wonderful freedoms, so why can't they?



Well, to take it to the extreme, one which we have already separated from involvement in the politics of the nation; what if we then allowed another organization like the Roman Catholic Church start telling parishioners how to vote?  We have gone and created a society where we have a separation of Church and State.  Can we no look at members of unions as being identical to members of a Church parish?  There are quite a few similarities if you want to look at it that way.  

My main point is more along with the perception of a conflict of interest with all the unions manipulating an election to achieve their goals, thereby creating a situation where their goals are achieved without having to negotiate through collective bargaining with an elected government.  Is it really ethical?  If the Mob were to manipulate an election to bring in corrupt official, you would cry out and condemn it as a criminal act.  Why would a union doing the same not be considered in the same light?

Members of the unions should not have their union bosses telling them how to vote, nor should those union bosses be trying to influence the vote of non-union persons.  It is unethical.

There have already been hints of links made between the Liberal Party of Ontario and some of the unions.  Just the hint of that should be raising alarm bells.

Hatchet Man's point of the unions funding advertising above and beyond what Political Parties are permitted raises another issue.  You as an individual can speak out all you want about who should be elected, but once you start throwing money into the ring to advertise for or against candidates, you have crossed a line with the Elections Act (to the best of my knowledge).  Why do you feel Unions are exempt?





========================================================================================



> Financial Administration of Registered Associations
> 
> General
> 
> ...




http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-2.01/page-111.html#h-120


Canada Elections Act

===========================================================================


Third Party advertising:   http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=thi/pla&lang=e



> Spending Limits for Election Advertising
> 
> A third party must not spend more than the Total expenses limit on election advertising expenses. Of this, it must not spend more than the Expenses limit by electoral district in any electoral district for the promotion or opposition of one or more candidates of that district. A third party is a person or group other than a candidate, a registered party or the electoral district association of a registered party.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jun 2014)

Who said I think they should be exempt??
If they don't follow the rules then they should be prosecuted......how did possibly make that leap???

...and as for Union members being akin to belonging to a church/religion well now you've really gone and out-stupided yourself.  Listening to you talk about Unions and how those of us in one feel is like listening to a couple of 60 year old virgins talk about how sex is.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> To play devil's advocate here the money is derived from employees not tax payers.  Tax payers pay for employees.  how employees use their own money is none of the tax payers' business.
> 
> I pay mess dues.  As far as I'm concerned the tax payer can go blow hot air about that.  Same as if I donate any part of my salary to whatever cause.
> 
> Edit to add: I agree though that public unions are in a conflict of interest but not for the same reasons.



You are trying to play semantics and it doesn't wash.   If there was no private sector tax payers, the public sector would collapse and the public unions would be f'ed. It may be 2 degrees of seperation, but Public Sector unions by definition survive on taxpayer dollars.  It's not as if union members can say, screw it, I am not paying any dues. It's about as an incestuous relationship as you can get. 

And paying mess dues is not even in the same ball park.  Last I checked messes don't get involved in political advertising/campaigns.  Nor would they be able to, given they are linked to active military members.


----------



## mariomike (9 Jun 2014)

The union I used to be a member of supported politicians who supported us. That does not seem to have changed in the 5+ years I have been retired. 

"OPFFA says Tim Hudak is putting public safety at risk"
http://www.opffa.org/items/Press%20Release%20--%20Response%20to%20Hudak%20100%20000%20job%20cut%20announcement.pdf


Mr. Hudak said in a speech on February 25, 2014:

"For municipalities like Guelph-Eramosa, it means a sudden one-million-dollar increase in their OPP costs, with many municipal leaders telling me yesterday of double-digit increases being required on their property taxes.

This, of course, sets precedents for arbitrators who still refuse to look at a community’s ability to pay, leading to public-service contracts for firefighters and paramedics to follow suit, and community leaders like you having to squeeze more tax dollars from your ratepayers."

I doubt Mr. Hudak will be getting much support from police officers, firefighters or paramedics who are still on the job.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jun 2014)

What's funny is how we union member's supposedly march to the Union's orders.  I wonder why Ontario wasn't always NDP since they wanted us to vote that way since time immortal.  [well, until they got one that is]


----------



## FJAG (9 Jun 2014)

Not in a union; just a taxpayer.

Median salary of a police officer in the US - US$56,130 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm

Median salary of a police officer in Canada - CA$76,687 http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Police_Officer/Salary

(note the Cdn chart is one year later and of course in CA$ but even after adjustment there is a distinctly higher pay scale north of the border.)

Don't get me wrong. I think folks in protection services should be well paid but there is clearly room for debate as to whether the public sector up here hasn't had it too good for too long.

(Incidentally slightly off topic, does anyone know who "Project Ontario" is? I just saw an anti-Hudak attack ad by them and can't find anything on the internet that even gives a hint of who is behind this group)

op:


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Jun 2014)

The tax rates and cost of living is much cheaper down south.  That should make things more equal I expect.


----------



## mariomike (9 Jun 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I think folks in protection services should be well paid but there is clearly room for debate as to whether the public sector up here hasn't had it too good for too long.



Four pages of debate here, FJAG. 

"Civilians complaining about Police/Emergency Services' Pay"
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/102608.0


----------



## FJAG (9 Jun 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The tax rates and cost of living is much cheaper down south.  That should make things more equal I expect.



I live down south four months of the year and find cost of food about the same (some things up some things down); fuel and clothing definitely cheaper (mostly because less taxes); As for taxes - well that makes my point - their government salaries are lower and many benefits more controlled therefore their taxes generally lower all around (especially sales taxes)

Just saying. Here in Ontario there has been a general trend for the Libs to say what the hell - we'll just put the HST on everything and if we need more we'll just charge a penny more. Its always a shock for me when I come home and have to pay 13% more than the sticker says. Things could be worse, I guess. We could all be living in Europe and supporting their bureaucracy and benefits plans - their VAT runs between 18-25% roughly.

There comes a time when you have to bring the budget back into balance and I know of only three ways to do that; 1. increase the number of taxpayers; 2. raise tax rates/create new taxes; or 3. cut government spending. I prefer 1. and 3.

So to get back on topic. If the OPPA is actively campaigning against a single party which itself is campaigning for responsible fiscal government then I think the OPPA has crossed into the world of  "Blazing Saddles" and the mentality of Mel Brooks (and I'm paraphrasing): "Gentlemen, we have to protect our phony baloney wage increases".  

op:


----------



## Remius (9 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You are trying to play semantics and it doesn't wash.   If there was no private sector tax payers, the public sector would collapse and the public unions would be f'ed. It may be 2 degrees of seperation, but Public Sector unions by definition survive on taxpayer dollars.  It's not as if union members can say, screw it, I am not paying any dues. It's about as an incestuous relationship as you can get.
> 
> And paying mess dues is not even in the same ball park.  Last I checked messes don't get involved in political advertising/campaigns.  Nor would they be able to, given they are linked to active military members.



No I'm not. Be realistic.  If there were no taxpayers of course the system would be effed.  We can play apocalypse scenarios if you want but the fact remains that taxpayers don't fund public sector unions.  Union dues deducted from their salaries do.

Your argument on how it is funded is exactly the same as mess dues.  They are derived from the salaries of soldiers which is payed for by tax payers.  Same logic.   Taxpayers therefore are on the hook for your after hours forced fun.

Again, I agree that there is a conflict of interest, but that isn't it.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jun 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> (Incidentally slightly off topic, does anyone know who "Project Ontario" is? I just saw an anti-Hudak attack ad by them and can't find anything on the internet that even gives a hint of who is behind this group)



"Who is behind Project Ontario?"
http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/opinion/who-is-behind-project-ontario/

See the comments.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> No I'm not. Be realistic.  If there were no taxpayers of course the system would be effed.  We can play apocalypse scenarios if you want but the fact remains that taxpayers don't fund public sector unions.  Union dues deducted from their salaries do.



Utter tripe, those salaries are funded by taxpayers (ALL taxpayers), your logic is fail. When salaries are increased, union dues increase.  They are linked.  



> Your argument on how it is funded is exactly the same as mess dues.  They are derived from the salaries of soldiers which is payed for by tax payers.  Same logic.   Taxpayers therefore are on the hook for your after hours forced fun.



I never said otherwise. I said the activities of a mess are completely different from those of a union.  



> Again, I agree that there is a conflict of interest, but that isn't it.



You have said that twice now, explain your logic then.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What's funny is how we union member's supposedly march to the Union's orders.  I wonder why Ontario wasn't always NDP since they wanted us to vote that way since time immortal.  [well, until they got one that is]



I don't think I have ever said this, and I know that your correct not everyone in a union will do as they are told.  But I have encountered many people, who would believe the sky was purple if their union told that was the case, critical thinking not really being their strong suit.  Where I see the issue is when Public sector unions go beyond their own membership, and start telling the public who to vote or not vote for, especially when they wrap themselves in the guise of doing it in "public interest".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I don't think I have ever said this, and I know that your correct not everyone in a union will do as they are told.  But I have encountered many people, who would believe the sky was purple if their union told that was the case, critical thinking not really being their strong suit.  Where I see the issue is when Public sector unions go beyond their own membership, and start telling the public who to vote or not vote for, especially when they wrap themselves in the guise of doing it in "public interest".



Really??............in my 25 years belonging to one I haven't met a single person who gave a rat's ass what tripe the corporate Union was spewing.

..and if the people are stupid enough to buy what those ads are selling then we get the Govt. we deserve then, don't we?   They are doing what I pay them for,.......to look after the membership.  One guy says he wants to cut the memberships jobs then it is the business of whatever Union to step up and hold their breathes until they turn purple to try and stop him from being elected.

I wonder if you two would be so upset if they were trying to elect Mr. Hudak?


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Really??............in my 25 years belonging to one I haven't met a single person who gave a rat's *** what tripe the corporate Union was spewing.



I should probably introduce you to some teachers I know, and my family who work for the TTC.  They buy into everything they are told.



> ..and if the people are stupid enough to buy what those ads are selling then we get the Govt. we deserve then, don't we?   They are doing what I pay them for,.......to look after the membership.  One guy says he wants to cut the memberships jobs then it is the business of whatever Union to step up and hold their breathes until they turn purple to try and stop him from being elected.



Exactly, and that is my issue, they are being disengenious.  They are only looking out for their membership, but they pretend to, or at least try to make it appear they are looking at for the public interest at large, which is pure BS.  Whether it is during contract negotiations or during elections, they (every one of them) ALWAYS attempt to spin as looking out for the public.  They never ever say the actual truth, their only interest is self interest. 



> I wonder if you two would be so upset if they were trying to elect Mr. Hudak?



First, I can only speak for myself, and I am going to quote myself since you apparently missed it 





			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Where I see the issue is when Public sector unions go beyond their own membership, and start telling the public who to vote or not vote for, especially when they wrap themselves in the guise of doing it in "public interest"



To make it even more crystal clear, I don't think public unions should be trying to influence people outside their membership base, ESPECIALLY during an election.  As you just said, they are purely motivated out of self interest, but they will NEVER EVER admit it in public or to the public.  Whether it's the OPPA or OPSEU.  

Second, I don't know where you got the idea I support Hudak or the Ontario PC's.  I despise and detest wynne/mcguinty and the liberals, and would love to see the lot of them hanging from the end of a noose.   That doesn't mean I support the blue team or that I even voted for them.  In fact I voted for and donated to the Libertarians.


----------



## Remius (10 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Utter tripe, those salaries are funded by taxpayers (ALL taxpayers), your logic is fail. When salaries are increased, union dues increase.  They are linked.
> 
> I never said otherwise. I said the activities of a mess are completely different from those of a union.
> 
> You have said that twice now, explain your logic then.



I honestly don't think you understand how it works.  And I'm using your logic so the fail is yours lol.  

When salaries increase dues increase, sure.  You're not wrong there.
They are linked.  Ok.  But that also is beyond the point.

And no you didn't say that activities of a mess are completely different from those of a union.  But that is beside the point.  We are arguing how they are funded.  They are funded exactly the same way.  Forget activities or the fact that they are completely different beasts. 

Your argument is that there is a conflict of interest because you think that because public sector employees' salaries are paid for by taxpayers then by default anything they spend their money is somehow answerable to the taxpayer.  Simple answer is no.  The reason is that salaries are paid to compensate them for work they do.  They earn their money (whether you think so or not is another topic).   Once a public sector employee is compensated for his work that money is no longer tied to the taxpayer by any means other that the fact that it was the source.  What happens after payment is no longer the taxpayers concern.  Whether its used for mess dues, union dues, televisions, beer, cars or whetever.  There is no conflict of interest in that regard and to say otherwise is just creating a false argument with no basis in fact.

To answer your question, the conflict of interest exists when you have public sector unions that go beyond the scope of their mandate.  I think we agree on this for the most part.  While a public sector union is mandated to look after its membership it crosses lines when it gets political because the public sector has to be seen as impartial and must serve the governent of the day (that has been legitimately elected to represent the people).  While the OPPA can certainly represent its membership on labour issues and look out for their best interests they cross a line when they actively support one party or another and more importantly when they create third party advertising for one party or the other or any other political activity for that matter.

The OPP needs an association to advocate for their members.  The OPP also needs to protect its trust and impartiality.  The OPPA ruined that by interfering in the democratic process.  By all means encourage your members to vote one way or the other but by appealing to the public  they crossed that line.  If they want to highlight lack of equipment, poor pay, poor working conditions fine, but don't start weighing in on things that go out of their lanes.

Public sector unions go too far when they start supporting things that go beyond their mandate to look out for the best interests of their respective membership.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jun 2014)

Union dues are deducted at the source, that money never sees the inside of an employees bank account, it goes straight from the government to the union,  it is just appended with the employee's name as the payee.  The employee doesn't pay anything themselves, since they never received the funds to pay in the first place.  They also do not have the choice about paying, as the unions generally have agreements with the HR to make the payroll deduction, the employee doesn't get a say in the matter.   That's why it's taxpayer money. 

None of that happens with mess dues though.  You usually have to sign an agreement that grants the mess permission to make the deduction or, you pay yourself with cash/credit etc.  The regs say you must be a member and pay up, but you still have control as to whether or you actually do.  Twice when I was in Pet I never paid mess dues.  I never cleared in, I never cleared out, and I never went to the mess during my time there.


----------



## Nemo888 (10 Jun 2014)

If corporate unions(business associations, Fraser Institute, etc.) can say what they want why not worker's unions? Seems a little unfair if only rich organizations get to talk.



			
				Robert0288 said:
			
		

> You couldn't be more wrong about this.
> 
> For example just to use the military, every single available resource, at the local, municipal, and provincial level have to be exhausted.  After that the provincial EMO has to formally state that they putting in an RFA (Request for assistance)  That letter gets sent to the Minister of Public Safety, who then sends it to the Minister of National Defense, who has to sign off on it.  Any response is then run by the province.  However the military can do some support locally through a Provision of Service.  This would include things like cots, beds, food etc...
> Emergency Management Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-4.56/
> ...



The problem is the checks in place now are not mandatory. The law states that if the Minister or AGs deem that conventional law enforcement cannot handle a problem they can use whatever resources they see fit. It is worded so vaguely that it could be interpreted as simply the opinion of said individual. The power extends beyond elected officials to the AGs unelected deputies. 

So we have a law that could be massively abused and  there is no caveat about  informing the public when extraordinary legal processes have taken place. Combine this with secret security certificates and vacuuming up the entire internet history of everyone and isn't it just possible sometime in the future that this could turn into a problem? It's a bad set of laws and  should be amended. Originally some of these laws expired after 5 years, but now they have been made permanent.  I don't have sufficient faith in state politics to allow it such broad powers without public scrutiny except for the shortest possible terms and only when Canada is directly threatened.


----------



## Remius (10 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Union dues are deducted at the source, that money never sees the inside of an employees bank account, it goes straight from the government to the union,  it is just appended with the employee's name as the payee.  The employee doesn't pay anything themselves, since they never received the funds to pay in the first place.  They also do not have the choice about paying, as the unions generally have agreements with the HR to make the payroll deduction, the employee doesn't get a say in the matter.   That's why it's taxpayer money.



All that is, is the *mechanism* as agreed upon by labour laws.  It is still earnings  that the employee acquired.  The union takes its pound of flesh.  It does not come from a seperate pot.  When your EI decuctions take place it never goes to your account it gets deducted from what you make and earn.  If I make 50 000$ and the union takes 1000$ a year from me, it does not matter if it went to my account or not, MY salary was deducted from what the government compensates me for.  They took MY money not the tax payers money.  Taxpayers pay my salary for services rendered.  The union takes from what I've earned.  They do not take from taxpayers.   Taxpayers don't pay my EI premiums and they don't pay my union dues.  I do.  And it does not matter if its by choice or not.  I'm still paying it.

Why do you think the unions are so against right to work legislation?  Because it would allow employees to opt out and keep those deductions.  Money they earned. 

I'd agree with you if the government paid for union dues but they don't.  They pay salaries (that are valued)for work rendered.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The regs say you must be a member and pay up, but you still have control as to whether or you actually do.



Umm,...what??  Try the full-time gig.....




			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Union dues are deducted at the source, that money never sees the inside of an employees bank account, it goes straight from the government to the union,  it is just appended with the employee's name as the payee.  The employee doesn't pay anything themselves, since they never received the funds to pay in the first place.  They also do not have the choice about paying, as the unions generally have agreements with the HR to make the payroll deduction, the employee doesn't get a say in the matter.   That's why it's taxpayer money.



Holy crap!!!!!!!!!!!!  That $60 I've been putting in CSB's pre-deducted from every pay since I started actually belongs to the taxpayer?   Frig, I guess I had better hand it over and tell my Daughter I can't pay for her first year of University after all.     See, now your argument gets stupid...........


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Umm,...what??  Try the full-time gig.....



A mess can't take money from you, unless you give them permission to, usually during your in-clearance you sign that form.



> Holy crap!!!!!!!!!!!!  That $60 I've been putting in CSB's pre-deducted from every pay since I started actually belongs to the taxpayer?   Frig, I guess I had better hand it over and tell my Daughter I can't pay for her first year of University after all.     See, now your argument gets stupid...........



No now your comparing apples and oranges, having your investments pre-ducted is a CHOICE YOU MADE.  You can cancel it any time you want.  You could pay it manually if you wanted.  Even some employers or certain job fields the employer doesn't make all the usuall EI/CPP/Tax deductions, they leave it to the employee's to do it.  

I guess my viewpoint is a philosophical one.  If the money never came into your possession and never will, and you have no choice in that matter, was it ever really "your money".


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> If corporate unions(business associations, Fraser Institute, etc.) can say what they want why not worker's unions? Seems a little unfair if only rich organizations get to talk.



Because the unions obfusicate their motives and intentions. They exsist to look out soley for their members interests period.  They never say that though, they almost routinely spin their actions as being for the "greater public good" or some other tripe (as in the "Working Families Coalition" which on the surface makes it sound as if its some grassroots organization of concerned citizens, but in fact is operated and funded by multiple unions).  

And I have yet to see these business associations or the Fraser Institute spending millions of dollars in attack ads. All they do is put out reports and studies, which very few people read or take heed of.


----------



## Remius (10 Jun 2014)

Yes it always was your money.  Whether you pay by choice or by law.  A union can always decide how much they collect and if they even want to collect through the membership's will and by voting that in.   As a paying member you can vote and effect change if you get involved.  So there is a choice.  It's just damn hard to do though. 

And some unions leave it to the members to pay their dues as well.  Again, the automatic deductions is a mechanism for ease and for conveniance of all parties involved.  

For the record I have to pay my mess dues one way or the other.  I don't have a choice in the matter.  

Now if you are arguing whether a member should be forced into a Union, that's another story and a labour law dicussion.  But if you are arguing that tax payers pay union dues for public sector employees, you are wrong.

Here's a quick link to TBs FAQ on Union Dues at least for the federal side of things.  Specifically Answer 3 which states that dues are deducted from members paycheques. 

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/lrco-rtor/conditions/ud-cs-faq-eng.asp

When you sign a letter of offer all the details including the provision that deals with union dues is included and you agree to it when you sign on.  You agree at that point and sign on to the terms of your employment and teh rules that govern it.   You were in recruiting, if an applicant refused to sign because he didn't want to agree to certain parts of his offer what do you think would happen?


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I guess my viewpoint is a philosophical one.  If the money never came into your possession and never will, and you have no choice in that matter, was it ever really "your money".


In theory, that may be true.  By that rationale, though, the government doesn't take _your_ money because it's all deducted, money you don't see, so therefore never yours.  Government funding itself.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Because the unions obfusicate their motives and intentions. They exsist to look out soley for their members interests period.  They never say that though, they almost routinely spin their actions as being for the "greater public good" or some other tripe ....


I wish it was ONLY unions that did this.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> And I have yet to see these business associations or the Fraser Institute spending millions of dollars in attack ads. All they do is put out reports and studies, which very few people read or take heed of.


While not strictly a "business association", I think this would count as a think tank of sorts taking out a third-pary ad trying to shape election intentions.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> While a public sector union is mandated to look after its membership it crosses lines when it gets political because the public sector has to be seen as impartial and must serve the governent of the day (that has been legitimately elected to represent the people).



Like this from yesterday?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp3RLDmNh0A


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jun 2014)

Yup, OPSEU is a mouthpiece for the Liberals.......
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/10/wynne-is-lying-and-cuts-are-coming-union-president



TORONTO — Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne is lying when she says she will not cut public sector jobs, the top boss of the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union said Tuesday.

Warren "Smokey" Thomas accused Wynne of burying $1.2 billion in cuts in the dead-on-arrival budget earlier this year.

"It's in the fine print," he said, pointing out that at $40,000 for an average salary, the Liberal cuts would have chopped more than 30,000 jobs from the public payroll.

When asked if Wynne was lying, Thomas said: "Yes. In my personal opinion, yes, I think she is."

He accused Wynne of "not being straight" with voters.

The Liberal leader has campaigned as the saviour of public sector jobs, promising the public sector will be just as big four years from now if she's elected.

While Wynne has tried to scare voters with warnings that Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak would weaken government services with his plan to cut 100,000 government jobs, Thomas said at least Hudak is "honest and straightforward" with what's he's proposing to do.

Previously, Thomas has said he believes there could be as many as 60,000 middle management positions in the public sector that could be eliminated to find savings.

On Tuesday, Thomas said his union — the third largest in Ontario and the second largest public sector union in Canada — is "politically agnostic" and doesn't get officially involved with any party. Personally, Thomas supports the NDP and said he's already voted for that party in the advanced polls.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jun 2014)

OPSEU is politically agnostic? Google "OPSEU conservatives" and read how agnostic they are. 

A leopard can't change their spots, Thomas just sees the blood in the water than Wynne can't cater to them forever, and the NDP are the only ones stupid enough to blindly attempt it.


----------



## GINge! (11 Jun 2014)

I remember last provincial election here, the fire station on Leitrim / Bank had signs out front: "Ontario Fire Fighters for Dalton McGuinty"... I thought the same thing then as I do now with the OPP; they should be apolitical. 

If I was an OPP member and member of the PC (or NDP), I would not be impressed with my organization proclaiming allegiance to a particular party that I don't support.

If they do insist on being politicized, then at least let me determine the allocation of my municipal property tax.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jun 2014)

GINge! said:
			
		

> I remember last provincial election here, the fire station on Leitrim / Bank had signs out front: "Ontario Fire Fighters for Dalton McGuinty"... I thought the same thing then as I do now with the OPP; they should be apolitical.



At the municipal level, "The firefighters union has only ever endorsed one ( Toronto ) mayoral candidate in recent memory, David Miller, who was first elected in 2003. The association did not endorse him when he was re-elected in 2007, said association spokesperson Frank Ramagnano."

Anti-Hudak messages from the OPFFA:
https://www.facebook.com/OPFFA?hc_location=timeline


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2014)

As a union member I don't agree with the union supporting 1 party or another. Publishing voting records and statements on what particular politicians did/said is fine. Let the membership decide which way they want to vote.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jun 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> As a union member I don't agree with the union supporting 1 party or another.



The "Endorsement Philosophy" of the firefighter's union is to, "support candidates and lawmakers who are friendly to fire fighters and their issues, regardless of political party."



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Let the membership decide which way they want to vote.



It goes on to say, "No one, including your union, has a right to tell you how to vote."


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Jun 2014)

Every single union in Canada is democratically elected. The are direct democracies with elections untainted by big money politics. They do what the members want or get turfed. If you are too lazy to vote and organize who is at fault? It's only 50% plus one to deceritfy but I can't remember the last time it happened. Business and corporations need to be balanced by worker unions or they simply take advantage. Look at the temp foreign workers at McDonald's in areas with high unemployment.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Every single union in Canada is democratically elected. The are direct democracies with elections untainted by big money politics. They do what the members want or get turfed. If you are too lazy to vote and organize who is at fault? It's only 50% plus one to deceritfy but I can't remember the last time it happened. Business and corporations need to be balanced by worker unions or they simply take advantage. Look at the temp foreign workers at McDonald's in areas with high unemployment.



I am not a member of a union, but from information I have heard over the years as to the top management in some unions, I will call BS on you.  Some unions have "Union Bosses" who are just as corrupt as mafiosos.  Do unions do good work?  Of course they do.  Can they do wrong?  Of course they can.

Don't be justifying union money and agendas being used to influence a Canadian election (municipal, provincial or federal) with the red herring that their hierarchy is democratically elected.  That does not legitimize illegal activities to influence the sheeple.   Nor does it legitimize the union financing propaganda that falsely portrays or outright lies about a political parties platform.

In the last two days, the City of Ottawa By-Law officers have removed more than 250 illegal signs put up by the Working Families Coalition.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2014)

It's a huge commitment to get change within the union management and not everyone has the time or energy so things slide and the management uses that to their benefits and do not make it easy for grassroot change.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> It's only 50% plus one to deceritfy but I can't remember the last time it happened.



I was a member of the same union for 36+ years. We, the Paramedics, could never break away to form our own union like TPS and TFS because we only comprised about one sixth of the local we belong to.

We even applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to extricate ourselves, and failed.

Although I am no longer a member, it does not sound like their situation has improved: 

“The word mutiny is not too far from what I think is in the near future… People who are staunch, staunch union supporters are screaming to get out of this union now.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/14/paramedics-mulling-mutiny-against-cupe-over-labour-deal-with-the-city/


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Jun 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's a huge commitment to get change within the union management and not everyone has the time or energy so things slide and the management uses that to their benefits and do not make it easy for grassroot change.



Probably because most people chose their job based on how well it matches up to their own skills, interests, and qualifications.  Being in a union is incidental, and in some fields unavoidable.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Jun 2014)

I don't get how corporations and rich people's money can do whatever nefarious things it wants but money from democratically elected unions is somehow tainted by comparison. If money in politics is the problem unions are definitely not the biggest abuser of the system.

I am in a union and our department was overlooked for years. Then we got fed up, organized and took the thing over. Demanded the union head office give us back a large overpayment with interest and threw a huge Christmas bash with the money. Democracy is flawed but better than it's alternatives.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Jun 2014)

Individual vs collective. What one does with one's own money is their affair. What one does with someone else's money is not.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Jun 2014)

Corporations are collectives. Dollars equal votes in the form of shares so technically it is not much different except unions are more democratic. 

There seems to be two sets of standards and in some cases two sets of laws. One for the rich and powerful and a second rulebook for everyone else.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2014)

Well we could tie Corporate tax breaks to real direct jobs and then a sliding scale for secondary supply chain jobs on a ratio basis. I think most people would be surprised how much taxpayer money ends up going to companies or cleaning up their mess later.


----------



## GINge! (11 Jun 2014)

Nemo, I don't see it as a double standard at all - I have no issue with a union supporting a political party. The Brotherhood of Widgets Local 123 can run all the attack ads they want.  By the same token, Widgets Incorporated can support any political party they wish. 

What I do have a problem with is publicly funded organizations (Police, Firefighter, Healthcare, Military, OC Transpo, School boards) either attacking a party or stating their support of a party. If voting a certain way is of benefit to a particular public agency, then let their individual members vote in accordance with that, but don't get behind a party as an organization.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Jun 2014)

I do see limiting the political activity of police and the military as pretty self explanatory.  Healthcare workers or public service paper pushers much less so. It has more to do with their authority than the fact that they work in the public sector.

I am curious if you are also against things like mining and resource companies(including their proxy organizations)supporting candidates financially who give them the things they want?  If the practice corrupts the democratic process it should be wrong for everyone.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I do see limiting the political activity of police and the military as pretty self explanatory.  Healthcare workers or public service paper pushers much less so. It has more to do with their authority than the fact that they work in the public sector.
> 
> I am curious if you are also against things like mining and resource companies(including their proxy organizations)supporting candidates financially who give them the things they want?  If the practice corrupts the democratic process it should be wrong for everyone.



I disagree with anyone conducting political activity outside of one of the Political Parties running for election.  I don't care if they are Military, Union, Church or whatever.  If they want to be part of the political process, do it openly as part of one of the Political Parties.  It is up to the public to make a decision as to how they will vote on what the Politicians running present, not what an 'Interest Group' may be preaching.

There is also quite a difference between Third Parties actively advocating for or against one of the Political Parties running for election through ads and individuals or organizations (Unions, Business) contributing funds to a Politcal Party.


----------

