# Canadian labour unions take membership dues ($$$) to fund anti-Afghanistan agenda



## Zell_Dietrich (11 Oct 2006)

I was just walking home from returning a movie and I saw a poster for www.nowar.ca advertising a protest on Oct 28 in front of the US consulate here in Toronto.   I recognised the "*labour donated USW 8300*" at the bottom.  Also I noticed that they used several NDP catch phrases.  I didn't think much of it until I saw that the Canadian Islamic congress( www.canadianislamiccongress.com ) has joined up with the grass roots NDP.

Now I can understand why the CIC would be there, I disagree with many of their fundamental presumptions but I can understand where they are coming from.  But what I don't understand is why the United Steel Workers Union is paying for the flyer's, posters and who knows what else?  ( http://www.pance.ca/stratsteel )  

I know on the grass roots level,  it is the same group of people,  but I find it odd that Steel Worker's union dues are going towards non union specific items.  I know they have a large warchest.  If I was in that union I'd be annoyed at having money forced from me so that views I may or may not agree with are promoted. I think I remember a legal challenge in Alberta that stopped a union from doing this exact same thing :-S


----------



## Shamrock (11 Oct 2006)

Zell, it's kinda scary just what most unions will dip into.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Oct 2006)

I suspect the average steelworker would be pissed at supporting the Islamic Congress.


----------



## medicineman (11 Oct 2006)

Zell - the operative word here is GRASS.

MM


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Oct 2006)

I don't think its that uncommon for unions to support these "causes".  CUPE, OPSEU, CAW and few other have all done it, and no I don't think its right.  Just another reason why unions have lost any "useful" purpose.  I am just glad the City of Toronto considers me exempt staff.  I really wouldn't like the idea of being a member of CUPE.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (12 Oct 2006)

I wonder if anyone here knows anyone in that union who can challenge this. I know one,  but she is as feverishly anti-Afghanistan it is ... unsettling  (I'm sure union bylaws are in place to stop misappropriation of funds)


----------



## Steel Badger (12 Oct 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I don't think its that uncommon for unions to support these "causes".  CUPE, OPSEU, CAW and few other have all done it, and no I don't think its right.
> 
> You just reminded me to grill our local president about "Corporate" OPSEU's endorsement plan......
> 
> ...


----------



## exsemjingo (14 Oct 2006)

Opposition to the mission in Afghanistan fits nicely into official Union ideology.  It involves spending money outside of Canada (Bad), it is militaristic and reflects "right wing" values (Bad), and acceptacne of the mission requires a honest understanding of how the world really works (Plus Bad).  
Once in a while we actually have to go to war, especially when hostile nations support those who attack us.  The Union heads, however, prefer to view the world less accurately.
Oh yeah,and our involvement in Afghanistan helps the Americans.  (Double Plus Bad).
I would be disappointed at seeing Union support on this kind of site, but not surprised.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2006)

exsemjingo, your grasp of Union terminology is incorrect.

Spending money outside Oceana is *ungood*

Understanding the world outside Oceana is *plus ungood*

Helping "Not Oceana" is *double plus ungood*

George Orwell's "1984" is an excellent primer on the correct use of Union, Socialist and other left wing terminology. *Double plus good* and well worth the read!


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (14 Oct 2006)

:rofl:

Well amusing swipes aside,  I still find it annoying that unions are using their member's funds for purposes other than for which they were collected.  Kind of like when the Pakistan student association held a fundraising drive for the earthquake victims.  And they gave the money to an organisation that then gave part of that money to the Taliban    There should be laws.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Oct 2006)

My neighbour is a Union Ironworker.

I forwarded him a few links (including this thread) he's not the type to let it pass at the next union meeting.


----------



## a78jumper (14 Oct 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I don't think its that uncommon for unions to support these "causes".  CUPE, OPSEU, CAW and few other have all done it, and no I don't think its right.  Just another reason why unions have lost any "useful" purpose.  I am just glad the City of Toronto considers me exempt staff.  I really wouldn't like the idea of being a member of CUPE.



One of the reasons I quit working for York Region after three months-CUPE. That and nothing to do.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (15 Oct 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> My neighbour is a Union Ironworker.
> 
> I forwarded him a few links (including this thread) he's not the type to let it pass at the next union meeting.



     You rock GO,  I don't know if the local union in Edmonton (I'm assuming that's where your neighbour is) is supporting the NDP's "support the troops" campain.  I think even from inside Edmonton your friend could do stuff to help.  For example he could take it to the local leaders and pressure them to push for union wide rules about outside political group funding.  *shrug*  

     I see on http://www.pance.ca/stratsteel/ they are having a local meeting.  I wonder if in one day I can muster an anti-anti war protest.  (I wont,  it would be counter productive) But I liked the idea. :warstory:


----------



## HDE (15 Oct 2006)

Keep in mind that this is a union unit at some business called "Strategic Communications", not Stelco.    You'd pobably be underwhelmed if you found out how many brothers and sisters in the union are pushing this project.  Most union members are far too busy having lives to spend their time doing "union activist" stuff


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Oct 2006)

> Most union members are far too busy having lives to spend their time doing "union activist" stuff .



True, but where do their (millions upon millions) of dollars in dues go...?   :-\  

It's time for the grassroots membership of activist unions to begin asking some hard questions rather than shrugging every time one of their lunatic left "leaders" goes off the deep end.


----------



## tlg (15 Oct 2006)

Unions offer job security and higher pay. The higher pay they take for union dues and as long as your doing nothing you have a job. Is this how the unions work nowadays because I would like to see the original union founders come back from the grave to see this. I wonder what would happen?


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Oct 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> True, but where do their (millions upon millions) of dollars in dues go...?   :-\
> 
> It's time for the membership of activists unions to begin asking some hard questions rather than shrugging every time one of their lunatic left "leaders" goes off the deep end.



Like CUPE Ontario Bossman Sid Ryan?


----------



## HDE (15 Oct 2006)

I don't think its so much "shrugging" as having a clear understanding that the leaders can say whatever they like and nothing much comes of it when the members don't follow.  In theory Sid should be a shoo-in to be elected every time he runs for office in a "union town", in reality he loses every time.  In any case there's a known quantity to Sid, he's a clown, but who knows what the alternative would look like


----------



## V (22 Oct 2006)

I recently received a union news letter from an employer and I found it quite disturbing.  I don't know if I should post this but I'll let the directing staff decide.  I will put some excerpts from the article, and If you want more info I will give it.  Its more of the west coast diatribe so hold on.

2. Today harper and his general Hillier yap on about building schools, humanitarian aid, etc. False.  The U.N. has just announced there are 100,000 refugees fleeing the Kandahar area Canadian troops are "securing".  Some security.  To say nothing of the uncounted thousands of dead and wounded civilians vitims of on ongoing mass bombings and the use of depleted uranium bombs!

3.  The Canadian armed forces have been steadily integrated into the military forces of the U.S. Empire.  NATO, Norad, integrated command are being used to turn Canada into a military offensive force for the very corporations that are dramatically annexing the entire economy of Canada, including the wood industry.

Unfortuantely the article gets even worse.  I have strong feelings about this and plan on making a written complaint.  Anyone who would like to give input I will note.  This article for those that live on the west coast was in preparation for a so called day of action in Vancouver.  I'll let you know how the letter I'm writing in response goes.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (22 Oct 2006)

On the grass roots level,  the Unions and the NDP and the Afghanistan protesters are the same.   If you look into it,  you'll likely find that some of your Union dues have been given to an anti-war group.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51699.0.html

If you want you can check your local union Constitution and look into what you can do ;-)   Most of the time they have no idea that it is inappropriate for them to use their position as union leader for their own personall beliefs/goals.  I'm sure you can find people who support the mission, or who don't like their money going to outside political groups to help you out.


----------



## RangerRay (22 Oct 2006)

Which union, if I may ask?


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Which union, if I may ask?


Obviously NOT UNDE (Union of National Defense Employees)
Copy of letter provided to me by *a friend*  



> September 26, 2006
> 
> Hon. Jack Layton, Leader
> New Democratic Party of Canada
> ...


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> On the grass roots level,  the Unions and the NDP and the Afghanistan protesters are the same.   If you look into it,  you'll likely find that some of your Union dues have been given to an anti-war group.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51699.0.html
> 
> If you want you can check your local union Constitution and look into what you can do ;-)   Most of the time they have no idea that it is inappropriate for them to use their position as union leader for their own personall beliefs/goals.  I'm sure you can find people who support the mission, or who don't like their money going to outside political groups to help you out.


While you are at it, share this around the office: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/26-Canadian-Peace-Alliance-and-Supporters-Mislead-Canada.html


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> While you are at it, share this around the office: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/26-Canadian-Peace-Alliance-and-Supporters-Mislead-Canada.html


Priceless!! Use their photocopiers to print many many copies of it for posting on the bords and as handouts!!


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Oct 2006)

It seems to me that a lot of these "full-time" union leaders have failled political aspirations and are now using their position and funding not for workplace issues, but to further their political causes. If I paid union dues I would be incensed! INCENSED!


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Endorsers List for Oct 28
> 
> *Canadian Labour Congress*
> National Union of Public and General Employees
> ...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (22 Oct 2006)

I think I said it before,  there is very little we can do from the outside of the union to stop them.  It is up to members inside of the union to stand up and stop their leaders from hijacking the union's funds for non union related business.  I seems to me that they are inappropriately spending funds that were compelled from members for a specific purpose.  

If I were to collect money for a housing co-op to create a fund to replace the roof in case of sever damage,  and then went and spent that money to further my own political views,  I would be in breach of trust.  Union dues are to be used for union business, for example: to create a strike fund.  By spending money on things outside of the union's intrest they are weakening the unions bargaining power.   Now if you're in the union and disagree with the fundamental assertions in the anti-war campaign,  then you need to remember that your union is using your money to support views that you don't agree with.  Democracy in action.   ;D

I like the new title for this thread - much better


----------



## alfie (23 Oct 2006)

The problem is quite simple most union members don't pay attention to what goes on unless there is a direct effect on them ie money / benefits. The radicals get in and soon run the place. The members of all unions need to take a hard look at who is in charge and what they are doing and not let there $50 bucks a month get wasted. I am happy to say that not all unions are behind this CEP is not a sponsor.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Oct 2006)

Sent

To whom it my concern
I have been a long term civil servant and am also an ex-soldier. I have been recently made aware that the Canadian Labour Congress is supporting a campaign by the Canadian Peace Alliance (CPA) to denounce our Armed forces taking part in the UN backed mission in Afghanistan. As a member of PSAC I will be extremely upset and pissed off if any of my union funds are used to support this group, they do not represent my views nor the views of many of my co-workers. 

I also noticed a large number of Islamic groups will be attending and supporting the CPA. As I am a Muslim convert, I am well aware of the agenda of radical and fundamentalist Islamic movement and they promote a theology of hate, anti-women, anti-union and restriction of freedom of religion. Many of the same groups supporting the CPA also supported Sharia law, which is oppressive and discriminates against woman. How is it that the CLC can be comfortable standing besides such narrow minded people? 

Canadian soldiers & civilian personal in Afghanistan are working hard and risking everything to make life better for the average Afghan, it is not an easy task or pretty, but the Afghan people deserve a chance to have a better life. I would be ashamed if I knew my union had stabbed fellow Canadians in the back while they are risking their lives in Afghanistan. If PSAC has given any support to the CPA, I expect you to withdraw it immediately.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2006)

Well phrased Colin.


----------



## NL_engineer (23 Oct 2006)

alfie said:
			
		

> The problem is quite simple most union members don't pay attention to what goes on unless there is a direct effect on them ie money / benefits. The radicals get in and soon run the place. The members of all unions need to take a hard look at who is in charge and what they are doing and not let there $50 bucks a month get wasted. I am happy to say that not all unions are behind this CEP is not a sponsor.



It is a bit more complicated then that.  These are the National Unions not the Locals making these purchases.  The Locals usually (but some times the National does) control the strike fund, and other funds (usually investments readily convertible to cash), and pay a dues to the National.  In some cases the dues go to the National, and they give the Locals there part.  In this case the Nationals are spending it, and it is more then likely in there charter, that money can be spent on political purposes, ie. the NDP, or under a different wording, sponsoring, etc.

If you are a union member, and want to try to stop this.

Get the books from the National (they will have to declare the expense one way or another)
Look in the Nationals charter for anything related to spending and try to find this
(If political spending is allowed, get your Local reprehensive to bring it up at the next National AGM, and try to get other Locals on side)


----------



## jimc (28 Oct 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> Getting out "hundreds of people" in the Greater Toronto Area, population of about 4 million, isn't exactly a rousing show of support :.    Most of us "lefties" in organized labour skipped, which really does make it all the sweeter ;D



  Few union members support the CLC position on Afghanistan. I just wish the news media would separate union from its members when talk about supporting this kind of nonsense. There are a lot of former CF working in the public service and this is one of the topics that they would never actually ask our opinion on as it would be solidly behind the troops. 

  you read their position http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Opinion_Editorials/Who_Are_We_Defending  and it provides you a frightening insight into the bury your head in the sand approach to politics. The very reasons they want the troops out are the very same issues they so strongly condemn. Makes absolutely no sense for unions to take positions of equality and women's rights and then to turn over the Afghan people to the fatal outcomes they condemn?


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

> Ken Georgetti is president of the Canadian Labour Congress, the largest trade union federation in Canada, representing three million workers.
> 
> http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Opinion_Editorials/Who_Are_We_Defending


I wonder how many of those 3 million workers were asked if they wanted thier dues going into an anti-Afghanistan campaign . . .


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Oct 2006)

MCG, the problem is they have no control over it unless they vote their union out of the CLC (not that easy).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well phrased Colin.



Yep, still awaiting a reply  :


----------



## jimc (29 Oct 2006)

most unions in my opinion ( the provincial or federal leadership  that is ) spend so much time on social issues to mask their inability and lack of work on defending contract rights for their workers.  

 Stopping the spending is not easy. Barring getting resolutions passed stating that union money can only be spent in the defense of a contract, it is an impossible task. No union goes to its members and clearly asks for motions from the floor at conventions for an itemized spending list. Most larger unions have its members who attend their conventions pass a motion endorsing a vaguely worded action plan. The action plan is mostly about defending their contract rights but also mention something fluffy about supporting CLC and other social issues. Once that action plan passes at their conventions they have blindly endorsed the money to be spent on stuff like this without any input.

 The problems with unions are not the workers or local stewards who fight for nothing more then workers rights. What is needed is a Federal law dictating that Union dues can ONLY be used by unions in actions to defend, enforce, or establish contracts  ( i.e the real reason unions began and what they need to get back into ), and anything else must be clearly voted for by the membership at large. 

 I know for our local we do get a portion of the dues rebated back to us, but any penny spent over a few hundred bucks and even a single penny spent on anything other then the running of the local has to be approved by the local membership in clear detail. 

 I sent Layton an email which was not responded to in which I asked him "What was the NDP plan once the troops left?"  What exactly is their plan when the Taliban retake the country? And to what effect will asking Please, stop further violence? Seems no one on that side is willing to admit they have no plan other then wanting us to ditch and run. I could probably stomach listing to their opinion if they actually had one. Currently they are without an education position with an actual action plan. All they have is a one liner statement hoping to capitalize on the voters who don't understand the reasons our troops are there. Sadly the funding to keep this misinformation and blind head in the sand politics moving forward is mostly coming from Blue Collar union workers dues. Not to repeat myself but no motion against this stands a hope in hell of getting passed at a union convention.  The only real way to ensure funding only goes to approved areas is a new Federal Law dictating that unions dues are just that - funds to run the union as a union and only that.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Oct 2006)

Another reason for "Right to Work" laws in Canada.


----------



## NL_engineer (29 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Another reason for "Right to Work" laws in Canada.


Do you think that your pay would be like it is with out unions?  Rember our pay increases come from what is awarded to the public service, and they get it through there union bargaining with the government.


----------



## exsemjingo (3 Nov 2006)

Right you are.  Unions are the only reason for the high standard of living in this country.
But even though unions are able to negotiate higher wages for the workers (well, for members anyway), the market is still able to steal those gains back through inflation.  What is really needed is some sort of Political Bureau to set prices as well.  
Only then can the capitalist truly be beaten.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Nov 2006)

Ah...wage and price controls...the heart yearns for such an era of gelded gilded poverty prosperity.


----------



## Jacqueline (4 Nov 2006)

> I really wouldn't like the idea of being a member of CUPE


.

 :rofl:


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Nov 2006)

What its true.  There are some positions I want to apply for occasionally with the city of Toronto, but I sometimes decide not to cause I really don't want to be a part of a union, especially cupe and especially cupe 416/79. Everytime I hear Sid Ryan, or Brian Cochrane speak I feel like I am losing brain cells.


----------



## Jacqueline (4 Nov 2006)

> What its true.  There are some positions I want to apply for occasionally with the city of Toronto, but I sometimes decide not to cause I really don't want to be a part of a union, especially cupe and especially cupe 416/79. Everytime I hear Sid Ryan, or Brian Cochrane speak I feel like I am losing brain cells.




Understood. I just think CUPE sounds like See You Pee.


----------



## Osotogari (5 Nov 2006)

I've worked at two union places under two different unions.  Most people on the shop floor at the plants I worked at support the military.  Apart from that, they want to be able to work some overtime without being raped by the taxman and have a good standard of living.  

Unions mostly exist today to protect the 5% of their membership who in a non-union shop would probably be fired.  Their leadership at the national level is divorced from the rank and file, judging from the talk in the break rooms at the places I've worked at.


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Nov 2006)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> I've worked at two union places under two different unions.  Most people on the shop floor at the plants I worked at support the military.  Apart from that, they want to be able to work some overtime without being raped by the taxman and have a good standard of living.
> 
> Unions mostly exist today to protect the 5% of their membership who in a non-union shop would probably be fired.  Their leadership at the national level is divorced from the rank and file, judging from the talk in the break rooms at the places I've worked at.



Thats is exactly what is wrong with the good majority of unions, and hence why they have outlived an useful purpose.


----------

