• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Are we becoming a 'Police State'?

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,429
Points
1,260
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

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,429
Points
1,260
Better question George, this is Canada with all it's wonderful freedoms, so why can't they?
 

The_Falcon

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,703
Points
1,090
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

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
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

Marginal note:Duty of financial agent

403.27 The financial agent of a registered association is responsible for administering its financial transactions and for reporting on them, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
2003, c. 19, s. 23.
Marginal note:prohibition — paying expenses

403.28 (1) No person or entity, other than an electoral district agent of a registered association, shall pay the registered association’s expenses.
Marginal note:prohibition — incurring expenses

(2) No person or entity, other than an electoral district agent of a registered association, shall incur the registered association’s expenses.
Marginal note:prohibition — accepting contributions

(3) No person, other than an electoral district agent of a registered association shall accept contributions to the registered association.
Marginal note:prohibition — transfers

(4) No person, other than the financial agent of a registered association, shall accept or make transfers of goods or funds on behalf of the association.
2003, c. 19, s. 23.


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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,429
Points
1,260
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
676
Points
1,260
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,429
Points
1,260
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,809
Points
1,040
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)

:pop:
 
J

jollyjacktar

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

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
676
Points
1,260
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,809
Points
1,040
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". 

:pop:
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,703
Points
1,090
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
676
Points
1,260
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,429
Points
1,260
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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.
 
Top