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.