ballz said:
A union [political party] is a private organization created by private citizens. It is ridiculous that they would have to provide financial disclosure to anyone but their own membership, and that would be based upon their membership drafting up their own constitution that requires it (if not, they are just asking to be hosed).
You may not like unions [political party] or trust them at all, but people have the freedom to associate for very good reason, and the government nor the public has any business interfering in that just because they don't like certain groups.
Ballz, substitute what I highlighted in yellow and your statement is still true. Yet, political parties are limited by the elections act on who can contribute, how much, have obligations to disclose the identity of their contributors (major ones anyway) and must publicly account for their money (hence the Liberal Adscam). Now, I personally don't see anything wrong with those limits on freedom of association for the political party even though they are and remain
private associations.
In a democracy, there are certain type of associations that must be controlled for the benefit of all. Are Unions in that category?
I would say yes (and incidentally, if you claim that it is up to "
their membership drafting up their own constitution that requires it - if not, they are just asking to be hosed", then you have no idea how Unions or other such associations are created. Three activists at a table sit down and incorporate the Union, writing all the material the way they want it, then go on a membership signing campaign. The membership has no control whatever on the constitution and I can tell you by experience that the rules of order at Union meeting are totally loaded in favour of the few that govern the Union to pass whatever they want.)
I say yes because Unions are not just "private associations" for the purpose of furthering the objective of their "organization". They are given very specific and extraordinary powers in the relation with the employer in a Unionized setting: The person who wants to work for an employer where a Union is recognized does not have the freedom of associating or not with the Union - it is taken out of his pay regardless - and he has no freedom to negotiate his employment contract with the employer separately. (I probably would have more sympathy for the Unions if we didn't have the Rand formula and the Union had to actually go after each pay period and actually collect the dues from its members [and only its members], the way they do in Europe - and which has certainly not made the Unions any weaker.)
You beat me to it George, and my wife also is unionized in the Federal civil service.
I won't go any further, because you know where that would lead, but Unions are not just another private association there to further the objectives of its membership
