Are we becoming a 'Police State'?

[Remius]

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]

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]

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.

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/)

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]

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]

  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.....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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]

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]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/