andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (01/03/86)
Consider the following two statements.
- A worker helps his company make profits. If he really doesn't like the way
the company is using those profits (e.g. which political parties it is
supporting with them), he can and should quit his job.
- A worker helps his union make profits. If he really doesn't like the way
the union is using those profits (e.g. which political parties it is
supporting with them), he can and should quit his job.
Aside from the obvious word-substitution, I fail to see any difference
between the above two statements. Maybe some of you honourable, intellegent,
knowledgeable, capitalist running dogs out there can help me out.
Happy new year
--Jamie.acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (01/05/86)
Somehow I think that Jamie wrote his article for me :-) In article <130@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > Consider the following two statements. > >- A worker helps his company make profits. If he really doesn't like the way > the company is using those profits (e.g. which political parties it is > supporting with them), he can and should quit his job. >- A worker helps his union make profits. If he really doesn't like the way > the union is using those profits (e.g. which political parties it is > supporting with them), he can and should quit his job. > ^ | union I think the word job should be changed to union, but that is the whole point, that one can't quit the union (or quit paying to it) unless he quits his job. If one doesn't like his company then he can quit or possible buy shares in the company and influence it that way. Likewise the worker could become actively involved in the union and try to influence it that way, if he could stand the pressure that some of these unions might exert upon him for objecting to the the "correct way of thinking". According to the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" section 2.d everyone has the fundamental right of freedom of association. Although it doesn't state it this would imply to me that one also has the freedom not to associate. Section 6.2.b of the Charter says that a person has the right to pursue "the gaining of a livelihood in any province." If one has to join a union, against ones wishes, to gain employment in their chosen field then there seems to be a conflict between these two sections of the Charter. If the person selects to exercise right 6.2.b then they are being denied right 2.d and if they exercise that right then they are being denied the right to pursue their livelihood. However, if they didn't have to join the union (or implicitly support the union by paying dues) then this conflict would not arise. It seems to me that Jamie's article is partly prompted by some of the publicity concerning two people, one here in BC and one in Ontario, who are challenging the union practice of supporting directly or indirectly political parties. Art Kube, head of the BC Federation of Labour, is quite upset over these challenges to unions and doesn't view the individuals involved in a very charitable light. Art suggested that the rights of unions far exceeded the rights of an individual in this case. I disagree and think that unions should constantly have to demonstrate, by signing up members, that they are serving a useful purpose. If they force people to support them then like any organization they become an entity unto themselves and forget what they are really there for. So far I have only addressed unions but what about companies? Why should companies be allowed to make contributions to political parties and what purpose does it serve? I have heard it said that companies make contributions because they believe political parties need money to be able to properly express their viewpoints. I tend to be more cynical and think that it has more to do with keeping in the party's good books for possible future favours. Or maybe they just use it as a tax write off. If the latter is the case then maybe they should just make a contribution to general revenues providing they could get the same tax benefits. I wouldn't cry too much if both unions and companies weren't allowed to make political contributions. Donald Acton
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (01/05/86)
I think we have a sort of consensus forming here. Don Acton noted
that he would be unhappy is unions and companies weren't allowed to
make political contributions. I don't mind the contributions themselves
but I'm unhappy about the tax deductibility. I don't feel they are
really legitimate expenses. At least I don't feel they should be
considered such.
On the otherhand, individual people are allowed tax deductions for
political contributions, so there's a good argument in favour of it.
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
(416) 652-3880brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/05/86)
> >I wouldn't cry too much if both unions and companies weren't allowed to >make political contributions. > > Donald Acton Hah! I can just see the government passing legislation forbidding contributions to political parties! It's about as likely as true free trade. Talk about conflict of interest. Why are political parties allowed to write the laws about contributions to political parties? Perhaps only independent members of the house should be allowed to vote on this bill? --------- Cynicism aside, companies make their contributions with their own money, which we can assume is fairly won and theirs to do with as they see fit. Unions spend the money of their members, many of whom are members because they have no other choice. Now, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything (particularly fund political campaigns) with another person's money without their consent, in some fairly express manner. It's time for the closed shop to end, or to prove its merits without the special protection of law. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
robertj@garfield.UUCP (01/06/86)
In article <130@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > >- A worker helps his company make profits. If he really doesn't like the way > the company is using those profits he can and should quit his job. > >- A worker helps his union make profits. If he really doesn't like the way > the union is using those profits he can and should quit his job. > >Happy new year >--Jamie. There are a number of differences which have nothing at all to with whether or not I am a capitalist dog. The first of these is that unions do not exist to make profits if this is what unions exist to do then I would suggest that we immediately disband them and work up some completely new system for the protection of workers than the one we have now. Unions are protective organizations and the disagreement currently in the court is asking for an interpretation of what that means. Secondly there exists a contractual relationship between a company and its workers which does not exist between a union and its membership. Though collective bargaining (or whatever) an employee and an employer come to some mutual agreement upon what each is worth to the other. What then employee does with his own money after that is his own business, likewise for the company. I could go on. A better analogy would be company is to shareholder as union is to worker. Then the problems and differences become a bit clearer. Cheers Robert Janes (Sometimes capitalist running dog)
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (01/07/86)
In article <130@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) claims: > > Consider the following two statements. > >- A worker helps his company make profits. If he really doesn't like the way > the company is using those profits (e.g. which political parties it is > supporting with them), he can and should quit his job. > >- A worker helps his union make profits. If he really doesn't like the way > the union is using those profits (e.g. which political parties it is > supporting with them), he can and should quit his job. > > Aside from the obvious word-substitution, I fail to see any difference >between the above two statements. Maybe some of you honourable, intellegent, >knowledgeable, capitalist running dogs out there can help me out. > >Happy new year >--Jamie. The difference is that in the first instance the worker is objecting to the use the company is making of money that *it*, the company, has *rightfully* earned; whereas in the second instance the worker is objecting to the use the union is making of money that *he*, the worker, rightfully earned and was *forced* to hand over to the union. I'd say that there is an order of magnitude in difference between the method the company used to obtain its money and the method that the union used. I can't offhand think of any other organization besides the government that possesses the coercive powers of today's unions when it comes to extracting money from its subjects. Most people, libertarians excepted, accept that the government must possess the ability to separate the citizenry from a percentage of its earnings. I accept this to a certain extent. However, there is, in my opinion, a quantum leap required to extend this ability to **private** organizations. What is so special about unions that they should be able to force not only members but also non-members to give them a chunk of their salary? If one agrees with the premise that the unions could *not* survive without this ability then does this not say something extremely negative about the trade union movement? Why shouldn't *individuals* be allowed to decide whether or not their interests are truly best served by membership in a union? Is the average person really so ignorant/uninformed that he can't be trusted to make this decision on his own? J.B. Robinson, CRD P.S. Contrary to popular belief (read contrary to a vicious rumour that has been promoted by a certain unnamed socialist swine :-), I am in no manner, whatsoever, related to Svend Robinson.
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (01/07/86)
2 recent posting have state there are differences between Union
and Company money based of the fact that the Worker was forced to
pay Union Dues whereas the Company is spending it's own money. This
fails to recognize the fact that the Company's shareholders may not
want company money going to a particular party. If the shareholder
is in the minority then his/her choice is to buy out the majority
or sell his/her shares. That's not much different then the worker
having to quit a job. Not a matter of *no* difference, but not clearly
as black and white a difference. Again, I see no reason for allowing
a tax deduction for it.
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
(416) 652-3880jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (01/07/86)
> In article <130@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) claims: > > <original article> > >--Jamie. > > The difference is that in the first instance the worker is objecting > to the use the company is making of money that *it*, the company, > has *rightfully* earned; whereas in the second instance the worker > is objecting to the use the union is making of money that *he*, the > worker, rightfully earned and was *forced* to hand over to the union. > I'd say that there is an order of magnitude in difference between > the method the company used to obtain its money and the method that > the union used. One might say that the worker is forced to pay the union because they have a lock on jobs (or access to same within any one organization), in the same way that the worker is forced to pay the company (letting the company share in the fruits of his/her labour) because they have a lock on the other resources necessary to have the company in the first place. > > I can't offhand think of any other organization besides the government > that possesses the coercive powers of today's unions when it comes to > extracting money from its subjects. Most people, libertarians excepted, > accept that the government must possess the ability to separate the > citizenry from a percentage of its earnings. I accept this to > a certain extent. However, there is, in my opinion, a quantum leap > required to extend this ability to **private** organizations. Why? At least as long as membership in the private organization is voluntary? > > What is so special about unions that they should be able to force not > only members but also non-members to give them a chunk of their > salary? If one agrees with the premise that the unions could > *not* survive without this ability then does this not say something > extremely negative about the trade union movement? Why shouldn't > *individuals* be allowed to decide whether or not their interests > are truly best served by membership in a union? Is the average person > really so ignorant/uninformed that he can't be trusted to make this > decision on his own? You can make all the same arguments about government - how long would it exist if taxes were completely voluntary (not that I necessarily think it would be a bad way to run the tax system)? Does this not say the same negative thing about governments? > > J.B. Robinson, CRD Personally I like the (already made by another poster) analogy of worker:union as stockholder:company . What can one stockholder do if the company decides to contribute money to a cause they disagree with - exactly the same thing a worker can do if the union does the same. One might also say that the worker is better off vis a vis the union than the stockholder is wrt the compnay since everyone is a minority "stockholder" in the union whereas if someone holds a majority of stock in a company there is very little the minority stockholders can do to influence company opinion. I also agree with the poster (Brad I think) who complained about political contributions. No one except private individuals or organizations whose sole purpose is of a political nature should be allowed to make political contributions (and there should be some reasonable limit set on the size) or indulge in political activities. john chapman -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (01/07/86)
In article <1021@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > > 2 recent posting have state there are differences between Union >and Company money based of the fact that the Worker was forced to >pay Union Dues whereas the Company is spending it's own money. This >fails to recognize the fact that the Company's shareholders may not >want company money going to a particular party. If the shareholder >is in the minority then his/her choice is to buy out the majority >or sell his/her shares. That's not much different then the worker >having to quit a job. Not a matter of *no* difference, but not clearly >as black and white a difference. Again, I see no reason for allowing >a tax deduction for it. There is a huge difference: what happens if, in the industrial sector you are working in, there is only one union? If you don't like who the plumbers union is donating *your* money to, the only option available may be to quit, and thereby lose the ability to support your family. Because, defacto, you cannot work as a plumber anywhere in Ontario without belonging to THAT union, and it will take years to get to the same salary in another sector. Jim, closer to home, how would you like it if your professional dues (via executive fiat, or even open vote) went to an organization (think about neo-nazis for a moment f'r instance) that you felt was intolerable. Do you think that having to quit the practice of law (at least in this province) and waste all those years of law school would be the only way to avoid having to (by default) support such contributions? Even if your shares are in a monopoly (eg: if the post office issued shares), at least you can move your money to a different company (it makes little difference to a share what the industry is). Nor will it affect your ability to support your family (unless of course the new shares go belly up). [disclaimer: I do not intend to imply that the law society supports, or I think they support, any particular group. The example given in this item is purely for the purposes of example] -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (01/08/86)
In article <2906@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> I can't offhand think of any other organization besides the government >> that possesses the coercive powers of today's unions when it comes to >> extracting money from its subjects. Most people, libertarians excepted, >> accept that the government must possess the ability to separate the >> citizenry from a percentage of its earnings. I accept this to >> a certain extent. However, there is, in my opinion, a quantum leap >> required to extend this ability to **private** organizations. > > Why? At least as long as membership in the private organization is >voluntary? Belonging to a union isn't voluntary in general. According to the "[I forget the name] decision", if there is a union in your company that includes your job category, you usually *have* to belong to it. Worse, in many industries, there is only one union for that job category. You want to be a Plumber? Electrician? Teaching Assistant at U of T? [Lawyer? Doctor? Engineer?] You *have* to belong to the union [guild or professional society (eg: APEO or OMA)]. And, if for some reason that union [guild or professional society] starts making contributions to the KKK or the FLQ or PLO or IRA (or NDP *grin*), your only recourse might be to emigrate (or change careers). -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (01/08/86)
In article <2872@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > [re jimomura's article] >There is a huge difference: what happens if, in the industrial >sector you are working in, there is only one union? If you don't like >who the plumbers union is donating *your* money to, the only option >available may be to quit, and thereby lose the ability to support your >family.... ... how would >you like it if your professional dues (via executive fiat, or even >open vote) went to an organization (think about neo-nazis for a moment... Boy, comparing the NDP (which is what we're talking about after all) to neo-nazis sounds like Rick McGeer comparing Dave Barrett to Jaruzelski!! I think the analogy still holds. If you come from good old prairie socialist stock and you just happen to be an oil industry executive because that's what turns you on, well I'm sorry, but you'll be hard put to find an oil company that doesn't have financial or political ties to the Grits or the Tories. You'll just have to find another profession if you *really* object *so much* to having them donate profits to those parties. The same goes for most any other company you could easily fit into. And what's all this about considering the money the company makes as theirs and the money the union makes as not theirs? The only difference seems to be that the union is non-profit. In fact the worker has *more* control over the way his union spends his money because he *elects* the union officials. Those who have heard me talk about unions know that I am in favour of all companies being worker-owned cooperatives, in which the workers elect the company officials. (No you CRD's out there, I'm not talking about communism, since I would like all the companies to be as independant as possible.) As long as there is a split between the company and the union, the executives' interest and the workers' interest, both sides have a vested interest in maintaining the split, because they feel that there is a chance that they will be able to gyp the other side, to their advantage. But until the day that the cooperative company is the norm, we must consider the company and the union as equal-status elements in the life of the worker. Closed-shop companies must be maintained to ensure that the union is strong enough to represent its members. Unions must operate on the will of the majority. I'm not saying that all union people are angels and saints (otherwise I wouldn't support cooperatives). I'm just saying that if unions are to be at all effective in their conflicts with companies, they must be as free as the companies are to play politics. --Jamie. ...!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "The winter evening settles down with smells of steaks in passageways"