Should Canada adopt right-to-work legislation?

[JamesBondo]

an organization that collects mandatory dues has a responsibility to its members.

You are still talking wrecking ball. the rand formula has worked well in canada for decades, it is you that wants to upset the applecart

 

[White_Unifier]

an organization that collects mandatory dues has a responsibility to its members.

You are still talking wrecking ball. the rand formula has worked well in canada for decades, it is you that wants to upset the applecart

Union dues to be deducted

70. (1) Where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union forthwith.

Religious objections

(2) Where the Board is satisfied that an employee, because of their religious conviction or beliefs, objects to joining a trade union or to paying regular union dues to a trade union, the Board may order that the provision in a collective agreement requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a trade union or requiring the payment of regular union dues to a trade union does not apply to that employee so long as an amount equal to the amount of the regular union dues is paid by the employee, either directly or by way of deduction from their wages, to a registered charity mutually agreed on by the employee and the trade union.

Designation by Board

(3) Where an employee and the trade union are unable to agree on a registered charity for the purposes of subsection (2), the Board may designate any such charity as the charity to which payment should be made.[1]

So what if I choose UNICEF and they say the NDP? Then what?

The worker should be free to pay to a registered charity of his free choosing then.

Actually, I've discussed the possibility of a 100% charity-deductible tax at a 1:1 ratio as a way to still ensure people pay their share towards their social responsibilities while still having a say as to how that money is spent so as to avoid it going to all kinds of pet agendas.

 

[JamesBondo]

I believe that mandatory dues should be spent internally. If they want to spend on political contributions then host a fundraiser or pass the hat.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Yes, we know you can't discuss much.

Under the real definition of communism, workers would decide what happened to any surpluses from the factory.
This never happened in the USSR; a system of state managers was brought in to decide what and how much was made
and sold for in the factory, the shop, the farm.

You can call it many things, socialist, state capitalist, totalitarian, dictatorship, police state, murderous.. but it was never communist.
Instead of many private CEOs, there was one: the State.

I understand the word 'communist' gets abused a lot, and I don't to slide this topic, so I will stop here.

Sorry, but a nation that stated that it was communist for over 70 years and was run by an organization calling itself "The Communist Party of the Soviet Union" was definitely communist. You are apparently confusing the classical ideal of communism proposed by Karl Marx with the communist dictatorship that ruled in the USSR; an ideal that the communists in the USSR always claimed to be working toward. If you want to get technical, we don't have any capitalist nations either as they do not fit the ideal proposed by Adam Smith, however, we use labels like communist and capitalist as they are convenient terms to describe the ideals of the nations where they existed.

Keeping in mind that this comment was not directed at me....

Wrt our exchange, you seem to have listed some historical achievements of unions, and i countered by pointing out that my benefits are greater than those achievements.

Ah, I see. So your comment was actually irrelevant to the main issue.

I don't know if Germany has right-to-work legislatin or not so I can't comment on that. I do know that Sweden goes though.

That said, I suspect that Swedish unions are probably more palatable than Canadian ones for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Sweden has co-determination laws just like Germany does. This means that a union can adopt a friendlier and more collaborative approach to labour-management relations through its representation on the board of directors than a Canadian union can. As a result, a Canadian union might adopt a more confrontational approach which could promote a backlash against it.

Secondly, Swedish right-to-work laws would also force a union to try to attract workers to join it willingly. This too would likely moderate it somewhat.

In Canada, a union cannot usually cooperate with management due to lack of representation and so adopts a more confrontational approach. And the lack of right-to-work laws allow a union to force an employer to become closed-shop, which in turn eliminates any need for the union to try to attract voluntary membership since it can force it by diktat. As a result, Canadian labour unions have a more confrontational culture and no motive to change that.

No need to explain to me how unions work in Germany and Sweden. It was part of the curriculum I taught. Several proposals have been made to have unions and management cooperate the way they do in other nations. The sticking point is that so far corporate management has refused to consider the idea and no government has had the guts to force it through. So far as I know, however, there is no right to work legislation in Sweden. Send me a link if you can find it.

 

[White_Unifier]

Sorry, but a nation that stated that it was communist for over 70 years and was run by an organization calling itself "The Communist Party of the Soviet Union" was definitely communist. You are apparently confusing the classical ideal of communism proposed by Karl Marx with the communist dictatorship that ruled in the USSR; an ideal that the communists in the USSR always claimed to be working toward. If you want to get technical, we don't have any capitalist nations either as they do not fit the ideal proposed by Adam Smith, however, we use labels like communist and capitalist as they are convenient terms to describe the ideals of the nations where they existed.



Ah, I see. So your comment was actually irrelevant to the main issue.



No need to explain to me how unions work in Germany and Sweden. It was part of the curriculum I taught. Several proposals have been made to have unions and management cooperate the way they do in other nations. The sticking point is that so far corporate management has refused to consider the idea and no government has had the guts to force it through. So far as I know, however, there is no right to work legislation in Sweden. Send me a link if you can find it.

Not the best source, but according to this, Swedes are not forced to pay union dues:

Right-To-Work Laws: John Mortimer Says Canada

 

[EagleSmack]

What do they do in Svalbad?

 

[White_Unifier]

What do they do in Svalbad?

I'm not sure. I'd presume that except for their immigration and social assistance laws, that most of their other laws are probably similar to on the mainland I'd imagine.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Not the best source, but according to this, Swedes are not forced to pay union dues:

Right-To-Work Laws: John Mortimer Says Canada

That my be. However the article does say, and I quote:“You don’t pay those monies, you’re fired in this country and we’re the only nation left on earth that allows it, can’t happen in Sweden, not Russia, not Italy,” he said referring to rules in other countries that make it illegal for labour organizations to spend compulsory union dues for ideological or social causes without the support of their members.

I note that Mortimer acknowledges in this quote that union dues in these countries are compulsory. And I also note that the fact that although union members have to approve the spending of union funds for political purposes does not mean that it does not get spent.

I also think that when Mortimer compares Canada to nations where the working population is almost entirely unionized he is comparing apples and oranges. It is quite obvious that most people in nations like Germany, Sweden, France, etc. value unions and are willing participants in these organizations. So far as I have been able to determine right to work legislation is always proposed by those who are anti-union and who are seeking ways to weaken unions even more than they already have been.

 

[White_Unifier]

That my be. However the article does say, and I quote:“You don’t pay those monies, you’re fired in this country and we’re the only nation left on earth that allows it, can’t happen in Sweden, not Russia, not Italy,” he said referring to rules in other countries that make it illegal for labour organizations to spend compulsory union dues for ideological or social causes without the support of their members.

I note that Mortimer acknowledges in this quote that union dues in these countries are compulsory. And I also note that the fact that although union members have to approve the spending of union funds for political purposes does not mean that it does not get spent.

I also think that when Mortimer compares Canada to nations where the working population is almost entirely unionized he is comparing apples and oranges. It is quite obvious that most people in nations like Germany, Sweden, France, etc. value unions and are willing participants in these organizations. So far as I have been able to determine right to work legislation is always proposed by those who are anti-union and who are seeking ways to weaken unions even more than they already have been.

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/obs...n-over-closed-shop-and-union-examination-fees

OK, this might be better. So I was wrong (or if I was right about Sweden having right-to-work laws, then the construction industry is exempted). Closed shops do exist in Sweden, but exclusively in the building industry. So it would seem that while Sweden does not have right to work laws, open shops are still the norm. Furthermore to my mild surprise, it would seem one could complain about closed shops to the Council of Europe since closed shops supposedly violate Article 5 of the European Social Charter covering the right to organize (which I presume is interpreted to imply an equal right to not organize). this is from 2003 though, so sweden might have passed right to work laws since, maybe as a response. I do seem to have read somewhere that Sweden does have right-to-work laws. I just can't find it now. I'll keep looking.

There is this too:

Sweden's Assault on Labor

"More than half the country's approximately 8.5 million inhabitants are union members - even though the "closed shop" rule (requiring all workers to be union members in a workplace where the majority of employees supports union representation) does not apply to the vast majority of workplaces."

So it would seem that the closed shop rule does not apply to the vast majority of industries. Unfortunately, it doesn't specify if this is due to Sweden's union culture or due to specific right-to-work laws.

 

[JamesBondo]

Closed shop brought peace to the workplace. Unions could finally afford to hire lawyers instead of taking every dispute to the street.

 

[Bar Sinister]

"More than half the country's approximately 8.5 million inhabitants are union members - even though the "closed shop" rule (requiring all workers to be union members in a workplace where the majority of employees supports union representation) does not apply to the vast majority of workplaces."

So it would seem that the closed shop rule does not apply to the vast majority of industries. Unfortunately, it doesn't specify if this is due to Sweden's union culture or due to specific right-to-work laws.

Whether Sweden has closed shops or whether it has right to work may be irrelevant. The average European worker has a completely different view of unions than Canadians or Americans, no doubt due to the benefits and decent wages unions have gained for them.

 

[taxslave]

Union dues to be deducted

70. (1) Where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union forthwith.

Religious objections

(2) Where the Board is satisfied that an employee, because of their religious conviction or beliefs, objects to joining a trade union or to paying regular union dues to a trade union, the Board may order that the provision in a collective agreement requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a trade union or requiring the payment of regular union dues to a trade union does not apply to that employee so long as an amount equal to the amount of the regular union dues is paid by the employee, either directly or by way of deduction from their wages, to a registered charity mutually agreed on by the employee and the trade union.

Designation by Board

(3) Where an employee and the trade union are unable to agree on a registered charity for the purposes of subsection (2), the Board may designate any such charity as the charity to which payment should be made.[1]

So what if I choose UNICEF and they say the NDP? Then what?

The worker should be free to pay to a registered charity of his free choosing then.

Actually, I've discussed the possibility of a 100% charity-deductible tax at a 1:1 ratio as a way to still ensure people pay their share towards their social responsibilities while still having a say as to how that money is spent so as to avoid it going to all kinds of pet agendas.

The problem with all your fancy ideas is that we don't go looking for work. We are dispatched by the union so anyone not a member would never get on our worksites.

 

[Scooby]

So ironic that the right to work states are nearly all the same states that voted in Trump.

How has either development improved peoples lives?

I guess freedom to be an a-hole or hater or selfish could be viewed as an improvement by some.

 

[White_Unifier]

So ironic that the right to work states are nearly all the same states that voted in Trump.

How has either development improved peoples lives?

I guess freedom to be an a-hole or hater or selfish could be viewed as an improvement by some.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/UnionsandRightToWorkLaws.pdf

"While under many union membership agreements existing non-union status was a valid reason for remaining outside the union (in two-thirds of the sample analyzed by Gennard et al. 1979: 1091), many others were more rigid and recognized only religious objection. A famous example of the latter is the UMA negotiated between British Rail and its three railway unions—the National Union of Railwaymen, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and the Transport Salaried Staff Association. Some 43 employees were unwilling to join a union but, having no religious objections, were duly dismissed. A number of these workers then petitioned the European Commission of Human Rights for relief. The case went on to be heard by the European Court of the Council of Europe, which found for the dismissed railwaymen in 1981, stating that their dismissal was incompatible with the “pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness”
of a democratic society (see Hanson et al. 1982: 102)."

So if the European Commission of Human Rights essentially proscribes closed-shops, then according to your logic, Europe is all pro-Trump?

 

[JLM]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work

Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:[1]

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Article 20 states:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.



— Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations General Assembly


The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states in Part III, Article 6:[2]

(1) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

(2) The steps to be taken by a State Party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual.

— International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations General Assembly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_shop

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_shop

Aside from the human-rights argument, there exist cultural and religious arguments too. Some cultures shun conflict and promote cooperation. Labour-management conflict is just one form of conflict. The purpose of a labour union is to organize against management. With that, depending on a persons beliefs or upbringing, though that person might join a labour union if necessary, he will not feel comfortable in it and might even have difficulty understanding its internal culture, in which case the union will be of no use to him if he can't understand its purpose or disagrees with its confrontational ethos.

I.O.W. The world owes you a living! It would be nice if it worked. There's times when you take any job you are physically capable of doing, just to be a contributing member of society and not a drag on your fellow citizens.

 

[White_Unifier]

I.O.W. The world owes you a living! It would be nice if it worked. There's times when you take any job you are physically capable of doing, just to be a contributing member of society and not a drag on your fellow citizens.

Not exactly. It just means that an employer cannot fire you just for refusing to join a labour union and a labour union is not allowed to force the business to make itself a closed shop (i.e. a business that hires only union members and so discriminate against those who choose to not join the union.

 

[JLM]

Not exactly. It just means that an employer cannot fire you just for refusing to join a labour union and a labour union is not allowed to force the business to make itself a closed shop (i.e. a business that hires only union members and so discriminate against those who choose to not join the union.

Did you ever see a Union that is not a dictatorship?

 

[petros]

If you quit school, have no vocational skills to speak of, lack motivation, are unkempt with a vile anti-establishment asshole attitude, why on earth would you deserve a Right to work?

 

[JLM]

If you quit school, have no vocational skills to speak of, lack motivation, are unkempt with a vile anti-establishment asshole attitude, why on earth would you deserve a Right to work?

I would say you deserve a necessity to work at any job no one else wants!

 

[petros]

There are too many too proud to work for a living but are unashamed to go on the dole.