Tape This Reminder To Your Wallet

I never give money to 'registered' Charities. I give it to freedom fighters with blogs.

Someone should start complaining to the CRA.

As a charitable organizations with tax exempt status it is against the law to partake of such campaigning.

The CRA threatened Bishop Henry with the Catholic Church losing its tax exempt status.

Why shouldn't the same hold true for the United Way?

The United Way is one of the stranges "charities" I have ever encountered.

In the Maritimes, they have "teamed-up" with the HR departments of many prominent businesses to put strong pressure on employees to make regular contributions.

When I worked in Moncton (and the same thing happened to my mother in Halifax), every year, the HR department would pass out forms where you had to specify how much you wanted taken from each pay-cheque to be donated to the United Way. If you didn't want to contribute, they still expected you to enter $0 - and it would still be added to your personnel file. Nothing explicit was said, but with the charity's representatives skulking around for a couple of days with the HR people, you certainly felt pressured. And for charity workers, they were certainly well-dressed.

No mention was made of what exactly your money would be used for. The message was simply that they are needed to help everyone. But, we did eventually hear of some of their typical "causes." Many were simply schemes to make up stickers that could then be given to other businesses in an attempt to drum up more donations. For example,

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/02/28/nb-gay-haven-050228.html

Their political alliances are not at all surprising.

I never gave to the United Way...many years ago I found out if you follow the money they were involved in pro-abortion activities.

UNICEF also.

Let's watch this closely.As TJT points out, the double standard is obvious.

Ully baby...when you grow up you'll have a job, find a cause, and decide where you want your money to go.We still have some choice in Canada.

First post: so what? (Only an intellectual pygmy could think that the UW is above criticism.)

Many United Way campaigns support abortion via allotting monies to Planned Parenthood. I wonder how many pro-life groups, who support both the women with problem pregnancies AND their babies, get money from the UW.

I stopped giving to the UW decades ago. This means that more $$ from my allotted givings are available to support charities that I believe are worthy of my support. (That's called "freedom of belief and conscience".)

Being a lefty, I'll bet that the sanctimonious first poster gives far less to any charity than the more conservative of us who hang around here. And, before that person gets in a huff, he/she might consider (George Will, March 27/08): “Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.” (Who’d ’a thunk it?)

More from Mr. Will: “If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

“-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

“-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

“-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

“-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

“-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.”

I’d imagine that most conservatives think very carefully before blessing the UW with their hard earned $$. For many people, especially liberals—who go to church, synagogue, mosque, or temple far less seldom than their conservative brothers and sisters—the UW is a default recipient of some of their loose dollars.

As people here are beginning to point out, the UW is most certainly not above criticism.

When I worked for the Feds that was their chosen charity. I used to remark that the time wasted on activities to raise money was more expensive than just giving them the money. I never gave to UW because I didn't see them as charities as much as social engineering. My position was I give to charities like the Sally Ann and cancer research not the old boys and girls club.

I get the form annually at work.

I write across it "the United Way funds groups that discriminate against me as a firearms owner"

Then I hand it back. I wasn't allowed to employ that document as TP before I handed it back.

I usually end up with $500 or so in charitable deductions, and I'm proud to say that since 1998 (when my mom clued me in on what the United Way is) not a penny of it has been to that organization.

Uli,

Seems like you missed the point entirely. If labour movements and unions want to give to UW, they are entirely free to do so. When that money is forcibly removed from members via compulsory dues in exchange for political support, that is a crime. Typical of the Leftards to purloin charitable donations to further their own objectives.

Please think before branding all branches of the United Way with the same tarred brush. Some United Way operations are sink holes, and some are worthy of donating to.

United Way of Canada is nothing more than a "franchisor" who manages the "United Way" name and who can use it in exchange for an annual membership fee (a very small fee). A local United Way is VERY independent as long as it doesn't cause problems for the "brand" and can determine who they fund - the National office does not dictate who to fund.

As a result, some United Ways fund organizations like Planned Parenthood, others won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Some United way boards are run by the agencies that receive the funds from the United Way, others prohibit recipient agencies from sitting on the board.

By way of background, I was part of a group that took over my local United Way and cleaned it up and turned it around. We focused on funding seniors agencies and childrens' programs, and would not touch UNICEF or Planned Parenthood or any number of similar groups as our donor base would not stand for it.

CRC

Bless you, CRC! Where I live, what you've done just wouldn't happen. What a shame.

But I probably give, personally, to the kind of charities you support--only I have to do it outside the purview of the uber-lefty UW outfit in my area.

(Jesus said, “When two or three are gathered in my name, I’ll be there.” It’s occurred to me that, as soon as there are two, politics rears its often ugly head. Jesus knew what He was talking about!!)

This really isn't news. At least here in Toronto, the UW association with the left has been ongoing for years. I stopped giving to them back in the 70's when they gave money to a publication called "Men loving Boys Loving Men", a collection of stories about 40, 50 and 60 year old men having sex with 8, 10 and 12 year old boys. I was already out when I learned that UW consumes about 85% of the dollars given to them to pay the costs of their own empire with only 15% actually being given out.

lookout - nice post. I've read similar analyses about the paucity of support by the left for charities.

You see, the left has a particular perspective on those in need. It is multileveled but it always sets them up as Elite.

The first view, held usually by those in the civil service bureaucracy, is the Ruling Elitist View. This says that The Government is obliged to look after these people. The individual Ruling Elitist does not want to get directly involved. Here we'll see the deductions from pay for the United Way.

The second type is the Missionary Elitist. This type perceives those in need as 'unevolved' and 'victims'. Here, the agenda is for the Missionary Elitist to leave, for a period of time, the safe Western home, and 'go into the field' and 'work with the peasants' to uplift their assumed unevolved lives. This type, of course, also relies on government funding.

The third type is the Socialite Elitist. Here, the Socialite will be extremely active in 'raising money' by organizing jogging campaigns, bike riding campaigns, etc, to raise funds for the 'lesser beings'. These campaigns are necessary because without the public eye, most leftists, as individuals, don't give to charities.

Without this sense of Being an Elite, the left has little incentive to give to charities.

ulianov always misses the point. The point, ulianov, wasn't that the Union was donating anything to the United Way - heh - but that the Union was, once again, presenting itself as a common voice of filiation.

The union has no right to align itself with anything - either with a political party or a charity or a love of Easter Bunnies. It has ONE agenda and only one agenda - to represent the labour-related interests of its members. The union has no right to represent any political interests, any charitable interests or any rabbit interests - such rights belong to the individual. Not to any collective.

Get it ulianov? I'll bet you a left-over chocolate easter egg that you don't.

Here is the "political action committee for the left" of ulianov, aka V.I. Lenin:

The *GPU of soviet Russia;

the "United Way" of ulianov; the Soviet Union.
...-

"A few minutes later the company commander re-
appeared.

" Stand upl Attention! Who complained about the food?
Come forward! " he shouted loudly. " No discontented?
Take care, I will tolerate no mass action! I will immedi-
ately refer those guilty of it to the Investigation Depart-
ment of the camp. Talk is short there isolation or death.
Understand? What discontent can there be? Kasha too
thin? In the first place it's not kasha, its porridge, and por-
ridge can't be different. Do you understand? " He glow-
ered at us, then sharply turned around and went out.

All those who still had some money began to search for
food. We were not allowed to go to the GPU store, but
with the help of the guards could buy some spoiled food-
stuffs mildewed herring and fermented preserves. Out-
side the prison camp such goods could not be legally sold,
but here they brought full price from starving prisoners.
Through the guards and through criminals, who shared
with them in the transaction, we could buy black bread at
five roubles the kilo (about two pounds) its official
price was nine kopeks and also water at fifty kopeks a
mug. Suffering as we all were from thirst, even the most
destitute of us spent his last kopek for water.

Tobacco could be got for three roubles fifty kopeks the
gram and vodka at what price I cannot even imagine.

After the depressing experience of this " lunch *' we were
taken in groups of thirty to the bathhouse built, of course,
by the hands of prisoners on the very shore of the gulf. Each
man took all his things: overcoat, cap, blanket and pillow;
these together with everything we wore had to be turned
in for disinfection. Stark naked, we were lined up before
an enclosure in which four barbers, also prisoners-crimi-
nals, plied their trade with furious speed; two operated on
the head while the others shaved the body. Coming out
from behind the partition we were a pitiful sight. Tufts of
hair were sticking out; blood ran down our bodies from razor cuts".
...-

*"I Speak For The Silent Prisoners of the Soviets".
V. V. Tchernavin
urlm.in/cawe

I refuse to donate cash to any charity. I support enough useless and undeserving groups through my monthly tax deduction.

In my opinion, most financial donations support the bureaucratic staff, instead of the intended recipients.

The United Way can only hurt its future donations by being politically linked with the SFL.

We have a "annual" affair in Victoria BC that comes complete with "media big tent" literally they set up a 40'x40' tent have a film cup o' chili and a bun as bait. Of course the "Form" I and some of my workmates don't see any reason to donate to a "charity" that won't answer a basic question such as "how many of your directors make over 100,000 a year" still waiting for an answer. We were eating our lunch in our break room a HR junior office type stuck his head in the door, wanting to know why we wern't attending? because we aren't interested close the door and go away. The company I occasionly work for seems to think this is one of the years "big events" I think if they have extra money they want to give away, go for it, the whole thing is a complete turnoff even without the lackey sticking his head into my space. I give freely to Sally Ann, St Vinnies, people I know that need a hand over a tough spot.I will never give to the United Way.

I donate to the Canadian Warplane Heritage. That's it.

When I see a warbird flying overhead, it makes me proud to know a little of the gas in the tank was bought with my money.

And when I see the Lancaster bomber fly over Fortino's in Ancaster, and not one single son of a sea cook in the parking lot even looks up to see where the thunder is coming from, I take myself over to the airport and I donate MORE.

There are some things in this world which cannot be allowed to slip away from us for lack of a little bit of money.

Gypsy writes, "I refuse to donate cash to any charity". (How about VISA and cheques?)

That's too bad because I believe there are many deserving charities. Check them out, Gypsy: you might be surprised by what worthy, non (govern)mental causes there are out there.

I have observed an amazing thing in my life.

When you stop giving people money and help, they somehow find a way to help themselves and get their own money.

Many of today's beggars are too proud to go to family for help, the first place one should go. But they are not too proud to beg to strangers and take other people's money.

If a person's family won't help them, they they probably know something we should know and therefore not counter the good judgment of the family.

It would be a shock if anyone actually died because there was no charity for them.

United Way, some time ago, cut off the Salvation Army from their list of many, many, many, recipients of other people's money because the Sally Anne saw fit to not get involved in helping Lesbians. Sally is a religious organization and saw homosexuality as a sinful life-style, therefore, stayed away from that community. They were punished for not enabling what they saw as sin. I am completely ambivalent on that point, but I do find it interesting.

Most of the charitable organizations are either political in nature or are nothing more than job creators for do-gooders who don't like jobs with genuine bottom line and performance demands.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

e) Except conservatives, who are 'fascists'.

I sure wish I could clap with one hand.

the united way. ha. give them nothing. i give to the salvation army and the gov gives me shit as a tax donation. if i give to a political party i get 100% deduction. who has done more for the people the sa or the f**king government.

Exactly, ulianov. Everyone - and that means in the individual, not collective sense, has those fundamental freedoms.

Therefore, a union has NO RIGHT to remove this freedom from the individual by aligning itself as a collective - with a political party or with a charity or with anything. Those alignments are the sole right of the individual. It is up to the individual to make this choice of alignment for himself. And only himself.

See? You lost that left-over chocolate egg. I knew you wouldn't understand, ulianov!

Oh, and you also haven't a clue what 'fascism' means. Heh. Can you imagine calling a conservative a fascist?! Fascism, dear ulianov, rejects the rights of the individual, while Conservatives promote the rights of the individual. Heh. You really haven't a clue, do you, ulianov.

Oh, and to others who have commented on how much of the money actually goes to those who need it, I agree - probably less than 20%. Some of these Big Names charities, like United Way, are similar to Unions. They bleed off the worker to finance their own jobs! The money doesn't go to those who need it.

Many govt funded women's groups are the same; the money goes to the executive offices, staff, research, conferences, trips, etc..and only a minor amount to any needy person. Just like unions.

United Way, never gave it much thought, I just gave. This post just gave me cause however to go over my giving and when I add it up in my mind over the years, wow. I intend to look into it a little further but if this is indeed the case there sure as the hell won’t be anymore donations from this household.

And Uli admits defeat with the oh so predictable nazi reference.

Yes, my former employer, a local municipality in Greater Victoria, embraced the United way drive, either because of, or in league, with their CUPE comrades...... This muni, probably not much different than the other unionized ones, was seemingly controlled, or extorted, by CUPE on what seemed like a daily basis.

The foxes definitely run that henhouse.

ET Out of the park, take the bases.

Uli:

Hey the Nazis were merely racist killers, the Communists on the left hand were equal opportunity killers; they killed anyone who opposed them.

But then if you're dead, you don't need to discuss your 'rights' do you?

Perhaps you can whine to Trotsky, about your collective guilt and the disunited way.

If you want collective rights then go tell it to the Borg, "you will be assimilated, resistance is futile."

I almost forgot about the NDP Bingogate and stealing from nuns. You could try the Sisters of Charity, but then you might find Mother Teresa's organization offensive to your atheist moniker.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

ulianov says "Right whingers (sic) love to accuse unions of being greedy and self centered, but when organized labour gives money to charities, these charities are now a "political action committee for the left."

Grow up!"

Except the money that "organized labour" gives to charities almost always comes out of the pockets of others. The United Way needs to be boycotted.

Oh....by the way, uli....groups do not have rights.

Uli

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Re a): In a union, if your conscience or religion is at odds with union financial support of a cause or political party, can you have your dues withheld from that support?
Re c): In a union, what percentage of picket lines have resorted to threats, intimidation and/or outright violence?
Re d): How does freedom of association reconcile with closed shops? And how many union votes are held by secret ballot?

ulianov - isn't it remarkable that when a leftist, and you are certainly that, runs out of logical and reasoned arguments, he resorts to name-calling? So, that's why you call me a fascist, because you have no logical or reasoned argument to make. And therefore, as a true leftist, you resort to name-calling. heh.

And calling me a fascist, and then, saying that 'this country is somewhat democratic' is an extremely illogical statement. You see, it is undemocratic (got that?) for a collective, a union, to abrogate the fundamental right of the individual, to make up his own mind about which political party or charity to support. Got that?

Now, to your next illogical statement of 'groups have rights'. Oh? First, to be logical and reasoned, ulianov, you have to define 'group'. Then, you have to specify which 'rights' a group can claim. Have you done that? No?

Would such rights refer to the common or shared belief system of a group? Hmmm? And would this common belief system be legitimized by history? Hmm? And therefore, have zilch to do with the fundamental freedoms of the individual? Hmm?

And most certainly, a union is not a religious or ethnic collective and therefore, cannot claim to have any authorial rights over any common ideology or belief system. A union is not a group! Bet you didn't know that, ulianov.

So, a union has NO group rights. None. None. None. It exists only as a service system. It has no legitimacy 'in itself'; no ideology, no identity as 'itself' that is, as a group. It serves the workers who choose - got that?...who CHOOSE to associate themselves with it.

Of course, in Canada, unions are already in violation of one of the fundamental freedoms of the individual - the right of association. For our unions do not give the individual the right to choose NOT to belong to their union. It's the union. Or no job.

Now, on to your next illogical statement, which is to claim that unions have rights because, if they have No Rights (as I claim) then, why hasn't anything been done about getting them rights? Whew. Do you realize, ulianov, that this is not an argument? It's a circular statement.

You are, without justification, assuming that unions SHOULD have rights - and if some people like me say they DON'T have rights, then..there should be all kinds of complaints insisting on these union rights. But, ulianov - who agrees, other than you, that Unions should have rights? The reason why 'nothing has been done' is because most reasonable people don't think that unions SHOULD have 'rights'. Remember, unions are just service systems. Not groups.

Oh, and your statement that 'you are full of crap' isn't, unfortunately, a valid argument. It's just name-calling. Sigh..why do you do that, ulianov?

As for the ratio between administrative expenses and the actual mission, it ought to be less than 40% and that's high; the best is around 25%. Others in this thread have noted that some are much higher. Check it out for yourself, ulianov. Go to the Charity Rating Guide for information.

Again, ulianov. A union is NOT a group in the sense of having any rights as that group. It's a service system. Do you know why a union is not such a group? Because its 'members' are free, or at least, are supposed to be free, to associate with that group.

And the union has no right to abrogate the rights of its individual members. That means the union has no right to align itself as that collective, with any political party or any charity. Such associative rights belong to the individual. But then, alas, you don't care about individual rights, do you.

Of course the level of individual contributions from people who are left of centre is low - why - they believe that the government should be providing those services and that taxpayers should freely and willingly provide money for the government to do so. I stopped giving money to the UW in the 1980s (and here in Regina the UW is better than most) - and the reason was simple - I can give $150 to UW and about $100 might end up in the hands of the agency. I'm not accusing the UW of mishandling money or anything - they offer many other services that non-profits need such as training for board members etc. But if I want to give money to support those activities I will - otherwise I can give those UW agencies that I believe are doing good work the money directly and they will get all of the $150 I have allocated. And BTW I give close to $4,000/year (which is about 10% of my income. Match that Larry Hubich!

Lefties always conceed defeat by yelling fascist/racist etc.....in most cases they are the fascists and the racists.
To criticize OBAMA invites an accusation of "RACIST" even when the criticizm involves his MARXIST naivite.....
Facist are in reality just another flavour of socialist.....marxist, stalinist, maoist, communist, fascist.......
The Chinese Communist Party is now openly fascist rather than marxist/maoist/communist.
Despite SOVIET propaganda, the last imperialist, colonialist empire THE USSR which collapsed attempting to conquer A-Stan.

As a wise friend of mine once said, "the definition of a racist is a conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal".

Leftists really do have a problem with morality. It is immoral for a government to take my tax dollars (not voluntary) and invest in, say, the automobile business. The government is in fact forcing invidivuals to invest in businesses they may not willingly invest in on their own. You see the coersion there Ulianov?

Same thing with unions. It is morally repugnant for unions to contribute to charities using union member dues. Would you like your union to take your money and give it to charities or political parties you may not agree with?

I have a question. What is 'member equity' in a union? I actually read the financial statement of my old union. Along with the incredible rental costs for office equipment there was a line.. members equity. As a "shareholder" I asked for a statement on that. Didn't get it and never saw another financial statement. What I already know is some is in hotels and parking lots. When I retired I asked for my share of such equity. Never even got a F.O. letter. I feel used but not stupid.

I give to Dr.s Without borders. I found a lot of "Faith" organizations are self perpetuating rackets.
While Government ones just supply more misery. by giving any food or anything else to the Monsters who caused the trouble to begin with. To offshore bank accounts after they have resold the items.
Some secular ones are just fronts for other reasons. Drugs being a biggie.
The United way gives to abortion, & several other groups of dubious merit. I stopped giving to them years ago.
Personnel giving is fine as well.
Way to many of these groups have become Political, which is anathema to its purported purpose of charity in my mind.
JMO

Charles 5:28 said,"Same thing with unions. It is morally repugnant for unions to contribute to charities using union member dues. Would you like your union to take your money and give it to charities or political parties you may not agree with?"

They do it all the time, wasting money on the NDP to tell us how guilty we should feel. Do I get a say? Not on my life. Yet, for the next month, I will have to hear all that tripe from the various whining SIG's until election day. The teachers will whine, using members $ that don't agree wiht the propaganda, ditto with CUPE and other leftard groups.

As a matter of record, the CRA is a huge supporter
of the United Way. So much so that every year they
appoint an interested employee to be their coordinator for the ensuing year. This employee
spends virtually all their working time involved in United Way activities during the year, at full pay and benefits. Fund-raising activities are conducted through the office on a regular basis and those who
balk at participating are considered not to be "team players".
Your Government at work, folks.

Collective bargaining. Collective collecting.

The left will not ever draw a line... life is never going to be perfected, society is never going to lack injustice, the environment will never be good enough, the climate never cold enough or hot enough, the wealthy poor enough, the poor wealthy enough, etc.

Unless counterbalanced, with vigor, the left will take, and take, and take, and take, until it has taken everything. How many times do we see good intentions usurped as another left elitist discovers another gravy train to hitch a ride on.

The same asteroid that hastens the newspapers to commit figurative commercial suicide also casts a shadow over trade unions, who stubbornly believe that political will can overcome economic realities.

If only political will could accomplish such miracles, we could simply sign into existence a mud hut, wooden bowl and simple hemp garment for every man, woman and child on the planet.

I do not give to UNICEF or the UNITED WAY. I choose to support Catholic Charities and my local pro-life organizations (by the way some of these are unable to provide tax receipts because they are considered "political"). I wish I could do the same with my tax money that goes to fund abortion and other lefty causes that I would never support voluntarily. Taxation without representation.

ET;

Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side in your back and forth with ulianov. A minor correction though; workers have no voluntary association with unions. You either sign the union card when the company presents it to you on sign up day, or you don't get hired. Sad but true.

bob c:

One reason (amongst others) that unions can get away with that is because the freedom of association "guaranteed" to us in the Charter is only a freedom of association w/r/t governments.  We have a Charter right if a government is attempting to take it away or curtail it — a union is a NGO entity, and can therefore trample our "right" anytime it wants, because it's more powerful than any individual worker and its NGO status moves it outside of the Charter's scope.  Might makes right.

Ulianov misunderstands the ambit of the Charter in the first place, which is why I don't care to engage — there's no point in arguing with an intellectually lazy person.

Garth

Would you like your union to take your money and give it to charities or political parties you may not agree with?
Posted by: Charles at April 13, 2009 5:28 PM

Not a problem for Uli,Charles. You see....ALL unions give to and propagandize for lefties,so they are actually giving to the things Uli likes.

When hubby was in the Military it was frowned upon if you didn't dontate to UW directly from your pay packet. He didn't mind being frowed apon by his superiors though.

If they are politically involved they should be stripped of their charitable status and relabeled a "Political Lobby Group".

Perhaps the posters here would enjoy reading the actual article being referenced, it's at the following link: Community unionism: Saskatchewan's tradition

ulianov thinks groups have rights. That pretty much covers it for me.

Groups do not have rights, uli. -People- have rights because -people- have an objective existence.

Groups are imaginary things uli. Like the Tooth Fairy. Do you believe in her too?

ulianov's ability to look foolish is unparalleled

ET's ability to smack the fool down is also unparalleled

great entertainment:-))))

Ulianov:

I studied the Rand decision in law school.  It has no bearing whatsoever on the essence of your argument, which started by you quoting section 2 of the Charter as if it applied to the private activities of a union.  It doesn't.  The "intellectually lazy" apparently have never read Peter Hogg on Canadian constitutional law, nor are they familiar with the corpus of legal opinion regarding the Charter's applicability.  Compare and contrast with the Rand decision.  It'll do you some good.

And bob c's point is actually more cogent — the Rand decision doesn't prevent unions from engaging in intimidation.  There are closed union shops all over the place — I know, I used to work in a couple of 'em.  You joined, or else — or in many cases, you simply never even got past the point of being hired in the first place.

And to think I was once a union rep...

Have a nice day.

Garth

ulianov - opinions are not facts! Whoever said that they were?

Your opinions are not facts. My opinions are not facts. No-body's opinions are facts. Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. I'll bet you didn't know that opinions and facts are two different things, did you?

BUT - valid opinions are based on facts! And on logic. Invalid opinions are not based on facts or logic. I'll bet you didn't know that either.

Oh, and you are quite incorrect. In many cases, if you aren't a member of X-union, you don't get the job. The company can have an agreement where it is obliged to hire union members only. So, workers who aren't members of the mechanics, or painters or whatever union, can't get hired. So, don't be naive, ulianov. Base your opinions on facts.

Did you know that you can be employed and refuse to be a member of that company's particular union and legally - I'll repeat that, LEGALLY - that union still has the legal right to take your dues from your pay. So, you DON'T have the legal right not to belong to the union! Again, ulianov, base your opinions on facts.

Does the union care whether you call yourself a member - if they have the legal right to have your dues taken from your pay? Nope. It just counts up the money. And you, even though you refuse to be a member, you are counted, legally, as a member of that union. So much for freedom.

Garth - yes, ulianov is an intellectually lazy person. And thanks for your point about 'freedom of association' applying only to govt - and a union, as an NGO, can indeed trample our rights.

Garth Wood;

You said with respect to unions, "You joined, or else — or in many cases, you simply never even got past the point of being hired in the first place." Precisely. When I balked at signing the union card and authorization to deduct dues from my pay, the HR person leaned forward on his elbows and said, "Do you want to work here, or not?"