Excuse me, Mr. Poilievre

95% Yes

So what are we waiting for?

"Workers under threat by right-to-work movement"

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/workers-under-threat-by-right-to-work-movement-168257906.html

Just there to add a vote to the yes side. SDA gets results again I'm sure.

bverwey

As a former PSAC member (spit) I can attest to the fact that they urinate money away on some of the strangest things. Their focus is on issues that only an extreme Left Wing person would endorse.Social Justice, Gay Rights, Employment Equity, The Green Movement, Global Warming etc. etc.
As one co-worker said, all they support is sodomites and Marxist insurgents. The Union then tried to have him punished for uttering "hate speech" when he was merely stating the truth. The harassement that he had to endure from the Unionists was brutal and there was no one there to defend him.It makes any right thinking person sick to their stomachs.
Currently payment of union dues is a condition of employment. One can opt out of joining but will still have to pay dues. Those that try to opt out do at their extreme peril. The blowback is unbelievable.

I support this as long as it only applies to PSUs not private sector.

Just a scam.When the results come in over whelmingliy for right-to-work,the PSAC will scream that the righties want to put everybody out of work.

Who has the authority to declare a "right-to-work" area,the Province or the Federal government?

I think it's Provincial jurisdiction,and no Provincial government would ever go there, but,we can dream ,can't we?

When I was a member of the BCGEU,the Union leaders were SO removed from the reality of the working world, we were led to strike during a deep recession.

Needless to say,the public was NOT sympathetic,and we ended up with less than the government had initially offered.

No one in an allegedly free Country should be forced to join a Union to get a job. Period.

It's no coincidence that the Winnipeg Free Press has a restrictive voting and commenting setup.

There is a difference between private sector and public sector unions.

When private sector unions negotiate wages that make the company uncompetitive, the owner has two choices ... go bankrupt or find a place where labour costs are more competitive.

Public sector unions are in a government-run situation, where the government argues that the job done by their employers are too important to be done by the private sector.

The fact that creates a monopoly situation would in itself be a logical case for the premise there should be no right to strike in the public sector.

Particularly when the ‘servants' are making more in their total compensation package than their bosses, the taxpayers.

I can just imagine the pro-union puff pieces being produced at the CBC right now.

I have no problem with private Unions its the public service ones that I abhor. Its always politics of the worst sort with then. Never their employees, unless they want a raise from dues.
They are a terrible example of undemocratic behavior to anyone.Besides which public service should never be held captive. Particularly communists, which most of these Union bosses are. Yes its called the NDP.

"I support this as long as it only applies to PSUs not private sector."

Well, I guess the freedom of association rights don't apply to everyone, eh?

This is part of a deliberate MO on the part of the CPC.

They will make policy implementation/changes - items that have long been On their to do list when there is an external event that provides a present pretext to execute the change. This is particularly the case when these changes could be very unpopular with some canadians. Thus they can claim that there is some degree of force majuer.

Here are two examples:

The pacific free trade opportunity is now putting supply management on the bargaining table

And this current case where outlandish Behaviour by PsAc creates political room to bring in labour deregulation to prevent it from happening again.

Look for complaints from provinces like AB on NL et al regarding equalization to provide the political room to make change to the formula in 2014 - changes that correct the favoritism that the current formula gives to MB and QC.

Most union workers have two bosses - two too many - if you happen to have any opinions of your own. My nephew quit a p/t job at low pay because almost half his paycheck was going to the union; and he was a school kid so he had no 'benefits'. Unions only help high paid, full time, interchangable parts(err..persons) in whatever union machine is in operation, IMO.

"I have no problem with private Unions its the public service ones that I abhor. Its always politics of the worst sort with them."

You mean to say that it isn't 'politics of the worst sort' with a guy like Buzz Hargrove?

Federal jurisdiction stops at federal civil service plus those industries regulated under the constitution by the federal government such as railways and banks.

LAS said: "I support this as long as it only applies to PSUs not private sector."

And here I thought I thought libertarians were supposed to be smarter. What's the difference between a grasping, worker exploiting, money stealing private sector union and a public sector one?

Libertarians demand FREEDOM. Freedom is where everything is voluntary and nothing is mandatory. Private sector workers don't get to be free? WTH is that?

What panics Unions is when membership and dues become voluntary.....

Experience has shown that regardless of how many their goons beat up membership and dues collapse.....but it's hell for those made an example of...

OMG...Losers are Stupid...Mommy wake you up early? Tell you to get a job,loser? If you actually worked in the private sector,you would agree with right to work,but welfare ain't the private sector,is it,Mommy's metrosexual?

I support freedom of association for ALL unions. It's a basic right.

Private sector union members need to be given this option as well. Those non-union plants run by Honda and other Japanese auto companies in Ontario are a great contrast to the "Big Three".

Making membership in a group "representing" you effectively voluntary?

My GOD! What will these monsters stop at?

(Ala Kroket, I have no problem with completely voluntary unions that have no coercive power as to membership or to make non-members strike.

But naturally the unions prefer to be non-voluntary.)

Problem is Rand formula, if you "benefit" from a union, you have to pay its dues. "Benefit" means your contract is negotiated by the union (say Professional Institute of the Government Service), then you have to pay their dues, whether or not you are a member.

Har ...snork ... wish I would have seen this post earlier.

When that news came out yesterday I was hardly surprised. The only thing I wondered about was the timing of the PSAC announcement.............

I want to be a fly on the wall and listen in on the Canadian Federation of Labor meetings. Has anyone ever seen Sid Ryan get so mad he pukes?

A federal union endorsing a French Supremacist party that is openly bigoted against anglos and minority groups. How utter quaint, if we had a neo nazi party would they endorse them?

Rose .... they just did.

oldfart, I reject both public and private unions. A hundred, even fifty years ago, unions had a constructive role but labour rights have been taken over by various governments and unions have now degenerated to being total parasites on the workers, the consumers, the taxpayers.

They have driven the costs of manufacturing up beyond the capacity of consumers to pay for the goods and so have driven manufacturing overseas. It's the unions that have 'outsourced' jobs not the politicians.

They have set up an unaccountable elite monopoly employment in the public sector of jobs for life with salaries, benefits and pensions unavailable to the private sector - and yet paid for by the private sector.

You say that since the unions negotiate the contract then, one should pay dues? That doesn't make sense. Contracts are negotiated only every three to five years - and yet, the worker should pay the union what amounts to many thousands for those few weeks of negotiation?

And does the worker really need such an agency? They could vote for a few representatives on their own, pay them a bit for the negotiation work weeks, and vote on the result. No need for the endless payment of dues.

And what are those dues used for? To support the executive of the union, who do zilch in between negotiations and yet live very well. Oh, and to fund the political parties the executive not the members, support. Union dues belong to the members not to the pet projects of the union executive.

Unions are parasites on the workers. Unions have greatly harmed private sector manufacturing and public sector unions have transformed tax revenue from going to needed infrastructure (roads, public transit, etc) to being spent, 80%, on wages and benefits to these elite employees.

Just do it. PSAC has opened their britches for punishment here. Drive a cart and horses through that opening. PSAC fees are onerous and government employees in this town would love the opportunity to drop them - hey, a pay increase which costs tax payers nothing!\]

It is scandalous what PSAC does. They were flying an aircraft this passed weekend over Hull and Gatineau carrying a banner, in French, which read "HARPER HATES US".

Just disgraceful.

Kroket, exactly.

@ET 7.46 pm Rand formula is a judgement made by I think Judge Rand, probably in 1950s or 1960s and applies to federal civil servants. It may apply to other employees under federal labour law. Most employees come under provincial labour law, so whether it applies elsewhere or not I don't know. But if you are a federal civil servant and your contract is negotiated by a union, you have to pay its dues. C'est la loi.

Yes it was Judge Rand. But a new law can replace an old law. Especially if forcing people to join a union contradicts the freedom of association.

They were able to change the sodomy laws that existed right up until the 1970s...why can't we overturn some 1950 judge's take on the law...AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME?

ET, Kroket & Favill, the Supreme Court upheld it, saying it doesn't contravene freedom of association, Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 1991, 2 S.C.R. 211.

As a current member of PSAC I want this so bad it's not funny. Every time I turn around my extorted dollars are going to political causes that I do not support. Anti-Israeli boycotts, check. Gay pride crapola, check. Or should I say cheque? Donations to the NDP who in turn made donations to Socialist International in the USSR while it existed, check. Political ads for the NDP and Lieberals, check.

Kathy Shaidle says no one who works indoors needs a union and I agree. There are so many laws regarding workplace safety, discrimination in the workplace, firing an employee without cause etc that non-union workers are just as well protected as unionized ones and would not have to pay the $938 that was deducted from my pay last year for union dues. Coincidentally, $938 would pay me a new 1911 with extra mags and a couple boxes of ammo.

Better yet, let's get rid of PSAC altogether. The country ran fine without it for almost a century.

et and oldfart, I believe Rand was a Supreme Court Justice in the '40s. Under the Rand Formula non-unionized workers are forced to pay union dues if they work in a union shop. The decision was revisited in 1991 and upheld despite the Supreme Court finding that it violated freedom of association. It was deemed that the Rand Formula was a 'reasonable limit' under Section 1 of the Bill of Rights. Section 1 allows the government to weasel out of guaranteeing any right they don't want to. As long as your Charter Rights are being 'reasonably limited' they don't exist. Another PET screwing of the public.

Libertarians demand FREEDOM. Freedom is where everything is voluntary and nothing is mandatory. Private sector workers don't get to be free? WTH is that?

If a private company and a union agree that all their members shall pay union dues, then that is a contract and they have a right to that arrangement. RTW applied here would be a violation of the right to contract. Private sector workers are free to walk away. Pays to understand what 'freedom' actually means.

The Rand Formula dates from 1946. It was a serious mistake.

Lavigne, from 1991, is one of the worst judgments the Supreme Court ever came up with. Lowlights:

Per La Forest, Sopinka and Gonthier JJ.:

The Rand formula violates s. 2(d) of the Charter because it interferes with the freedom from compelled association.

The limitation on appellant's freedom of association is justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The state objectives in compelling the payment of union dues which can be used to assist causes unrelated to collective bargaining are to enable unions to participate in the broader political, economic and social debates in society, and to contribute to democracy in the workplace. ... An opting‑out formula could seriously undermine the unions' financial base and the spirit of solidarity so important to the emotional and symbolic underpinnings of unionism.

Per Wilson and L'Heureux‑Dubé JJ.:

Appellant's freedom of association has not been violated in this case. The purpose of s. 2(d) is to protect association for the collective pursuit of common goals. It should not be expanded to protect a right not to associate.

Per Cory J.:

The reasons of La Forest J. were agreed with on the question of what constitutes "government". In all other respects the reasons of Wilson J. were concurred with.

Per McLachlin J.:

There is no violation of s. 2(d), however, since the payments do not bring appellant into association with ideas and values to which he does not voluntarily subscribe. ... Under the Rand formula, there is no link between mandatory dues payment and conformity with the ideas and values to which appellant objects. By declining to become a member of the union, the individual dissociates himself from the union's activities. Forced payments in return for services thus entail no imposition of ideological conformity.

[all excerpts from the summaries, not the actual judgments, but it's a long one and the summaries will be accurate]

La Forest and McLachlin seem clueless, but Wilson's view is pure malevolence.

Freedom of association includes by definition the right not to associate with someone. What is the point in even having a Charter of Rights if judges like Wicked Bertha Wilson do not understand human rights?

nv53, exactly right. The right to DO something includes by definition the right not to DO something because it acknowledges that this right rests on individual CHOICE.

If the Charter acknowledges individual choice as a basic freedom (freedom of speech, religion, association) then it can't remove that choice by insisting that you MUST belong to a union.

Rand was bad law done in the absence of covering legislation. Legislation disallowing compulsory membership or compulsory dues would simply end the debate given no new bad law from the courts.

Peesack hates me.

ET @ 9:15 a.m.: "If the Charter acknowledges individual choice as a basic freedom (freedom of speech, religion, association) then it can't remove that choice by insisting that you MUST belong to a union."

Sadly, the Supreme Court violated that one too, in Advance Cutting and Coring, 2001. It upheld a Quebec law requiring construction employees to choose one of five unions to join.