Home
Forums
Your Union
Paul Moist has no ideas
Forums
Your Union
Paul Moist has no ideas
Paul Moist has no ideas
| page: prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 next | |
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
| The Third Element |
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:30 am
|
|
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 363 |
Votes must be majority of majority. (Double Majority)
All votes should be run by an impartial third party. (Like in the rest of the world) There should be a minimum dues amount, only for Collective Bargaining. (like in the rest of the world) Decertification should be as easy as certification. Portion of dues should be available for employees who want to fight their union. If I have a DFR or ULP against my union I should not have to pay for my own lawyer while the union uses my forced dues to pay for the lawyer I am fighting against. Union executives positions should be mandated to a maximum term. Canada should have an equvilant to the USA's LM2. - Am I boring everyone yet with my coroporate controlled idiologies? Sharyn, I am talking about democracy, it has nothing at all to do with Corporate Jaws, it has to do with workers rights, Human Rights. Why is Canada the only place left that does not recognize the right to non-association (Advance Cutting)? Justice Rand himself said that (what became the Rand Formula) was not for general application, it was specific to the Ford challenge. The unions saw that little cash cow and ran with it. Now Canada alone stands with the rule that if you are in a union you have to pay dues, even f they use those dues to hire lawyers to fine you, or get you fired. _________________ No Beast so fierce knows but some small amount of pity, but I know none and so I am no beast. ~ Richard III |
| Back to top | profile :: pm |
| CUPE_Reformer |
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:09 am
|
|
Joined: 04 Feb 2006 Posts: 239 Location: Real Solidarity |
The Third Element wrote: Votes must be majority of majority. (Double Majority)
There should be a minimum dues amount, only for Collective Bargaining. (like in the rest of the world) Portion of dues should be available for employees who want to fight their union. The first proposal would probably be an undue burden on labour unions. Forced union dues minimum or otherwise are the main enabler of tyranny in labour unions. The enforcement of labour laws is a cruel joke. _________________ Real Solidarity |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:13 pm
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
The labour process as is, is a cruel joke no kidding CR. If there has to be rules, and when implemented lawfully, then they should be to the benefit of the people. Clearly the ones we have now are to protect the wall surrounding the people. Not good.
I knew you would set me straight 3E. All excellent ideas. The prob of course is that unless all relevant rules are adjusted accordingly, then some, if not all, it is said, have the potential to increase the distance between employees' goal posts on an already less than perfect equal playing field. See, that's the problem with rules. Unless it is from scratch, adjusting one and not the other causes all kinds complications and inequities. Here we are eh, I digress. I can see the bottom up benefit of your ideas over time, a no brainer. I'm not sure how much more damage the labour process can inflict on working people but hypothetically; if everything else stays the same and if those rules were in place, what impact, if any, do you think they would have in the long haul to members' bargaining power? Would there be potential for more employer interference? ???? _________________ Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| The Third Element |
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:23 pm
|
|
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 363 |
The double majority is a pipe dream, but someone should slap union members and get them to demand greater communication from thier representatives. I missed another idea that would really help. No more source deductions, union reps have to go and get dues from, in the least the shop/store/floor, whatever. At best (in my world) from the individual employee. You can prepay for 6 months or so, but the rep has to speak with you to get your dues.
I always come back to this point and I harp on about it but getting a union is pretty easy, and it costs nothing. Compared to decert, which is pretty damn hard to do. So, if 81% of all privately employed and 69% of *all* employed Canadians working today do so without a union how are they manageing with the less than equal playing field? Sharyn, I respectfully put it to you that non-union works just fine for most Canadians and perhaps the lenses you view an employer through may be skewed a bit by the fact that your employer (presumed to be Loblaws still) is the acme of a Business Union bedmate. They're not all like that, some really *do* care about their employees. In fact, I would suggest that *most* really care about their employees. _________________ No Beast so fierce knows but some small amount of pity, but I know none and so I am no beast. ~ Richard III |
| Back to top | profile :: pm |
| Cupe Doll |
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:09 pm
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
One fundamental question has to be: what do people most need empowering against? And/or: what do people most need protecting from?
And clearly there are ideological divisions how we answer such questions. For example, unless one buys into class warfare paradigms in the first place, it becomes dubious that: Quote: One of the reasons that union democracy is such an elusive goal is that the current paradigm requires workers to adopt the master-servant thing as the natural order of things. Like, are master/servant distinctions really inconsistent with everything democratic? Not unless one assumes such distinctions are static. Because when these distinctions are conceived as dynamic? It changes everything. I may be a servant today -- but only because it serves my better interests in my particular circumstances. I may be a servant today -- but a master tomorrow. I may be a servant today -- but not for the whole day. Most importantly -- every single day, I am both master and servant in relation to multiple others. Therefore, it hardly matters which I elect to be in any particular sort of interaction. It does not define me. To the contrary. It is my choice -- and can thereby empower me. Don't know how clear this is. But, in a nutshell -- what's democracy really about? Is it about maximizing personal choice? Or is it about eliminating every disparity? It can't be both -- there would not be enough consistency. In an even smaller nutshell? What is the meaning of oppression? _________________ www.ultimatecultureclash.com |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:28 pm
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
I don't necessarily disagree 3E. And no kidding eh, there's few of us anywhere who aren't or haven't drank from one kool-aid stand or another.
Perhaps I'm having difficulty believing that changing some oppressive rules amidst countless other oppressive rules could or would make it all better, or better at all. One would first have to believe the system itself was somewhat sound. Then one would have to believe that the business of profiting had "care" somewhere in it's fine print. Then one would have to ignore business history. FTR, there's mounds of expert inside testimony that says business is for profit and that Canada's processes are much corrupted - owned so to speak. I can dig up some shit if you like. I get when sides meet in the middle, sounds fair. Bring those nice business type guys to the table. I think the problem is that in the current climate most working people would have to see a lot of net before taking that first big leap of faith. Is there a net? _________________ Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| Cupe Doll |
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:00 pm
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
Damn. Can't figure you SharynS. Coming across hard boiled one minute, then all naive the next.
Sure, it's hard disagreeing with 3E's pitch to democratize via rules that would be less inconsistent with democratic principles. To protect from the most totalitarian excesses inside unions. (I would even add separation-enabling rules to the list) But even thinking maybe business types care about employees is naive. 3E had to be kidding -- suggesting *most* business types "really care". I mean, come on. Altruistic business types? On what planet? In what universe would that not be absurd? Of course there's no real net you can trust. Democratizing isn't about who you can trust with safety nets. What breast it's safe to feed from. It's about breaking the arms holding guns to our heads. It's about having a say in our lives. In practice, social and economic security do result from more genuine democracy. But not because democracy means security. Not because liberty means safety. Un-coerced freedom of choice is a far more fundamental good. _________________ www.ultimatecultureclash.com |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| Laboryes |
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:43 pm
|
|
Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 1959 |
Cupe Doll wrote: then all naive the next.
Sharyn naive? 
_________________ "When people refuse to obey, then democracy comes alive." Howard Zinn |
| Back to top | profile :: pm |
| SharynS |
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:51 pm
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
Quote: ...suggesting *most* business types "really care". By default, employer care is confined and ruled by a die hard belief in the economic system, an inability to rationalize long term (long term being anything over a ten yr business plan) and their own, albeit again short term, survival. Unfortunately ten year plans are not conducive to human life or the planet as a whole. So much for genuine caring. _________________ Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| Cupe Doll |
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:12 pm
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
Don't even see how it matters. More genuine democracy is to stop those taking away every say we've got in our lives. Stop them trampling every right and freedom.
No amount of democracy can make it sensible to rely on the kindness of strangers. Or rely on the altruism of corporate employers. Or rely on the "solidarity" of union bosses. Or rely on politicians representing anyone but themselves. Not in this world. _________________ www.ultimatecultureclash.com |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:17 am
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
Quote: ...I am talking about democracy, it has nothing at all to do with Corporate Jaws, _________________ Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| Cupe Doll |
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:44 pm
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
SharynS wrote: .. the changes you've listed 3E.. ups potential for employer interference... Yeah. Sure. It's true. But which side are you on? If you're just another standard left/right ideologue and you think there's only two sides? Then you pick your side and you live with however evil consequences. Because you at least know the side you picked is better than the side you didn't. But in reality? The little guy can't trust any big business or big labour or big government. And if you stop seeing the world in binary, black/white ideological terms -- suddenly you realize the little people got'ta have their own side. Which is what democracy is about. And what most the changes 3E was getting at are needed for. What does this mean in practice? Well, unionizing is relatively easy. Now imagine voluntary membership, accessible decertification and accessible separation got implemented. Sure -- potential for "employer interference" would go up. But way more important -- it would empower the individual "little guy" to play big business off against big labour. It would let each little guy do some comparison shopping instead of just getting trapped one way or the other. Hold off for better deals -- not only economically. Hold out for some dignity. Why shouldn't big labour and business have to compete for every little guy? Hell -- if you're against the individual little guy having relatively more power? Then don't go saying you're for the little guy. _________________ www.ultimatecultureclash.com |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| SharynS |
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:15 pm
|
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 2883 Location: the 'puter |
A little slap happy with the labels don't you think CD, they're questions. So far all I'm getting is in order for working people to get from the pan to the ground is to go through the fire. Quote: individual little guy.. ....Hold off for better deals 
_________________ Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| Cupe Doll |
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:54 pm
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 69 Location: Toronto |
Quote: A little slap happy with the labels don't you think CD Please don't take it like that. Notice all the ifs. Like, "if you're against the individual little guy having relatively more power -- then..." Quote: .. all I'm getting is in order for working people to get from the pan to the ground is to go through the fire. That's the whole point. Why you can't see that more genuine union democracy would be giving working people access to the fire hose. _________________ www.ultimatecultureclash.com |
| Back to top | profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www |
| Laboryes |
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:12 pm
|
|
Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 1959 |
Cupe Doll wrote: Now imagine voluntary membership, accessible decertification and accessible separation got implemented. Sure -- potential for "employer interference" would go up. But way more important -- it would empower the individual "little guy" to play big business off against big labour. It would let each little guy do some comparison shopping instead of just getting trapped one way or the other. Hold off for better deals -- not only economically. Hold out for some dignity.
Why shouldn't big labour and business have to compete for every little guy? Hell -- if you're against the individual little guy having relatively more power? . Agreed CD, working people(the little guy) definitely can’t trust big business, big labor and any “current government” in my opinion. Your thought of a “voluntary union membership” is a nice concept but how do you suggest sparking that idea and making it attractive to the “little guy”? Your idea sounds vaguely familiar to the “right to work” states here in the U.S. And in most of those states union membership is very low. I do agree though, big labor should have to compete for the little guy, but you must first offer something to compete with, no? Unions here in California seem to be taking the opposite approach and turning people away in droves! Doesn’t leave much to work with when trying to advocate another form of collectivism. I can tell you one thing, here in California the majority of working people(at least within the UFCW cba’s) view their options to keep the jobs in black or white. Black- blindly following their business union leaders into the abyss, never demanding accountability from the unions officials, never demanding participation in their union business or contract negotiations . Paying their dues, getting nothing for it and never questioning why. White- Jumping to the corporate side, burying their nose up the corporate ass to keep a job, clawing, stabbing or trampling over every co-worker they can to make sure they get theirs first. Unfortunately in my neck of the woods workers seem to lean towards the White to maintain their employment. Just curious CD, just how would you go about getting the “little guy” to view their options in a different color? I don’t know how it is Canada but here in California I hear more union workers(UFCW) discussing decertification then they are about creating new ways to unionize. Big labor has left a bad taste in the mouth and many feel they’d be better off going it alone. Can’t say I blame them when the majority are working 4 to 5 days a week to get their 24 hours weekly guarantee and having to turn to pubic assistance to try and make ends meet. _________________ "When people refuse to obey, then democracy comes alive." Howard Zinn |
| Back to top | profile :: pm |
Home
Forums
Your Union
Paul Moist has no ideas
Forums
Your Union
Paul Moist has no ideas
|
Page 7 of 9
page: prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 next |
||