Unions

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
I worked for an airline that is one of the few non unionized airlines in North America. We had an association of flight attendants that took concerns to management, we made competitive wages, had profit sharing, and rejected forming a union 3 times in 3 years I was there. The union was CONSTANTLY trying to get us to join and from my research, really offered nothing that we couldn't get ourselves.
...
As in running for office? None. How much do you have?
I do have extensive knowledge of politics; mostly in Canada, and to a lesser degree in the US. I just finished journalism school, so yeah...kinda have to have an understanding of whats going on.
...
I owned my own business for almost 5 years. I was an independent contractor for a new home builder, I managed 3 neighbourhoods and had a staff of 5 people. I personally sold approximately $125M worth of real estate in a little less than 5 years. I built business plans, budgets, advised developers on area structure plans, and met with city councillors.
...
One thing I get really bored with is when folks assume they know everything about someone and then run their mouth about them.

...
OR...they can be just as corrupt as the the other guys. Just because they're union backed doesn't mean squat all if they're crooked.

...
And this has to do with what exactly?

...
Every single day.

Look...all I was saying is that the politician is only as good as his actions, and having a union backing him or her doesn't change that. If the candidate is a dud, having a union backing them doesn't change the fact that they're a dud. My other point is that I don't think its right that union money, payed by its members should be used to support candidates. That money is supposed to be used to help support the workers if they need it, not get someone elected who supports the unions agenda.

Unions had their place at one time, they improved working conditions for millions of people, they brought fair wave to the impoverished. However I don't think a union is needed to achieve that today. You seem to believe that the only way to fight corruption in politics is via a union, and simply don't think thats true. Unions and particularly union leaders can become just as corrupt as the people that you think they should be fighting against. If you want real unbiased change, change from the people for the people you don't do it with other people money. There is nothing a union can do that a group of like minded organized people can't do.

So what do mean? start a new union with people who aren't greedy? lol

I think workers rights are more important now than they've ever been... I just get a feeling that everything that was fought for and won is gradually being taken away stealthily by the big end of town. It's not actually about the short term and you and I, it's about the future.

Also Sugarpie, buying and selling real estate isn't what I would call work. Work is what the people do to actually build the stuff all the worms profit from.

Quote:

Originally posted by Poida

Also Sugarpie, buying and selling real estate isn't what I would call work. Work is what the people do to actually build the stuff all the worms profit from.

Now now Poida.Dealing with people has it`s own trials what and tribulations and can be very mentally draining. Real estate people work well beyond the normal hours, evening, weekends, and whenever their client needs them with no guarantees of a sale so to say is not work is not accurate. Physical work is what people do to actually build the stuff worms profit from. Our dear Sugar sounds like quite the woman between running a business, working as a flight attendant, finishing journalism classes and webcamming. Quite the resume......

I know a lady who works in a Union job U.F.C.W. and the union is weak, no bite no back bone. Only good they are for is the steps needed before a enployee is terminated.
But with that in mind, You can't get rid of the dead wood. The starting wage for a housekeeper in a hospital is $8.50 an hour. The last contract negotiations they voted "NO"
And their union rep. actually got mad at the workers!
in 1989 the starting rate was $5.25 per hr. in that Dept. it's now as I stated a whopping $8.50 an hour.
Sure they get personal days, Vacation days, and for now free medical benifets. but seriously in 25 years the pay increase is only $3.25!?!?
that's only .13¢ a year. A YEAR!!
Thier contract says 3 people off per shift for vacation at a time. then it was dropped to two people per shift. Now it's 2 people but at managment discresion. meaning if they feel they will be short handed, they can and will deny the vacation request. They filed a grevance and the union rep said they (the bosses) have Managment Rights.
the contract is up in 6 months, They want and are looking for a new union to represent them.

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise_50

I'm not kidding. I'm being serious. The fact that I do know the people I stated I know was answering your question asking me what I do. I literally work with these people in attempting to keep things like Medicare and the Affordable Care act (which in the USA is the only thing remotely resembling healthcare coverage for 10's of millions...unlike Canada which is civilized in that way).

I actually didn't ask...you just dropped a bunch of names. A bunch of names that I still don't know what they have to do with unions.

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise

Really, I'd like to know your thoughts about what can possibly be done to counter billionaires who really don't pay taxes worth beans and have their wealth stashed away in the Cayman Islands and other places YET can spend now unlimited amounts both in SuperPaks and directly to candidates. Do you have any ideas?

Honestly, I don't know, but I never pretended to know either. But what does a union have to do with changing the laws for corporate tax? They should be looking after the concerns of their members not spending millions trying to change the law. They're not a lobby group, their a union...they seem to have forgotten this.

Quote:

Originally posted by Poida

Also Sugarpie, buying and selling real estate isn't what I would call work. Work is what the people do to actually build the stuff all the worms profit from.

I never said buying. I worked for the builder under contact. In essence, I owned the franchise to sell the builders homes in a particular neighbourhood and was responsible for everything non construction related, unless there was a error or mistake construction wise and then I was involved.

So working 6 sometimes 7 days a week until 9-10 at night, walking home buyers through the building process for sometimes up to a year, from time of sale until possession day, dealing with occasional construction errors and angry people, dealing with a head office that has sales expectations, keeping in constant communication with my customers and construction department to make sure everyone is on the same page, keeping track of hundreds of files and knowing what each one contains etc, etc, etc, isn't work?

I worked my ass off at that job, it was extremely stressful and mentally exhausting. Yeah, I made an awesome living doing it, but I earned that money.

Quote:

Originally posted by Allen_Bradley

...

Now now Poida.Dealing with people has it`s own trials what and tribulations and can be very mentally draining. Real estate people work well beyond the normal hours, evening, weekends, and whenever their client needs them with no guarantees of a sale so to say is not work is not accurate. Physical work is what people do to actually build the stuff worms profit from. Our dear Sugar sounds like quite the woman between running a business, working as a flight attendant, finishing journalism classes and webcamming. Quite the resume......

I didn't do all that at one time. I worked for the airline right out of high school, then started with the builder part time as a hostess in the sales center while flying. Quit flying, quickly advanced in real estate, got burnt out, went back to school and did webcamming to help pay for school. Now today I don't do any of them...trying to find a job in broadcasting. :/

Quote:

Originally posted by Allen_Bradley

...

Sugar, Sugar, Sugar.......
You live a province that has an anti-union government. Witness 1984 when Getty was in power. The Tories at that time enacted legislation that allowed union contractors to get out of their contracts with the unions by locking out their workers for 25 hours. The workers could return to work 25 hours later at a 50% wage cut. I know, I was there. If you wanted to get out of a loan agreement with the bank, and said them that you were going to start paying them only 50% of what you borrowed, and there was not a damn thing they could do, what would happen to you? Would you be allowed to break this contract?
The AFL took the Alberta government to the Supreme court and the court decided that it was unconstitutional but the damage was done. The AFL affiliated unions have never really recovered to this day. This attack on the families of organized workers was orchestrated by the major contractors, who made billions at that time. Money talks and, as we all know, the Tories love money. And did I add that that same government, who is still arrogantly in power today, has made it extremely difficult for workers who want to be organized to become so.
Now WJ is probably a great company to work for BUT... if they decided to slash your wages by 50% there would be nothing you could do about it.....Nothing. Now, if you have a union in place, a contract is in place. The terms of the contract have to be negotiated and agreed upon. Not the same as working unorganized.
There is a pseudo-union here at home called CLAC, The so called Christian Labour Association of Canada, which many major formerly non-union contractors hide behind to keep the traditional labour unions at bay. They have a contract, which is a joke, where representation of the workers is left to a non-elected bargaining body. Their grievance procedure allows for the non-elected bargaining agent to "represent" them. They get around the Rand formula of dues payment by allowing their workers to either pay dues OR make a charitable contribution instead.Now, in a traditional union, the members pay dues to be represented by a democratically elected executive and all expenditures are voted on by the members before the money is allowed to be spent. I have to wonder who is paying the salaries of the unelected CLAC executive if the "members" money is going to charitable donations. Also, I have never seen a union contract that allows the company you work for to cut your wages due to "market" conditions. This is the last paragraph in their so called contract. Are unions relevant?

A union is a collection of your so called "like minded people" that effect change. The unions effected change from the turn of the century into the 70's. The middle class grew. The country prospered. A family could be supported by one individual working. For the last 25 years governments have legislated against Unions and big business funneled money into governments that did. The middle class shrunk and families suffered. Today s norm is 2 working parents working to make ends meet and afford any kind of decent lifestyle. That is the power of unions my dear and the business establishment is doing everything in their power to make sure you don't have any. Are Unions still relevant? Now more than ever.
I have worked Union all my working life and have made the occasional foray to the dark side when work was slow. I always return to the union fold where I am treated decently and with respect. When I worked the dark side I had to take contractors to the labour board to get money that was owed to me more than once.
In one case, a company that I was working for was cheating their entire workforce out of overtime, millions of dollars taken from them. I took the company to the Federal labour board. As a result, all of the workers in the company had to be paid 6 months worth of back pay and the company was required to pay them fairly from that point on wards. The company had their people working under this "loophole" for 7 years and not one was willing to stand up for fear of "rocking" the boat. All it took was one union member to make this happen for them. Competition in business is waged on the backs of the workers Sugar. Good Union members are versed in the laws of labor compared to the un-organized and un-educated. Are unions relevant?
It takes courage to be a union member. The courage to stand up to inequality, the courage to stand up for fair treatment, the courage to stand up for fair working conditions, the courage to require a safe workplace so that I go home every night in one piece in my dangerous occupation. Women working in the union get the sames wages as their male counterparts, not so in much of the unorganized working world where women routinely work for 75% or less than a man doing the same job.
Courage....the one thing that the unorganized lack due to fear of being fired because they have no representation and their employer can hang the proverbial sword of Damocles over their heads for fear of losing their jobs, their homes, their cars, and ultimately, their dignity.
So now you tell me, are unions still relevant?

The whole Getty thing is way before my time so I won't even attempt to comment on it because I don't know much about it.
As for whether or not unions are still relevant..idk...maybe in some cases, but I think my case with Westjet stands...we didn't have a union and we were treated fairly, so it can happen. As you suggested, if they cut their wages in half, they would probably go out of business because they would lose a significant number of their employees, and when you have around 4000 flight attendants, it isn't easy to just fill those positions. So they wouldn't do that. Could they? Sure, but they wouldn't. And we had a contract so to speak, our association would negotiate pay/hours/perks every 2-3 years.

Proud teamster here. Union yes.

Quote:

Originally posted by johnsnj

I know a lady who works in a Union job U.F.C.W. and the union is weak, no bite no back bone. Only good they are for is the steps needed before a enployee is terminated.
But with that in mind, You can't get rid of the dead wood. The starting wage for a housekeeper in a hospital is $8.50 an hour. The last contract negotiations they voted "NO"
And their union rep. actually got mad at the workers!
in 1989 the starting rate was $5.25 per hr. in that Dept. it's now as I stated a whopping $8.50 an hour.
Sure they get personal days, Vacation days, and for now free medical benifets. but seriously in 25 years the pay increase is only $3.25!?!?
that's only .13¢ a year. A YEAR!!
Thier contract says 3 people off per shift for vacation at a time. then it was dropped to two people per shift. Now it's 2 people but at managment discresion. meaning if they feel they will be short handed, they can and will deny the vacation request. They filed a grevance and the union rep said they (the bosses) have Managment Rights.
the contract is up in 6 months, They want and are looking for a new union to represent them.

This is my problem with unions in a nutshell.

So you think that just because you're in a union its ok to leave that position short staffed for maybe weeks at a time? Why should they have to do without proper staffing for that long, when they have employees to ensure that won't happen? Shouldn't they have the right to request that vacation time is staggered so short staff situations don't happen? The alternatives are staggering vacation time, hiring more people, or asking the existing staff to work longer hours, whats your choice? I'm willing to bet if they hire more people, you'd bitch that the hours were cut in non vacation time period, and I bet if they requested existing staff work more hours to cover vacationing employee time you'd bitch about that too.

Well Sugarpie we get it.

You're just plain anti union. You see no merit it what they do. You think they should not be involved at all backing candidates they deem as helping their cause. They should just fade away. But wait, you stated they should help their members in getting what they want. You're really giving us mixed signals. How come? Unions really have no place anymore...yet they should help their members get what they want...yet they should have nothing to do with politics and getting better politicians elected.

You also have no problem with lobby groups however (geez, who pays for lobby groups...oh right, corporations and billionaires). It's crystal clear which end of the political spectrum you believe in. Rich people and corporations can and should do whatever they want in politics. Unions who are made up of middle class working people should just butt out and fade away.

Got it!

And you have no idea whatsoever as to what should be done to counter the endless amounts of money corporations and billionaires put into buying politicians, Congress and the Supreme Court. Oh wait, you're really into the billionaires and corporations doing that very thing...but not unions.

Got it!

Well this thread is dead and done because it's all about Sugerpie's emphatic believe that unions are bad and totally unnecessary. Maybe they are even evil in some way.

Thanks for dropping by. You've definitively made your point. We get it. YOU DON'T LIKE UNIONS. I'll tell you where to go for a broadcasting job however. You are perfect for them ---> FOX NEWS.

So, anyone else want to talk about actually doing things that shape the way things go in politics? Anyone else want to talk about activism and doing things that actually makes a difference? Anyone want to brainstorm about what can be done to counter the uber rich and corporations from simply having their way while simultaneously screwing all the rest?

I look forward to you taking each sentence of this comment then responding so you can prove yet again how much you hate unions.

Got it!

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise_50

Well Sugarpie we get it.

You're just plain anti union. You see no merit it what they do. You think they should not be involved at all backing candidates they deem as helping their cause. They should just fade away. But wait, you stated they should help their members in getting what they want. You're really giving us mixed signals. How come? Unions really have no place anymore...yet they should help their members get what they want...yet they should have nothing to do with politics and getting better politicians elected.

I think they should be looking after their members welfare when it comes to the workplace, not the union leaders political beliefs. When did a job and political beliefs become the same thing? You can't tell me that every single union member's political point of view aligns with all the other members, yet their hard earned money that they pay into the union...for benefits and strikes goes towards helping a politician they don't support...its not right.

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise

You also have no problem with lobby groups however (geez, who pays for lobby groups...oh right, corporations and billionaires). It's crystal clear which end of the political spectrum you believe in. Rich people and corporations can and should do whatever they want in politics. Unions who are made up of middle class working people should just butt out and fade away.

I forgot...can you show me again where I said this??

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise

And you have no idea whatsoever as to what should be done to counter the endless amounts of money corporations and billionaires put into buying politicians, Congress and the Supreme Court. Oh wait, you're really into the billionaires and corporations doing that very thing...but not unions.

Ok smartass...tell me your master plan for fixing it. Not some politicians plan...your plan. And while you're at tell me why it has to be a union that battles big bad millionaires who don't pay tax? Why...if the union members truly believe in a particular candidate...can't they donate their own money, or work the campaign, or organize rallies? Why does the union have to speak for them, when not every employee will support that candidate?

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise

Well this thread is dead and done because it's all about Sugerpie's emphatic believe that unions are bad and totally unnecessary. Maybe they are even evil in some way.

Thanks for dropping by. You've definitively made your point. We get it. YOU DON'T LIKE UNIONS. I'll tell you where to go for a broadcasting job however. You are perfect for them ---> FOX NEWS.

So, anyone else want to talk about actually doing things that shape the way things go in politics? Anyone else want to talk about activism and doing things that actually makes a difference? Anyone want to brainstorm about what can be done to counter the uber rich and corporations from simply having their way while simultaneously screwing all the rest?

I look forward to you taking each sentence of this comment then responding so you can prove yet again how much you hate unions.

Got it!

Seriously...you're an asshole. Just because I don't believe in what you believe in you have to resort to petty, snide little comments. I was going to say things like, you don't have to believe in unions to be an activist, and just because you are in a union doesn't make you an activist, and I was going to expand on that, but I won't bother you with it because I don't want to hurt your feelings anymore.

In the USA looking out for their members means getting folks elected that will protect what they've achieved. Now there are states that have made unions illegal for the very specific reason to disallow any capacity to do anything politically.

You call me snide because of what I wrote to you.

I'll be blunt. You are ignorant. You have not been involved politically in helping anyone. You live in a country where you don't have to worry about health care.

You hurt my feelings? Are you really that narcissistic.

And no, you weren't going to expand on anything more. You don't have anything more. You're last sentence is nothing more than a cop out manipulation.

Got it!

My plan is to continue being part of getting better politicians elected. There is only one power in any country, that's political power. You do it bit by bit. I do that. I always have. Your statements about Unions and how they work shows nothing but your ignorance. You clearly are clueless about it and don't even realize it.

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise_50

In the USA looking out for their members means getting folks elected that will protect what they've achieved.

And thats why they'e failing. Rather than do the one thing they were made to do...protect their members from poor working conditions and fight for fair pay, they spend their money and support politicians that are just as shady as the other guys or politicians that can't make the changes they promised.

Me ignorant? Hardly. I can actually see both sides of the situation, unlike you who is only willing to blindly follow whatever politician the union supports.

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise

You call me snide because of what I wrote to you.

Yeah...comments like this are snide:
"Well this thread is dead and done because it's all about Sugerpie's emphatic believe that unions are bad and totally unnecessary."
"Thanks for dropping by. You've definitively made your point"
"I'll tell you where to go for a broadcasting job however. You are perfect for them ---> FOX NEWS."
"Got it!"
Rather than have a debate about something, rather than actually try and convince me with any sort of facts or reasoning, you make wild assumptions about me and pout like a little boy when I actually point out what I see as problems with unions today.

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise

I'll be blunt. You are ignorant. You have not been involved politically in helping anyone.

Yep...more assuptions.

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise

You live in a country where you don't have to worry about health care.

Oh really? Tell me just how perfect the Canadian healthcare system is. Tell me about how we can wait for up to 12 months for a simple MRI. Tell me about how our healthcare includes zero dental or vision care. Tell me about how most prescription drugs are not covered by our healthcare. You're the expert, so I'd love to hear your take on it.

Quote:

Originally posted by paradise

And no, you weren't going to expand on anything more. You don't have anything more. You're last sentence is nothing more than a cop out manipulation.

Fine...just because you called me out.
You asked me if I were an activist in a prior post, and I said I was...and I am. I maybe don't march on Capital hill every day, but as a woman and a lesbian I face discrimination often. I participate in many Pride events every year, I was a member of my universities LGBTQ resource centre, and I'm a member of a local sexual assault group. I don't belong to a union, but if I did, would a union help me in these causes? No. So why do you think its a unions responsibility to change the laws that allow tax loopholes for wealthy Americans?
On the flip side of the coin, I'm sure most union members are NOT activists. I'm sure most of them don't give a rats ass about what happens politically..other than during election time and during big issues like the Affordable Healthcare Act. What they care about is their job, how much they make, how many days off they get, and if its safe...a very small percentage would be activists, a very small percentage of them, if they weren't in the union would actually be willing to contribute money to a candidate who opposes tax breaks for companies and the wealthy. Simply being part of a union does not make you an activist, thats like saying joining a gym automatically makes you an athlete. And what about the members of the union who's political beliefs don't align with the union? Are they activists too?

You've said time and time again in this thread that I don't like unions, but thats not entirely true...I've said they have their place. I'm not anti union per se, I can admit that in some cases they're probably a good thing, but I think first a foremost they should be there to support their members, that their only objectives should be to make sure their members have safe working conditions, make a fair wage, get a fair amount of time off, and receive benefits inline with the average worker. I don't believe that includes spending their members money to support a candidate that 1) may or may not get elected. 2) may or may not actually stay true to their campaign promises . 3) not all members support.

SP, you cannot divorce politics from workplace rights, because local and federal laws govern businesses,

Businesses certainly lobby lawmakers hoping to influence legislation that will be business-friendly (which is often the same thing as anti-worker), and the only way workers can match that kind of lobbying is by collectively pooling their individual desires and finances, which is specifically what a union is set up to do - leverage the strength of the collective workers to level the playing field between them and management.

In other words, getting pro-labor politicians elected IS looking out for union members.

Thank you for that.

I have ultimate respect for you. You are strong and committed to causes that matter. You and I are actually quite alike, whether it seems so in this bantering exchange between us or not. And I take full responsibility of my part in that. I will again apologize for anything I said to you that was unseemly or felt bad. You are correct about candidates not keeping promises. When they have financial backing from unions, however, by far they do care about what union members want. The truth about politics today is money is the absolute ruler...not as though it hasn't been forever. But now things are skewed entirely for one side's financial capability to dominate. If a person running for office takes backing from unions, they are definitely sticking their heads out as being on the side that is trying to support middle class needs. This by default makes them a target, as you know.

If a person is in a union they pay union dues for the good of all in the "union." The union as a whole decides to back candidates that align with their goals. Obviously everyone in a union isn't always in agreement with that. There is never any big group that is always in agreement about anything. It's basically about how democracy is supposed to work. The majority of how people feel is supposed to direct the course of things in that type of system.

The truth is in the world today there is no ability to push back against the controlling billionaires and corporations...and any of the way things are going that has the cumulative capacity to financially do anything...even at a small percentage of what the uber wealthy can do...other than unions. They are the last thing standing against the onslaught. This is simply political reality in the USA now.

I am extremely genuine in what I've stated about myself. I don't deceive nor manipulate. And I am extremely active in all aspects of politics because almost nobody else is. The vast, vast, vast majority of people are truly sheep. You and I both know this. It takes a lot of time to know what's happening and know how it works.

Again, the only true power in any country is political power. If you do care about people...all people. If you do sincerely care about people the planet on which we live, you have no choice but to "get fucking real" and actually fucking get off you ass and do something that absolutely does make a difference.

You stated that unions' "only objectives should be to make sure their members have safe working conditions, make a fair wage, get a fair amount of time off, and receive benefits inline with the average worker."

I ask you then, how do you believe this can happen without the underlying environment allowing for that? That's the part of unions backing candidates they believe will help them be able to do EXACTLY what you state is the only objectives unions should have! You have to have the matrix and bedrock that allows for that. If you aren't cogent of what is going on that controls the entire environment within which anything can happen, you won't understand how and why it all works.

There is NOTHING wrong with unions doing exactly what you state when you say unions', "only objectives should be to make sure their members have safe working conditions, make a fair wage, get a fair amount of time off, and receive benefits inline with the average worker."

That's exactly what unions are doing when they also put some of their time, energy and money towards getting better candidates elected...or at the very least give them the ability to have a voice nationally when there would be no other way for that to occur. Politics is NOT something unions can ignore. It is fundamental to what they do for their people.

I'm extremely glad you march during Pride Week. You also need the political environment allowing that to be voiced and have an impact. It's the same for all voiced that need to be heard. Unions aren't evil. They do their best, and they do have the cumulative ability to at least be heard and get candidates included in the fray that most likely take their concerns to heart.
~~~~~~~~~~
So anyway, I sincerely want to be able to have conversations with you in the future about. I am being totally honest when I say I respect you and what you think. I hope you'd potentially feel the same way. We're actually on the same team you know. I decided long ago I would become very aware about politics because it was obvious politicians create the environment within which everything happens...or doesn't. And I can tell you it totally does make a difference. The older I get the more people I get to know personally who are the same in that regard. And as quaint as it may possibly seem to you that I was part of the Water March in Detroit, it literally changed everything. I do stuff like that from time to time. Mostly I coordinate and build community. That's where the rubber meets the road. I always love where the rubber meets the road.

So, what most people take for granted as being "the way things are" they have no idea what it took to get that. They think those fights were just ancient old shit that doesn't matter any more. Wrong! It can be and is proactively being taken away...bit by bit. Voting rights for all citizens = gone now in several States. A women's right to chose if she wants to be pregnant or not if she's heterosexual = gone in many States now. Teachers, police, fire fighters being able to have unions = illegal in many States now.

The pattern is obvious. What folks thought was a done deal suddenly isn't anymore. And just because some of this hasn't personally affected you yet doesn't mean it won't in the future. If you just let is slide...it will slide.

If you don't try, the answer is automatically "No." I get "no" a lot. But I get "yes" sometimes too. And I gotta tell you, some of the yeses have been a big fucking deal.

I truly want to be able to discuss things with you because you are quite intelligent and, frankly, have the same temperament as I do.

Thank you again...

At one point in time there was a real need for unions to protect workers rights and safety, but for a few instances those days are pretty much gone. Now in the US we have the NLRB, OSHA, and the ACLU who have stood for specific laws to protect workers rights. For the most part modern unions today are jus another PAC organization.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

SP, you cannot divorce politics from workplace rights, because local and federal laws govern businesses,

Businesses certainly lobby lawmakers hoping to influence legislation that will be business-friendly (which is often the same thing as anti-worker), and the only way workers can match that kind of lobbying is by collectively pooling their individual desires and finances, which is specifically what a union is set up to do - leverage the strength of the collective workers to level the playing field between them and management.

In other words, getting pro-labor politicians elected IS looking out for union members.

Sure you can. As long as laws aren't in place that prevent the union from being able to provide their service to their members there really is no need for unions to be political. They may have the desire to be political, but there is no actual need.

For example if the government came out with a law that had a maximum wage that would interfere with their objective, so yes, I would support a union getting politically active and try and change that law. I'm not saying that unions can't be political, I'm saying they should only be so when laws interfere with the reason they were formed in the first place (safety, wages, and benefits.) When a union backs a politician who wants to raise taxes for the wealthy, its not because they feel it interferes with their directive, its because they want to. I can't personally think of a law in place that prevents the union from doing their job...can you?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
And thats why they'e failing. Rather than do the one thing they were made to do...protect their members from poor working conditions and fight for fair pay, they spend their money and support politicians that are just as shady as the other guys or politicians that can't make the changes they promised.....
Rather than have a debate about something, rather than actually try and convince me with any sort of facts or reasoning, you make wild assumptions about me and pout like a little boy when I actually point out what I see as problems with unions today.

Fine...just because you called me out.
You asked me if I were an activist in a prior post, and I said I was...and I am. I maybe don't march on Capital hill every day, but as a woman and a lesbian I face discrimination often. I participate in many Pride events every year, I was a member of my universities LGBTQ resource centre, and I'm a member of a local sexual assault group. I don't belong to a union, but if I did, would a union help me in these causes? No. So why do you think its a unions responsibility to change the laws that allow tax loopholes for wealthy Americans?
On the flip side of the coin, I'm sure most union members are NOT activists. I'm sure most of them don't give a rats ass about what happens politically..other than during election time and during big issues like the Affordable Healthcare Act. Simply being part of a union does not make you an activist, thats like saying joining a gym automatically makes you an athlete. And what about the members of the union who's political beliefs don't align with the union? Are they activists too?

You've said time and time again in this thread that I don't like unions, and thats not entirely true...I've said they have their place. I'm not anti union per se, I can admit that in some cases they're probably a good thing, but I think first a foremost they should be there to support their members, that their only objectives should be to make sure their members have safe working conditions, make a fair wage, get a fair amount of time off, and receive benefits inline with the average worker. I don't believe that includes spending their members money to support a candidate that 1) may or may not get elected. 2) may or may not actually stay true to their campaign promises . 3) not all members support.

All valid points and shared by the general populace. I admire your work with the LTGB society in University, I accept the fact that as a woman and a lesbian you know discrimination first hand, and that does make you an activist for higher causes which would make you an ideal union member.Most union members are not activists and most are along for the ride, I have seen this first hand and know of what you speak. True union members believe in a higher ideal for all workers, not just the members of their local. With that, we have to remember that we can not group all unions together in one melting pot. The public unions are not the same as the trade unions. The public unions are the ones who get the most press because they are usually aligned with the government in some respect.
I accept your opinion Sugar and will not take to calling you out.
The union supports candidates that are the most "human friendly", meaning that their party speaks for the working people and do not have not a pro-business stance. The issue is striking a balance between the two. As you have stated with West Jet, the management of the company was accepting of the association that negotiated on the workers behalf. That is the work the union does for it`s members. You were lucky to have worked in such an environment and have to thank the unions for this co-operation. Without the blood shed by those who believed in a higher ideal, this would have never have come to pass. As a journalism student, I suggest you study the deaths of those who died while trying to form a Union at the Ford plant back in the thirties. True activism in it`s purest form and ideal. Those who were killed supported a higher ideal and made possible all of the benefits all workers in every occupation enjoy today.
In everything there has to be a balance.
You have stood up to the criticisms thrown at you in this thread with aplomb and to that I salute you. Every person is entitled to their opinion and you have stated your admirably .You have to accept, however, that the working class is under attack in both Canada and the U.S. by the governments and big business. How else do you explain a 70% drop in union participation over the last 30 years. Business abhors organized labour because it cuts into profits. Business and governments conspire to allow tax loopholes that allow corporations to pay minimal taxes. Those with the money hold the power and they don`t like to be challenged by people who are organized against them.
God bless those who are willing to stand up for fairness in work and in life. God bless those who are out of favour because they belong to a union and may God bless those who fight against the tyranny of profits over humanism and fair wealth distribution.
Unions have their place and that place is on the scales of fairness and equality for all workers in this totally fucked up world. Like I stated earlier, balance.