Thursday, May 22, 2014

Unions No Longer Act Like Champions Of Democracy, More Like Dictators Of The Ontario Liberal Party



I've been a proud union member since 1979, helping the then CAW to organize the Lada Cars parts plant in Ajax becoming certified. I was the highest seniority union member there, until it's closure in 1986. Since that time in 1979, when I first became a union member, I've proudly stated "I'm in the union". I've been through a few strikes, served my time on the picket lines. I've acted as alternate rep. At Lada I was the health and safety rep. I've taken Chrysler through the ministry of labour more than once over health and safety issues, fighting not just for myself but also my co-workers.  I stood up to the company, the ministry of labour, and my own union when they tried to get workers back on the line knowing full well a dangerous and unsafe condition still existed. Through it all I've been loyal. I've been the vocal guy willing to speak up when others were afraid.

 But the union as I know, it, or should say knew it, has undergone a transformation that makes me ill. Through the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's unions political activities have been directed at what's best for the membership, the brothers and sisters, the ones doing the hard labour on the lines. But that's all changed. The upper echelons of the unions are now infested with people willing to give away their ethics and integrity fighting right-wing political parties for reasons far-away from reality or fact. They embrace parties embroiled in scandal, corruption, and cronyism never seen before. They damage the reputation of every dues paying member, not on facts, but on hate and misleading talking points.

 Unions used to be the embodiment of democracy. Majority votes used to make decisions, but everyones views were accepted and respected. No more. Big unions have become beholden to corrupt governments, corrupt politicians, and corrupt policies, and have done so without a passing glance to democracy they once championed. The perfect example of this is the Unifor (formerly CAW) facilities in Port Elgin.  Despite widespread opposition to construction of a wind turbine, the union plowed ahead, ignoring the voices of residents, the fact property values would decrease for many longtime residents. They went ahead knowing the government they worshipped had removed any environmental protections away from property, wildlife, and most importantly, the men, women and children who live in the area. They did so knowing a democratically elected municipal council had voted against a wind turbine.

 Sadly, the union that I always hailed as a fighter for democracy as sold it's soul, giving into it's own greed and thirst for power. Who cares if facts get in the way? Not dictators, which sadly is now the reality of what most union leaders have become in the province of Ontario.

Full story HERE

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/2652178046001

email: paulsblues45@hotmail.com
on twitter: @PaulinAjax 

7 comments:

tao_taier said...

"No more. Big unions have become beholden to corrupt governments, corrupt politicians, and corrupt policies, and have done so without a passing glance to democracy they once championed."

And they've hurt themselves the most for it it in the long run.

They think too much in dollars and cents or benefits in the here and now, but don't understand that the value of their money will drop regardless of how much more they will earn.
Buying power of your currency plays a large role in what goods your economy can get access to or what you can afford to buy.

They can too hung up on themselves and not see the broader picture in which we can all benefit from each others mutual economic exchanges.
The freedom to choose from different goods or services helps lower prices and keep competition healthy & new.
They are stuck in a monopolistic mentality that is neither good for workers, customers or the businesses/governments that employ them.
Once they see past this and discover the old "Lesson Of The Pencil" by Leonard e. Read, and explained well in brief by Milton Friedman off youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

tao_taier said...

I wanted to reiterate a few points since I keep hearing how a wage freeze on government workers will "hurt" the private economy... the entire opposite is true.

That money would be kept where it is best needed in the private sector from whence it originated.
A lower cost of living should be the desired want of workers. You can only be payed so much for the at the same job for so long before either needing a promotion to justify your pay or a better job elsewhere more suited to your skill set.
Lower production costs and less red tape means more affordable goods for the consumer of a given product or service.

A ballpoint pen used to be a luxury when they were first introduced, now anyone can afford one. The drop in production cost to Air Conditioners from their initial pricing is a good example.

tao_taier said...

Government spending and workers need to understand that their pay contributes to inflation, which is the hidden expense/cost/tax on EVERYTHING. That is money that otherwise doesn't need to be in circulation.

As M.Friedman would suggest; Let's take it to the extreme for a moment, lets give government workers ALL the money or the highest wages than any private business could pay... What would be the result?

Many things they would hope to spend that money on would be limited to only them or cease to exist in the region altogether. It would have to be imported and at a higher cost given the now limited market for those left who could afford it. This isn't the fault of free trade by any means, and in fact those goods would cost more without it.

What worker would or even could work and live in such an environment that gives so much to government but returns so little compared to private equivalents & competition?

Temporary concessions for long term gains means what dollars they get can be stretched alot further with more buying power gain through cheaper costs to make/sell products or services. Rather than those extra bucks going to a redundant monopoly, that in most if not all cases could be done by private businesses or the self employed.

Midwives who I would argue are more capable than doctors at delivering babies outside of rare emergency situations, should be allowed to open their own practices to shrink the enormously growing demand of their skills.
They should have to work under someone else's thumb for the sake of patronage.

Raw talent and hard work should be determined by the markets of choice, and not government
favored practices or appointees.
(for that matter, my wife and I had a home birth with our 1st and will again with our 2nd.)
Midwifery & Home births save the province lots of money in public healthcare costs, though more birthing centre's are needed for clients who lack the space, conditions or need easy access to immediate medical facilitation in case of complications.

Which too could be eventually sold to or created for/by the private sector.

tao_taier said...

I meant to say "indirectly contributes to inflation", continuously over spending lends itself to over borrowing or over printing, etc.

Got a bit lax on how I phrased things.

tao_taier said...

I really typo'd sever sentences but the following was the most egregious mistypes and require clarifications:

"Midwives who I would argue are more capable than doctors at delivering babies outside of rare emergency situations, should be allowed to open their own practices to [address] the enormously growing demand of their skills.
They should[n't[!]] have to work under someone else's thumb for the sake of patronage. "

Can't believe I made such a mess of that. I never proofread anymore, like I once did & should.

tao_taier said...

My comment clarifying my more egregious mistypes did not post.

"Midwives who I would argue are more capable than doctors at delivering babies outside of rare emergency situations, should be allowed to open their own practices to [address] the enormously growing demand of their skills.
They should[n't] have to work under someone else's thumb for the sake of [government (or political)] patronage."

tao_taier said...

"[...], should be allowed to open their own practices to [address] the enormously growing demand of their skills.
They should[n't] have to work under someone else's thumb for the sake of [political or governmental]patronage."

^Just for clarification from mistypes.