🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <311EA952.5480@bcu.ubc.ca>, kyba@bcu.ubc.ca says...
>
>the jen thing wrote:
>
>> Right to work is nothing more than a definition of the right
>> to freeload.
>
>The concept of the Right to Work follows naturally from the basic
>right of freedom of association and from the right to private
>ownership.

The concept of right to work is nothing but union busting, pure
and simple.  You lay the complete responsibility for the existence
of a collective agreement at the feet of the union - I got news for
you.  The employer signed that contract too.  That's right - it is 
a legally binding contract, and the employer you want to work for
so badly is legally committed to the rules of collective bargaining,
the terms and conditions of the agreement and the regs. of the 
particular labour board.  It is a contract - there are two legal
parties to the contract - the employer and the certified bargaining
agent for the employees' union. 

There are costs involved in negotiations and in administering an
agreement.  Without a certain amount of financial support, the contract
cannot be administered properly and the employees will not be able
to have the conditions of their contract adhered to.  Grievance
procedures are available to all those governed under the contract.
That means, that member or not, you receive the pay rates, benefits,
etc., recourse to grievance, and so on.  In the RTW states in the US
workers who don't pay dues are still entitled under law to access
the provisions of the collective agreement - hence the term free rider.

>
>It consists of this:  My labour is mine.  I decide whom to sell it
>to, and under what conditions.  If I do not like the conditions, I
>am not obliged to sell my labour.  If my conditions offend a third
>party, the third party does not have the right to prevent me from
>selling my labour.  I do not have to join somebody's club in order
>to sell my labour.

Your employer, the person you want to sell you labour to, has, prior to your
arrival on the scene signed a contract with the employees he already has. 
If you are not willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the collective
agreement the employer signed - then why would you want to work for that
employer?

When you talk about selling your labour and being prevented from doing so,
you are again talking as if a collective agreement that involves the employer
doesn't exist.  It does.  No, you don't HAVE to join the club - but if you
insist on using the club's facilities you will be expected to pay a facility fee.

>
>>  There are a number of different types of shops and
>> there are very few closed shops any longer
>
>Hello.  This is B.C.  Check the title of the thread.

Oh don't be such a snot.  If you want to talk about RTW which is what I
have been discussing, then it is something that can be discussed in
both principle and specifics.  You brought up RTW - not me.  I am 
responding to your comments.
>
>> Clearly the Rand decision and the recent RTW report completed
>> in Alberta state that people derive benefits from being
>> covered under a collective agreement and if benefit is received,
>> individuals are required to contribute to the maintenance of the
>> agreement and its administration.
>
>This makes a mockery of freedom of association.  I can't believe
>that I hear Canadians defending it.  This is the very same
>argument that the Nazis used to force members of professions to
>become party members.  It was wrong then, not because the N.S.
>party was a bad one to belong to, but because of the inherent
>human right to freedom of association.

No, what it makes a mockery of is the continual yelping by individuals
that they want to pay their own way - but when they clearly derive 
benefit - they don't actually want a user pay system - they want an
"anybody but me" pay system.

Oh... big bad boogey man Nazi stuff again.  Scarey stuff - not like 
unions are supported internationally by the US as the very first 
step in getting democratic activity going in totalitarian nations.

I will not make the claim that all unions have spotless reputations - nor will
I accept the claim that all employers are great guys, all politicians are 
honest, or that this _____________________ is eight inches.

If you don't like the way your union is being run then do something about it.
Get it changed.  If you can persuade other members, then do so.  Try to
get it decertified.  If you can't you will have to accept the will of the
majority, pay your dues and accept your benefits.

You seemed awfully upset that the students in Toronto mashed up
the leg.  You seemed to support the rule of democracy over the
overthrow of democratically elected by even anyone.

Why is it you don't accept union organization as the supreme court does,
who have said that workplace democracy (unions) and the membership and
dues provisions are no different in principle than our Canadian democracy 
and the principle of universal taxation.
>
>> If they don't like the union's policies, they are always free to
>> run for elected office and change the union policies.
>
>If you are not free to 'not join' then you are not free.

Can't be bothered, eh?  Or just don't think you can win on
promoting your ideas to your fellow workers?