🚀 go-pugleaf

Mcallister  Brian Francis (mcallis@uwindsor.ca) wrote:
>>If you are not free to 'not join' then you are not free.

>You are free not to join.  You are not free not to pay.

>>In B.C. many workers, including me, are not free.

>You are much more free than shareholders.  I've always wondered why union 
>dues are unfair to workers, but corporate monies spent outside the 
>company are not unfair to shareholders.  After all what's good for the 
>goose...Of course you are free not to buy the stock, but that's kind of 
>analogous to not working in a union shop.

99% of the working age population *must* work to earn a living. On the
other hand, direct ownership of shares is a purely *voluntary* choice. A 
person does not lose her home if she does not wish to buy shares. A person
with a mortgage will lose her home if she is without work for an extended
period. 

So, Joe Worker loses his home and goes on welfare if he can't abide by how
his union dues are spent, whereas Nancy Exshareholder loses 1/2 percentage
point by putting her investment money in long term Canada bonds instead of
stocks.  Seems to me that the two situations are not comparable.

FWIW, I, personally, do think union dues should only be spent on directly
related union activities. However, unions are democratic enough that if
sufficient numbers of members get upset about how union dues are being
spent then they are free to vote in people who will spend their money in a
manner more to their liking. So, it's a moot issue to me.

--
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com