Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!garfield!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!acton
From: acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Spot the difference
Message-ID: <132@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Jan-86 22:36:08 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.132
Posted: Sat Jan  4 22:36:08 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 00:41:52 EST
References: <130@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton)
Distribution: can
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 62
Keywords: company, union, inflammatory, capitalist
Summary: 

Somehow I think that Jamie wrote his article for me :-)


In article <130@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>     Consider the following two statements.
>
>- A worker helps his company make profits.  If he really doesn't like the way
>  the company is using those profits (e.g. which political parties it is
>  supporting with them), he can and should quit his job.

>- A worker helps his union make profits.  If he really doesn't like the way
>  the union is using those profits (e.g. which political parties it is
>  supporting with them), he can and should quit his job.
>                                                     ^
                                                      | union
I think the word job should be changed to union, but that is the whole point,
that one can't quit the union (or quit paying to it) unless he quits his job.
If one doesn't like his company then he can quit or possible buy shares in the 
company and influence it that way. Likewise the worker could become actively
involved in the union and try to influence it that way, if he could stand the 
pressure that some of these unions might exert upon him for objecting to the 
the "correct way of thinking". 

According to the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" section 2.d
everyone has the fundamental right of freedom of association. Although it 
doesn't state it this would imply to me that one also has the freedom not
to associate. Section 6.2.b of the Charter says that a person has the right
to pursue "the gaining of a livelihood in any province." If one has to join
a union, against ones wishes, to gain employment in their chosen field then 
there seems to be a conflict between these two sections of the Charter. If
the person selects to exercise right 6.2.b then they are being denied right 
2.d and if they exercise that right then they are being denied the right to 
pursue their livelihood. However, if they didn't have to join the union
(or implicitly support the union by paying dues) then this conflict would 
not arise. 

It seems to me that Jamie's article is partly prompted by some of the
publicity concerning two people, one here in BC and one in Ontario, who
are challenging the union practice of supporting directly or indirectly 
political parties. Art Kube, head of the BC Federation of Labour, is 
quite upset over these challenges to unions and doesn't view the individuals
involved in a very charitable light. Art suggested that the rights of 
unions far exceeded the rights of an individual in this case.  I disagree 
and think that unions should constantly have to demonstrate, by signing up 
members, that they are serving a useful purpose. If they force people to 
support them then like any organization they become an entity unto themselves
and forget what they are really there for. 

So far I have only addressed unions but what about companies? Why should
companies be allowed to make contributions to political parties and 
what purpose does it serve? I have heard it said that companies make 
contributions because they believe political parties need money to be able
to properly express their viewpoints. I tend to be more cynical and think that
it has more to do with keeping in the party's good books for possible 
future favours. Or maybe they just use it as a tax write off. If the latter 
is the case then maybe they should just make a contribution to general 
revenues providing they could get the same tax benefits. 

I wouldn't cry too much if both unions and companies weren't allowed to 
make political contributions. 

  Donald Acton