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!andrews
From: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Spot the difference
Message-ID: <135@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Jan-86 15:09:25 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.135
Posted: Wed Jan  8 15:09:25 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 21:41:13 EST
References: <130@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2247@hcrvx2.UUCP> <1021@lsuc.UUCP> <2872@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews)
Distribution: can
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 43
Keywords: company, union, inflammatory, capitalist, socialist, Jaruzelski
Summary: 

In article <2872@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes:
> [re jimomura's article]
>There is a huge difference: what happens if, in the industrial
>sector you are working in, there is only one union?  If you don't like
>who the plumbers union is donating *your* money to, the only option 
>available may be to quit, and thereby lose the ability to support your 
>family....                                              ... how would
>you like it if your professional dues (via executive fiat, or even
>open vote) went to an organization (think about neo-nazis for a moment...

     Boy, comparing the NDP (which is what we're talking about after all) to
neo-nazis sounds like Rick McGeer comparing Dave Barrett to Jaruzelski!!
     I think the analogy still holds.  If you come from good old prairie
socialist stock and you just happen to be an oil industry executive because
that's what turns you on, well I'm sorry, but you'll be hard put to find an oil
company that doesn't have financial or political ties to the Grits or the
Tories.  You'll just have to find another profession if you *really* object
*so much* to having them donate profits to those parties.  The same goes for
most any other company you could easily fit into.
     And what's all this about considering the money the company makes as
theirs and the money the union makes as not theirs?  The only difference seems
to be that the union is non-profit.  In fact the worker has *more* control over
the way his union spends his money because he *elects* the union officials.
     Those who have heard me talk about unions know that I am in favour of all
companies being worker-owned cooperatives, in which the workers elect the
company officials.  (No you CRD's out there, I'm not talking about communism,
since I would like all the companies to be as independant as possible.)  As
long as there is a split between the company and the union, the executives'
interest and the workers' interest, both sides have a vested interest in
maintaining the split, because they feel that there is a chance that they will
be able to gyp the other side, to their advantage.
     But until the day that the cooperative company is the norm, we must
consider the company and the union as equal-status elements in the life of the
worker.  Closed-shop companies must be maintained to ensure that the union is
strong enough to represent its members.  Unions must operate on the will of
the majority.  I'm not saying that all union people are angels and saints
(otherwise I wouldn't support cooperatives).  I'm just saying that if unions
are to be at all effective in their conflicts with companies, they must be as
free as the companies are to play politics.

--Jamie.
...!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"The winter evening settles down with smells of steaks in passageways"