Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mprvaxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!garfield!ubc-vision!mprvaxa!acton
From: acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (Don Acton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Unions, CRDs...
Message-ID: <682@mprvaxa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 20:48:45 EST
Article-I.D.: mprvaxa.682
Posted: Mon Jan 13 20:48:45 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jan-86 04:51:28 EST
References: <137@ubc-cs.UUCP> <756@watmath.UUCP> <139@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (Don Acton)
Distribution: can
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 52
Summary: 


In article <139@ubc-cs.UUCP> morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) writes:
>BT>A union that exists only through force is a sham.  A union that couldn't
>  >keep its members on its own merits doesn't deserve to be a union at all.
>
>One could make the same argument against mandatory payment (taxes)
>for any of the many social services (UI, property 
>tax for education, fire and police protection), vehicle insurance...

Although one can make the same argument for these services, Brad 
proposed a test to determine it something should exist and it appears it 
is by this test that unions might fail. With respect to taxes the test would 
be "how many people would be willing to continue to support the services?"
Most people seem to be fairly reasonable and capable of judging the 
benefits of a service and tend to look toward the common good. I can think
of two plebiscites to support this theory. One was to increase taxes to build
the new Cambie street bridge here in Vancouver and another was to increase
taxes to build a "better sewage plant" in a community on Vancouver Island.
Obviously there are some people who benefit more from these projects than
others and if they were the only ones that supported the projects then 
they would never get general approval. However, in both cases large
majorities approved of the expenditures thus indicating that people were
at least thinking about their fellow citizens. I think this same concern
would hold for schools, fire and police protection. UI and vehicle insurance
are another matter and might not have the same type of support as these other
services. Likewise for unions, some would stay some would disappear. 
Just because governments don't justify their actions doesn't mean 
unions should be like governments. If we ran our day to day lives using 
same principles as our government currently uses then we would all be a 
acting like a bunch of scatter brained nitwits.

>The law (enacted by our elected officials) allows a union to collect
>dues from all individuals who stand to gain from its efforts.
>The argument that they should be able to collect dues based on their
>own merits is about as plausible as suggesting that contributions to
>OAP, UI, etc., should be based on the merits of these programs.

To me this makes perfect sense and I think contributions to these 
programs (OAP, UI) should be voluntary. With respect to OAP I think 
I can do a better job of managing a pension fund than the government. 
The problem, however, is what to do with the people who would opt out 
of OAP and use the money for something other than a pension fund. (Not 
having a pay statment handy it may actually be Canada pension that has
the forced payments.) As far as UI is concerned it was suppose to 
be an insurance plan so it should be optional. Some people are in 
positions where they aren't likely to become unemployed or have incomes
too large to allow them to collect. Insurance is suppose to protect 
you against the risk of something unfortunate happening, if that risk 
is small why be forced to have insurance. After all you don't force
people in Manitoba to buy earthquake insurance. 

Donald Acton