Union Question- a business within a business that is publicly owned? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Union Question- a business within a business that is publicly owned?

-D-

-D-

Banned
I was just wondering how Unions were allowed to form within tax payer services.
Meaning, we the tax payers elect officials and services are created for the common interest of the citizens.
These services are paid by taxes. They were hired by the elected officials and the bureaucracy setup to manage the business.

This just seems to be an obvious conflict of interest and possible violation of some unknown laws (to me).

What I don't understand is how another private business was formed using the members that are paid by our taxes allowing them to dictate terms and even decline services to the tax payers (already paid for)?

example - TTC goes on strike. Police work to rule, Teachers go on strike or work to rule, Sanitation stops collecting garbage, etc...
How does one get hired and agrees to the terms then somehow is part of an inside business that can alter the terms at anytime?
The tax payers did not agree to the union business department?

*not attacking any unions, just wondering.
 
Last edited:
-D- said:
I
How does one get hired and agrees to the terms then somehow is part of an inside business that can alter the terms at anytime?
The tax payers did not agree to the union business department?

*not attacking any unions, just wondering.
Click to expand...

All union employees are hired under a contract called a collective labour agreement ,, both parties must abide by the clauses in the CLA as both parties agreed to the terms when it was written
when one decides to deviate and break the terms ,, legal processes come into play to rectify the issue ,,, from a single comment ,, to a demanding letter, to the strike or lock out process,,, public never hears about issues till it escalates to strike pending ,, a lot of issues are resolved thru the union process protecting both the employer and the employees in very early stages of the process
 
-D- said:
I was just wondering how Unions were allowed to form within tax payer services.

*not attacking any unions, just wondering.
Click to expand...

I don't have or haven't thought of an answer for your quiz but staying with the not attacking just wondering format, it appears to me that the taxpayer is the employer and the workers/work are/is managed by other people on the taxpayers/employers behalf. Moving beyond the bloody obvious I'd like to know about the conflicts of interest associated with somebody else negotiating contracts on my behalf. I think it stinks.
 
Not only do we let them negotiate , we pick up the tab for pizza at dinner and sometimes the hotel rooms because those negotiations can be expensive.
 
Unions don't alter rules at any time. They bargain collectively. They sign contract with employer.

Strikes happen when contract is expired.

Working to rule is working to the letter of the contract, with no extras.

And a union isn't a business. It's a labour union.
 
Not only that but we also pick up the tab for health care costs associated with pizza and whatever happens in hotel rooms. I'm not seeing an up side.
 
kellen said:
And a union isn't a business. It's a labour union.
Click to expand...

Isn't that like saying a political party isn't a business but just like unions it's always business as usual.
 
Although I understand the optics get a little blurred when public services become unionized (as most are), but it's no different than a private business being unionized in the end...and there's been several factual replies above on how that works in the end.

Basically, the public services operate as businesses and the unions operate the same there as they would in any other unionized business.
 
kellen said:
Unions don't alter rules at any time. They bargain collectively. They sign contract with employer.

Strikes happen when contract is expired.

Working to rule is working to the letter of the contract, with no extras.

And a union isn't a business. It's a labour union.
Click to expand...

more like a racket
 
kellen said:
How so?
Click to expand...

they are supposedly there to protect the workers, yet reps continue to try and corner people in order to have a person on the inside when they try to turn a company and before a vote, often offering cash and other incentives if you are willing to be that person, and that's not hear say or speculation, that's personal experience.
the idea of a union being there to protect a worker is great, and if that would have been their true purpose i'd be the first to join
 
mbroyda said:
they are supposedly there to protect the workers, yet reps continue to try and corner people in order to have a person on the inside when they try to turn a company and before a vote, often offering cash and other incentives if you are willing to be that person, and that's not hear say or speculation, that's personal experience.
the idea of a union being there to protect a worker is great, and if that would have been their true purpose i'd be the first to join
Click to expand...

I have personal experience of using a union when I was told I couldn't work another job alongside my other part time one when it was plainly evident there was no conflict of interest. They came through for me when otherwise I would have had to toe the party line and be left with less cash. Now I work on that union (volunteer, to pay it back) and see things like this all the time. It really depends on how the union operates. Some might not be in many people's interests but others are a necessary requirement if a company or organization acts like a big bully. The alternative would be being pushed around by a company with no recourse to any really effective complaints procedure. In an ideal world you'd hope that companies would treat everyone fairly and with respect and we wouldn't need unions but that isn't often so, which is why we have unions.
 
mbroyda said:
they are supposedly there to protect the workers, yet reps continue to try and corner people in order to have a person on the inside when they try to turn a company and before a vote, often offering cash and other incentives if you are willing to be that person, and that's not hear say or speculation, that's personal experience.
the idea of a union being there to protect a worker is great, and if that would have been their true purpose i'd be the first to join
Click to expand...
Offering someone financial incentives to do a job is a racket?
 
-D- said:
I was just wondering how Unions were allowed to form within tax payer services.
Meaning, we the tax payers elect officials and services are created for the common interest of the citizens.
These services are paid by taxes. They were hired by the elected officials and the bureaucracy setup to manage the business.

This just seems to be an obvious conflict of interest and possible violation of some unknown laws (to me).
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_labour_law

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/T-14/
 
jc100 said:
I have personal experience of using a union when I was told I couldn't work another job alongside my other part time one when it was plainly evident there was no conflict of interest. They came through for me when otherwise I would have had to toe the party line and be left with less cash. Now I work on that union (volunteer, to pay it back) and see things like this all the time. It really depends on how the union operates. Some might not be in many people's interests but others are a necessary requirement if a company or organization acts like a big bully. The alternative would be being pushed around by a company with no recourse to any really effective complaints procedure. In an ideal world you'd hope that companies would treat everyone fairly and with respect and we wouldn't need unions but that isn't often so, which is why we have unions.
Click to expand...

I would hope they give something back to their members for the money they collect, I didnt say they dont do anything for their member, I just said they are in fact out there to make money (business) and they dont always go about it in an honourable way. I agree with you that workers need to be protected, and that the idea of a union is a noble one
 
kellen said:
Offering someone financial incentives to do a job is a racket?
Click to expand...

the definition of racketeering is "dishonest and fraudulent business dealings", trying to persuade someone to make a difference in a union vote with a cash payment (tax free) is technically fraud, I don't see it as payment or an incentive for honest work
 
mbroyda said:
the definition of racketeering is "dishonest and fraudulent business dealings", trying to persuade someone to make a difference in a union vote with a cash payment (tax free) is technically fraud, I don't see it as payment or an incentive for honest work
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I have worked in unions in my adult life and have never seen that or heard of anything like that. Not saying it hasn't or doesn't happen but I do not believe it's widespread.
 
Our union has a reserve fund for strike action, we don't make money and no one gets paid much out of any position (if they get paid at all). The strike fund is required because if it's too low the organization will know they can wait out any action and force employees back to work once funds dry up. Luckily we haven't had to use it for a long long time. I know not all unions are like this though.
 
kellen said:
Fair enough. I have worked in unions in my adult life and have never seen that or heard of anything like that. Not saying it hasn't or doesn't happen but I do not believe it's widespread.
Click to expand...

Its more common in certain industries, i'm not saying they are all money hungry and corrupt, i'm sure a lot of reps are in it for the right reasons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom