Unions Will Have To Get In Line Like The Rest Of Us

Proposed union finances bill passes constitutional muster, ex-Supreme Court justice says

 

 

BY TYLER DAWSON, POSTMEDIA NEWS JUNE 5, 2013

 

 

• STORY
• PHOTOS ( 1 )

 

 

A proposed bill would require all labour unions to provide the Canada Revenue Agency with financial information. That includes spending on education and training, and the percentage of time union employees spend on political activities. Some observers say the Supreme Court of Canada should test the constitutionality of the law.

Photograph by: The Canadian Press , Postmedia News

OTTAWA – A controversial private member’s bill that would require unions to reveal staff salaries, operating expenses and political activities to the Canada Revenue Agency doesn’t run afoul of the Constitution, says a former Supreme Court justice.

Michel Bastarache, who retired from the Supreme Court in 2008, wrote that “if Bill C-377 is enacted into law, it would likely be upheld by the courts as a valid enactment of (the) federal Parliament’s power over taxation.”

That view from a respected senior jurist will dismay opponents of the bill, who have argued it is invasive of privacy and would be costly to carry out. Bastarache’s view is not shared by all legal experts.

What financial information a union should disclose might be a perfectly legitimate debate, said Osgoode Hall Law School Prof. Bruce Ryder, but the reality is “most of this law falls under provincial jurisdiction.”

The bill would require that all labour unions provide the Canada Revenue Agency with financial information. That includes spending on education and training, and the percentage of time union employees spend on political activities.

Merit Canada, an organization that advocates for a union-free construction industry, commissioned Bastarache’s opinion. No one from Merit Canada could be reached for comment Wednesday.

Bob Linton, director of legislative affairs for the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, said the big concern is the added expense of this system, as unions will need to collect and report this information, and the Canada Revenue Agency will need staff to monitor information and enforce the new provisions.

The Canadian Labour Congress, which will testify before the Senate on the bill, is also concerned about the level of personal information that would be disclosed. In a brief, CLC president Ken Georgetti said it would require disclosure of all transactions over $5,000, which, for example, could include personal information about a union member who is receiving money under a health plan for a prescription.

Ryder, the law school professor, said the proposed legislation, introduced by Conservative MP Russ Hiebert, is a “labour bill dressed up as a tax bill,” which Ryder predicted could lead to an expensive battle in the courts.

Provincial governments have the bulk of the responsibility over labour law, and the federal government has power over taxation law. It is this distinction – and, ultimately, which sort of law Bill C-377 actually is – that raises the question of constitutionality.

In a legal opinion released Wednesday, Bastarache wrote that as long as the motive of expense disclosure is “rationally and functionally connected” to an area of federal jurisdiction — that is, income tax law — then it is constitutional.

Bastarache wrote that the link between the Income Tax Act and this legislation is that there are tax benefits accorded to labour unions.

“In exchange for these benefits, it appears, the new section (of the Income Tax Act) would make public certain financial operations of these organizations,” he wrote.

However, Ryder disputed this assessment, saying there isn’t a rational connection between expense disclosure and income tax, and that Bastarache cites no examples of “benefits” or provisions under the act.

“The amount of information that needs to be disclosed is quite extraordinary, and how that has any connection to the goals of the income tax act is completely obscure,” he said. “The bill comes as (a) transparency and accountability measure for unions.”

Ryder proposed that, in light of the constitutional questions, the government should refer the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada, to determine whether or not it is constitutional.

Hiebert, the MP who introduced the bill, said the connection to the Income Tax Act lies in benefits received by unions.

“I modelled my legislation after the existing clauses within the Income Tax Act that deal with disclosure,” he said. “Union members receive benefits, unions themselves operate tax free and strike pay is also deemed tax free.”

He said that charities, for example, are already required to disclose finances. This is no different, he said.

Labour(Union) Issues In Saskatchewan

With the review that currently is ongoing in Saskatchewan and the whole labour movement uproar, I thought I would re-post my common sense approach to the union problems in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, unions of course will hate this but it better represents the workers, saving families upwards of $4,000/year in union dues.


At any length this is my proposal in a nutshell;

I have suggested that the government bring in Right To Work Legislation. This would not be quite what they have in some States, it goes further to protect the worker than their legislations do. As part of this Right To Work Legislation each worker hired within a union environment will have the right to join union or not. The worker, if so wishing not to join the union, would then become part of a fund or pool that holds a labour relations firm on retainer for when their collective bargaining agreement is about to expire.

In the legislation, when the collective agreement is one year from expiring it would mandate that both sides get to the table. Your lawyers would sit down with the employer for up to 6 months to try to bring about an agreement fair to both sides. If no agreement is in place at the end of six months then a mediator would come in and try for 3 months to get a deal in place. After three months and still no agreement then a move to binding arbitration with an arbitrator brought in from outside the province and who is acceptable to both sides. A deal would be in place by the end of the contract and the he said/she said political games would be taken out of the equation. There would be no strike actions taken as contracts would be done before any labour agreement ends, which further brings down the whole ability to play political game by both labour and employer.

Now you may say how is that fair to workers? Well they get the same protection that they currently have under unions but without the huge expense and games unions play. Many union members are charged well over $1000/year(some over 2,000) in union dues with no choice on how the unions leadership spend the money. Under this particular Right To Work legislation you could cut those union dues from over $1000 to maybe less than $100/year. Imagine what this change would do for the families? Having an extra $1000 in your pocket each year is nothing to sniff at, you can use it for what ever you see fit.

With this approach, you would not have the hard feelings between employer and employees as you know the process will be the same each and every time your contract comes due. The lawyers and employer will work together to make sure any agreement is fair and will ensure the growth of the company or if government make government more streamlined and sustainable.

Unions of course would fight this tooth and nail saying that labour cannot be represented nearly as well by a firm and to this I would answer that lawyers are trained to negotiate, this is what they do when it comes to labour relations. They are more likely to come to an agreement without all the background noise that union leadership puts out before and during negotiations. If the union leadership is really looking out for their members then they should have no problem with them choosing this path and keeping $1000 in their pocket on a yearly basis? The worker can then choose how they spend their money, not like how it is today under the unions where there is no vote for advertising, political contributions or the like.

We have to look at the role unions play in today's society, are they really needed any longer? We have labour relations boards, workers compensation boards and more. These boards do what the unions claim they do for the average person in the workplace, so why have the redundancy? The unions have served their purpose in the past, but in order to build an economic powerhouse where labour and employer have the same goals, we must leave the unions in the past. It is a whole new world out there and we must be able to compete on a global scale and I feel this is a step in the right direction.

There is no doubt that unions hold back our ability to compete, they protect the weak workers, those with no work ethic and hold back the ones who are hard working and would ultimately rise to the top in any other system. With this Right To Work Legislation our economic output would see a tremendous increase because the best people will rise to the top thereby creating an environment where people know that they need to work in order to succeed and therefor production would increase dramatically.

Far too long union has held us back, it is 2012 and it's time for change, let's change our labour legislation to better protect the worker and create a society more in tune with the ever changing global economic landscape. But first things first, we must be willing to talk to friends and family about this, without that grassroots movement things don't change. If you agree with my thoughts do not be afraid to write your MLA, your MP, the Premier and even the Prime Minister, this is how change starts.

This plan of course would need a lot of legal polish but it is a framework that could take us through to the next century in my opinion. Why is it that labour and business must butt heads are we not more civilized than that?

An example of this approach is say CUPE....29,000 members, each of them paying at least $1000/year union dues. That is $29,000,000/year revenue for the big business....I mean union, taken over 4 years equals $116,000,000!!! This total is probably very conservative as I know many CUPE members pay much more than $1,000/year.


Now to have a law firm under retainer may cost ten grand or so, and then in the 3rd year of bargaining maybe costs of $300,000 more or less. Total four year commitment is $330,000.

SAVINGS is $115,670,000 All of this money back into the pockets of the working men and women. Money better spent by them, how they want and not by some union figure head playing political games! Common sense says that the workers would be farther ahead with the money in their pockets

Common Sense Solution To Our Union Problems

I have taken time to think about how I would approach this topic. I know being a non believer in unions does not sit too well with the mainstream media but I believe our society is ready for a new approach to labour relations and thus now is the time to roll out my idea.

I have sent a letter to Premier Brad Wall, who then sent it on to Minister of Labour Don Morgan, I received a reply from Mr. Wall before Christmas and now I just received Don Morgan's response. In his response to me, Mr Morgan stated that he is sending it off to the Ministry Of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety for further analysis. Where this will end up is anyone's guess, it may get tied up in the house of bureaucracy, or who knows, something may come of it.

At any length this is my proposal in a nutshell;

I have suggested that the government bring in Right To Work Legislation. This would not be quite what they have in some States, it goes further to protect the worker than their legislations do. As part of this Right To Work Legislation each worker hired within a union environment will have the right to join union or not. The worker, if so wishing not to join the union, would then become part of a fund or pool that holds a labour relations firm on retainer for when their collective bargaining agreement is about to expire.

In the legislation, when the collective agreement is one year from expiring it would mandate that both sides get to the table. Your lawyers would sit down with the employer for up to 6 months to try to bring about an agreement fair to both sides. If no agreement is in place at the end of six months then a mediator would come in and try for 3 months to get a deal in place. After three months and still no agreement then a move to binding arbitration with an arbitrator brought in from outside the province and who is acceptable to both sides. A deal would be in place by the end of the contract and the he said/she said political games would be taken out of the equation. There would be no strike actions taken as contracts would be done before any labour agreement ends, which further brings down the whole ability to play political game by both labour and employer.

Now you may say how is that fair to workers? Well they get the same protection that they currently have under unions but without the huge expense and games unions play. Many union members are charged well over $1000/year in union dues with no choice on how the unions leadership spend the money. Under this particular Right To Work legislation you could cut those union dues from over $1000 to maybe less than $100/year. Imagine what this change would do for the families? Having an extra $1000 in your pocket each year is nothing to sniff at, you can use it for what ever you see fit.

With this approach, you would not have the hard feelings between employer and employees as you know the process will be the same each and every time your contract comes due. The lawyers and employer will work together to make sure any agreement is fair and will ensure the growth of the company or if government make government more streamlined and sustainable.

Unions of course would fight this tooth and nail saying that labour cannot be represented nearly as well by a firm and to this I would answer that lawyers are trained to negotiate, this is what they do when it comes to labour relations. They are more likely to come to an agreement without all the background noise that union leadership puts out before and during negotiations. If the union leadership is really looking out for their members then they should have no problem with them choosing this path and keeping $1000 in their pocket on a yearly basis? The worker can then choose how they spend their money, not like how it is today under the unions where there is no vote for advertising, political contributions or the like.

We have to look at the role unions play in today's society, are they really needed any longer? We have labour relations boards, workers compensation boards and more. These boards do what the unions claim they do for the average person in the workplace, so why have the redundancy? The unions have served their purpose in the past, but in order to build an economic powerhouse where labour and employer have the same goals, we must leave the unions in the past. It is a whole new world out there and we must be able to compete on a global scale and I feel this is a step in the right direction.

There is no doubt that unions hold back our ability to compete, they protect the weak workers, those with no work ethic and hold back the ones who are hard working and would ultimately rise to the top in any other system. With this Right To Work Legislation our economic output would see a tremendous increase because the best people will rise to the top thereby creating an environment where people know that they need to work in order to succeed and therefor production would increase dramatically.

Far too long union has held us back, it is 2012 and it's time for change, let's change our labour legislation to better protect the worker and create a society more in tune with the ever changing global economic landscape. But first things first, we must be willing to talk to friends and family about this, without that grassroots movement things don't change. If you agree with my thoughts do not be afraid to write your MLA, your MP, the Premier and even the Prime Minister, this is how change starts.

This plan of course would need a lot of legal polish but it is a framework that could take us through to the next century in my opinion. Why is it that labour and business must butt heads are we not more civilized than that?

The New Saskatchewan

Happy New Year everyone! As promised I am back blogging, although with work and family commitments I will not be able to spend as much time as I would like right now. Hoping that this will change going forward.

So here we are 2012, a lot has changed over the past few years, socialism has reared it's ugly head to the point of taking down large amounts of the world's economies, dictators have fallen, countries are waking up to a new conservatism while others are diving in deeper into the socialist/communist regimes.

In Canada and particularly here in Saskatchewan we have taken a look at what has continued to transpire around the globe and decided we do not want to fall prey to the same left wing tactics that have taken Europe by storm over the past few generations. We see countries losing their Triple A status, we see the unrest in the streets and we see the fall of many leaders who have done little or nothing to help their own people.

In Saskatchewan we spoke loud and clear this past fall, we do not want to fall back into our socialist ways, we have seen what comes of it over time and that has served as a wake up call.

Socialism has worked in Saskatchewan for many years because of the hand outs we always knowingly accepted from the Federal Governments. We were always there with our hands out asking Ontario, Alberta and the like to pay for our out of control spending, our socialist practices and out offensive union contracts. Without that help we would have suffered the same fate as Greece, Italy, Spain!

But we have turned the corner in Saskatchewan and we like what we have found, prosperity that could last many generations based on our resources alone. But does that mean we can sit back? Not at all, we must use some of this wealth to develop others areas of our economy that will move us forward after the resources. We cannot look at a 5-10 year plan, we must think 50+ years into the future. Where will future wealth be created? I will not try to make myself sound like a person who is capable to seeing the future but I am capable of realizing that most resources are finite and some day they will run out. By then our population could be around 2 million people and this is where some outside of the box thinking can go a long way.

We have seen a growing trend right next door in Alberta, they have taken their economy from a mostly resource driven economy to a more balanced economy. With large investments in financials, medicine, engineering, services and much more you have borne witness to an economy that has been able to weather the storm better than in the past. You may think that Alberta went through the recession with a lot of bumps and bruises and that is true, but a large part of this slowdown was caused by their own government getting greedy and upping the royalty rates on oil & gas. I submit that they would have done much better if the rates had gone unchanged. There still would have been a slowdown but not nearly as deep as it ultimately came to be. Sure oil & gas still plays a huge roll in Alberta's treasury but not nearly as much as in the 70's and 80's. Alberta has done a great job of diversifying their economy so that if one segment goes down it will not affect them nearly as much. This is what Saskatchewan needs to now do, we have oil, gas, potash and uranium, plus our yearly crops, but we need more. We witness the crash of potash prices a couple years back and how is impacted out government finances. Diversification would allow for us to better absorb a slowdown in certain parts of our economy.

Diversification will lead to a more sustainable economy, one that will be able to buck the trend, one that will weather the ever increasing storms and one with a bright future. No longer can we be considered socialists, but at the same extent we must not lose sight of what is important and what will help Saskatchewan continue to be the envy of our country and even the world. We cannot sit back, we need to keep moving our economy forward through innovation and of course value added businesses for our resources. We made the right choice in November and going forward we need make sure that socialism stays where it should.......in the past!

Unions In My Sights!

Over the next couple of weeks I will be working on a plan that could bring about a large change to how the labour movement works in this country. Their feet will be held to the fire and let me tell you the details will be exciting. I will be forwarding this plan off to all levels of government and I hope with your support maybe change will come! Our country can and will become much more productive under this plan and allow for us to more evenly compete with the other economies of the world. Stay tuned!