The Conservative Party of Canada of which Rick Dykstar is a member has a spotty record with labour. They routinely declare economic necessity, ordering striking workers back to work. Have allowed companies to bring in foreign workers, which I have no problem with unless they are paid much less or are hired over qualified Canadian workers. Dykstra represents a riding with a history of unionisation. So he has to present his vote in a positive light, a vote in favour of legislation that Unions describe as an anti union .
"...Bill C-377 an(sic) law that will help ensure that unions use funds from their members effectively."
Since members already have access to information on union expenditures, it is hard for me to see how C-377 does this. What it does do is make publicly available such information; useful I'm sure to media outlets and public policy associations. Dykstra goes onto say this bill makes union disclosures comparable to " ...a public summary of financial data much like (emphasis added) Canadian charities already do." "Much like" is not the same as "just like" it is not reasonable to compare what are essentially different organisations. A better comparison might be to corporation.
He goes on to say that
"Union disclosure is in place in other countries like Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia and the untied States. In fact, many Canadian Unions, like the United Steelworkers of Canada, have been reporting this information to the public under the 1959 American law."
I guess the take away is that our law is no different from what is practised in other countries, so there. A quick google search didn't find any links Germany labour legislation, it was a quick search, but I did find this, a HuffPo article written by Terrance Oakey; where similar points are made. The title of that piece,"What union leaders aren't telling you about Bill C-377". Mr. Oakey is part of a group called Merit Canada. Merit Canada is a group formed to challenge Quebec's closed shop construction industry.
"I am glad that we were able to successfully change the legislation to better protect the privacy of individual workers. Because of those changes, I was able to support the bill."
What he refers to is the amendment that changes certain disclosures from a minimum of $5000 to $100000 dollars in order to meet a privacy concern. Though there are still concerns it is not enough. It is good that Dykstra's concern over the privacy of workers was allayed to the extent, that he could now comfortably vote for an anti-union bill.
We also have a photo of Dykstra meeting with union reps. There is no link to the content of what they may have discussed, but we are assured by Dykstra that he "... made sure the final bill addressed concerns they raised about privacy rights." This is in reference to the amendments made to the bill. Should I presume then, that these union reps were thus happy with everything else? We may only guess.
This mailing ends with a "share your thoughts" survey.
1. Should workers be able to know how unions are spending their money? Yes - No
Well there was know space for " they already do". I'll say Yes because saying No doesn't seem like a real option.
2. Do you agree that privacy of ordinary workers should be protected? Yes - No
Why yes I do, but the wording does seem to leave open the option of violating the privacy of extraordinary workers; an oversight for sure.
3. Is Rick Dykstra on the right track? Yes - No
I guess that depends on whether you think complete support and loyalty to Conservative Party of Canada is "on the right track. "
I'd like to think that we do legislate best practices, that we will go and see how other countries do it and take the best back to our country. Germany has a strong union movement and a Huge manufacturing presence, worth emulating. On the other hand the United States has a union movement under attack and the commensurate decline in labour rights. In fact Tim Hudak, leader of the
Progressive Conservatives of Ontario has declared his desire to imitate other American anti-union legislation like "Right to Work". I would say that some labour models are better than other. It just depends on the colour of your collar.
I don't believe there are many or perhaps any institutions that can't benefit from a bit of look over. Things change over time; and we must take hard looks at our institutions and see if they are in need of reform. It is natural and necessary, what I oppose is the insinuation of ideology in the process, and its tendency damage, not make better or way of life.