Pierre Poilievre v. Organized labour

In response to PSAC’s endorsement of PQ candidates, the parliamentary secretary wants to make it possible for public servants to opt out of paying union dues.

Poilievre said he plans to initiate a debate on how to give Canada’s public servants the right to decide whether they want to join a union and pay union dues. It’s unclear how he plans to go about this, since it would require legislative changes. As a parliamentary secretary, he is unable to introduce a private member’s bill to make such changes … 

Poilievre’s proposal could be the most radical policy change embarked by the Conservative government and is reminiscent of right-to-work legislation that has been introduced in some U.S. states. “You can call it that,” said Poilievre. “I consider it enhancement of workers rights and freedoms.”




Browse

Pierre Poilievre v. Organized labour

  1. If he’s itching for a fight with organized labour, this’ll do it on a massive scale. The Rand Formula is a sacred touchstone in their eyes, with good reason.

    • Right. If Poilievres thinks that enhances fair play and freedom for workers than he shouldn’t have any problem with those opting out not being able to benefit from the unions bargaining gains. Let them bargain on their own, see where that gets them.
      This kind of move is a direct attack on the collective bargaining process – unless you allow the union to make the kind of move i suggested.
      The problem such as it is, is with the union being able to hold the govt to ransom as they are the only game in town. Poilievere isn’t interested in anyone’s rights, he just wants the shoe on the other foot.

      • I would say it’s even more complicated than that. Expect non-payers only to get tiny little raises until the union is gone entirely, at which point it drops.

        • Folowed by some kind of “merit” pay scale…or if you prefer the more vulgar…how far can you creep up the bosse’s arse?

    • Certainly it’s disingenuous to pretend the idea is anything but breaking the back of unions. But I think the real issue is he’s directly proposing political sanctions to an institution for backing a side he doesn’t like.

  2. Fundie christians oppose unions on ‘scriptural’ grounds as well, so I’m sure he’ll have support for this.

  3. Wow, he is such a twit. Unions and union members should be wary of the Conservatives. Take a look at Wisconsin and some of the other Republican-governed states and you will see there is an all-out attack on unions. Want to see wages sliced? Want to see medicare gone? Want to see unaffordable housing? When wages are being comprimised, do you see the price of goods coming down? Anyone with an ounce of common sense would be able to see through this attempt to destroy PSAC. Who do you think will protect workers’ rights in this country? Not Polievre of his ilk of bandits.

    • How long have you been a member of the government union? He said opt out not leave by force like you and your union buddies force on members to stay . It is obvious that you and many in the union are scared stiff of such a law. Just shows you how you are frightened stiff of the number of members who are tired of being bullied and paying part of their assessment to the union heads choice of political parties. How about funds for political parties be divided equally then you may see more justice?

      • Pay for something or take it for free. Ask the movie biz how that’s doing for DVD sales.

        Moron/liar.

    • I don’t think you have a clue how economics works. Why would this cause an increase in housing costs? When the government saves money everybody wins except for those few government employees. Down with the lazy overpaid government workers and their entitlements. Why do my tax dollars end up in the hands of a separatist party. Go get em Pierre!

  4. if he wants to take a step backwards from negotiations with unions to war with unions I think he may want to read some history books.

  5. That Pierre’s a smart lad. He doesn’t need an airplane with a long banner flying over his house to get the message … oh, wait.

  6. Only a real democrat would give workers the right to not pay greedy unions dues.
    Thankfully we have good men like Polievre in Government.

    • Only a greedy employee would expect to not pay union dues, but still get all of the salary and benefits negotiated for them by the union.

      People who want to opt out of being in a union ought to get the salary and benefits that the company in question decides to give them, not the salary and benefits negotiated through the collective bargaining process. If the people who opt out of union representation are satisfied with taking the wage cuts and benefit cuts implied by such a move, then I guess more power to them. Somehow, however, I think they’ll join back up with the union when they discover how much more money their unionized co-workers get, and how much better their co-workers benefits are.

  7. If paying union dues becomes voluntary, wouldn’t the requirements to pay benefit and pension contributions also become voluntary? Of course, if enough workers stopped payment of their pension check off, the plans would no longer be viable.
    Ahh the hidden agenda.
    W.B.

Sign in to comment.