NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/can/politics/11611

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 5.8 KB

Xref: sparky can.politics:11611 soc.culture.canada:10243
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!spraggej
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:19:07 EST
From: John G. Spragge <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
Lines: 98

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
Robinson) says:
>
>John G. Spragge ([e-mail]) wrote:

>>Unless you have a statistically valid survey of the attitudes of
>>entrepreneurs, I have no intention of agreeing with your definition
>>of me as untypical.
>
>Which is exactly my disagreement with you implying that because you think
>that the NDP's labour legislation is positive, most small and medium
>business people think likewise. Indeed, I could also ask if you have a
>statistically valid survey of the attitudes of entrepreneurs that supports
>your contention that only a small minority of squeaky wheels opposes the
>NDP's labour legislation.

Excuse me. I said squeaky wheels; I never said "small minority", or
even "minority". In fact, neither of us knows whether or not the
people who claim to speak for "business" really do so. Who constitutes
"business"? Owners? Through their pension funds, many union workers
"own" a larger stake in actual capital than many small entrepreneurs.
Business organisations? Not all businesses belong (or want to belong).
Senior commercial bureaucrats? They have the authority to manage; I
have never seen a CEO ask for or get the authority to make political
pronouncements on behalf of anyone.

>>I believe the real clash lies between people
>>whose business exists as a vehicle for their craft, and those
>>whose business exists to manipulate money and property.
>
>I agree that this could be true. However, the family that runs the store on
>the corner of my street, for example, are not in the business because they
>enjoy selling grocery odds & ends to people - they are in business to make
>money & a living. I suspect (sorry, no statistically valid surveys
>available to back this up) most people who run a business do it "for the
>money", not as a vehicle for their craft - unless your definition of craft
>is much wider than mine. Let's face it, the people that run a corner 7/11,
>motel, dental practice, hot dog stand, wig store, plumbing co, etc do not
>do it because they think of it as a life's calling; and, by my reckoning,
>these people are the majority by far.

Well, nobody goes into business to NOT make money. The difference lies
between those who make that money by creating a product or service
(sails, dental care, hamburgers...), and those whose primary business
activity consists of manipulating things (buy low/sell high). I don't
absolutely defend that distinction-- all business people will at some time
do both-- but that dividing line comes up in the lists of gripes I hear
more often than complaints about unions.

>>Automatic certification exists in Ontario. It seems to me a waste
>>of money to run a vote when almost 50% of the possible voters have
>>already committed themselves to vote for one side.
>
>What price democracy? At any rate, with this line of reasoning one could
>argue that we don't need elections as long Mr Gallup is in business.  As
>well, for someone that earlier on was so adamant about not wanting to be
>represented by the Chamber of Commerce, you certainly seem terribly
>cavalier about not even letting *all* workers have a formal say in who, if
>anyone, is going to represent them. What in the world is so terrible with
>letting these people reflect upon their decision and then casting a secret
>ballot?

Nothing. But if we insisted on strict democracy for every decision we
made, we would do nothing but hold elections. Workers don't get to
ratify the actions of their pension fund trustees by secret ballot;
deposit holders don't get to choose the bank executives by secret
ballot; and anybody who has ever received a proxy form can tell you
the corporate setup does not (let us put this mildly) encourage
dissident shareholders. All this happens, not because of some
sinister anti-democratic conspiracy, but because no institution can
always stop to ask everyone's opinion.

So I believe that in principle, automatic certification makes sense,
where a majority (or substantial minority) of the workers have already
committed themselves to the union. As for the risk of "pressure",
what evidence do you have the the large number of laws against threats,
carrying out threats, et al. do not work on union organisers? Can you
cite a single case in Ontario or BC where people signed union cards
because of threats to their life or property, and neither the police
nor the company would protect them? If so, I'll grant the validity
of your concern. If not, perhaps we could extend the principle to
other types of transactions: perhaps the government could send around
"secret ballot" forms to make sure insurance buyers never got
threatened by insurance agents, or doctors did not hire leg-breakers
to recruit patients, or lawyers didn't frame people to drum up
business, and so on. Or what reason have you to believe that union
drives pose such a special threat that workers must be given special
opportunities to "reflect" before we respect their decisions?

And one correction: union executives represent only their members.
Nobody ever has to join a union; non-union workers in a certified
workplace need only pay a service fee (for the union services they
use).

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge