Скачать или смотреть Bart Maves Speaking Out Against Right-To-Work

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Speaker, directly to the bill, I think the fundamental question is one of a union shop requiring that a member must become a member of the union if he's an employee at a unionized workplace. To me the underlying philosophy is based on the wishes of the majority. And if the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit want to be represented by a trade union, then the bargaining rights apply to all employees in the union. If 55% of the people or more of the people vote for a union, then the rest of that workplace -- the majority rules -- should be represented by that union. If the majority of people in that workplace who don't want to be represented by the union, then we have decertification as a possibility for those people to pursue.

With regard to dues checkoff, the argument that employees do not vote for the union should nevertheless pay for representation by the exclusive bargaining agent, I'd agree with the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that "There is not distinction in principle between our overall system of government and the role of taxation within it in the mini-democracy of the workplace."

If 50% of the people vote for a governing party in Ontario, then they have the right to tax and to spend tax money and they have the right to pass laws, and the rest of the population, even those who didn't vote in favour of that government, still abides by those laws. I think it's a similar principle, in this case for both dues checkoff and union shop, that if the majority votes to be members of that union, the other 45% shouldn't say, "We're not going to abide by the rule of the majority."

So, I won't be supporting this bill, Speaker. And those are my thoughts on it. Thank you.

(Hansard, May 29, 1997)