Financing Political Activism

The vaccination mandate in the public service have provided one of the best arguments for which the Rand formula as it is needs to go. The unions have put on full display their political bias by unanimously refusing to defend members who did not want to get subjected to the medical procedure.

They went all-in with the governement mandates, showing no long-term vision but clearly a sense of entitlement; they did not have the foresight to edge their bets as necessary when running such a large ship.

In contrast, they teared their shirts off in the public square for cost reduction initiatives that were warranted in a modern work environment. This manifestation of political influence in unison is just the tip of the iceberg, let’s not fool ourselves, unions influence votes through the public opinion that motivates them.

The systematic collection of dues enabled by the Rand formula becomes the engine of public relations campaigns that lead to policy which contributes to define our current situation. Policy overly influenced by a left leaning ecosystem cannot be at the service of, not only union members, but all Canadian citizens that are equally affected.

Policy that impacts indiscriminately the whole Canadian landscape, is financed unwillingly by members who do not have the same political leaning as their unions. But beyond partisan politics, it is important to see the impact of their preferred type of policies for what they truly are, feel-good box checking without tangible results or worse.

Ideas, really platitudes, that present a value proposition for their face value, but lack substance, nevertheless polarize the public opinion and serve to do open political screening and contribute to tearing the social fabric. Polarization prevents debate of ideas, the necessary struggle for progress, but provides a comfortable environment for vested interests.

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” – Frederick Douglass (1857)

This reflects as a less productive economy, a devalued Canadian dollar, higher consumer prices and an overall higher cost of life. Reduced relative compensation is the cost of political ideals not shared by all members. Ideals of competence, merit and efficiency that serves better business outcomes are not the foundation of the work organization model unions enforce.

Unions preferred work organization model dilutes individual competence, performance and merit, the removal of locus of control over business outcomes leaves seniority and nepotism as career advancement determinators, the later being generally frowned upon. Given the available work methods, seniority is an absurd concept of experience tax rendered irrelevant by constant change requiring adaptation. Incentives are non-existent regarding sane public funds management, quite the contrary; it does not serve the public, it costs them an orgy of spending.

While it may not be acceptable to push anyone in the back, neither is it acceptable to hold anyone back. Decision-makers obstinately maintained obsolete work methods and tools affecting volumes of employees who see their marketable value decline; meanwhile the expectations of the job market are evolving.

The Rand formula is a major obstacle to organizational culture that enables efficiencies through modernization, it is a direct incentive for work organization that favors unnecessarily high personnel count. This rent-seeking work organization model serves itself with more employees, de facto members, resulting in more dues, then more influence across the political landscape, all from the same side of the political spectrum.

This brings an important question, as to know why there is no right leaning union? While there might be unions that are not entirely left leaning on every question, no prominent labor organization in Canada represents, supports nor promotes fiscal responsibility in practice. Besides, they still have the same propensity to make choices for members and everyone who attended union meetings have seen cheerleading. Getting involved in union politics is not an option for change, the partisanship and political polarization makes this not only unpractical but impossible. Members already have the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government to deal with, plus perhaps a condo board or home owner association, why would they have to actively resist the political influence of a monolithic block that can take their funding for granted?

Forced contributions to causes members do not support and make their lives more expensive, have to stop. The Rand formula exist primarily to finance collective bargaining, political activism was deemed a necessary tool to that extent, essentially justified by the broader positive impact on work conditions.

If members see their unions cheering for more government spending, it is because they want more dues, it is not intended for higher wages to compensate cost of life increase. You get a bigger public service, same service level, no leverage of technology, more taxes. Members’ purchasing power declined significantly for the last 2 decades, lately anti-energy and quantitative easing policy costed us dearly.

All members are free to support causes they believe in, but they cannot negotiate their collective agreement, they cannot leverage their productivity or work optimization initiatives for better pay, the unions have a stranglehold on bargaining. When members’ relative compensation declines due to policies influenced by their unions, that effectively increase their cost of life, they are being deceived.

A growing segment of the population witnessed the danger of political partisanship in a context where debates are avoided, questions unanswered and Parliament reduced to a circus. Political influence is not trivial, the results are too impactful on our environment and quality of life to be imposed as part of a self-serving taxpayer’s money grabbing operation.

Most important of all, as a public servant, if your union supports work organization detrimental to costs and business outcomes but serves contributions’ volume well, it is a major ethical problem, an expensive one for Canadians.

There is no good reason to maintain the Rand formula as it is, only entitlement and political partisanship.

What is the future of unionization? This question will be addressed in another article, more to come.