Political Action Committees

Think your union is going to fight for you? This might give you a different perspective.

Unions have become political action committees. But where are the conservative ones for good measure? Would the one-sided influence  create an imbalance in the political discourse, forcing all political players on that playing field?

If the union and the company are saying the same thing, one of them is not necessary.

But would that simply mean they are acting together in unison? Let us have a look at how things can be intertwined.

The relatively recent shift in Canadian politics could be explained by intrusion of Liberal branded policies in the Conservative party, the only opposition capable of holding Parliament. Leona Alleslev walked the floor in  2018, but was it more deception? Could it be a patient subversive move?

That was when Andrew Scheer was the coronated leader of the Conservatives; Scheer's "win" was never cleared of potential tomfoolery. Effectively, it seems the Conservative party executive preferred, at the cost of the elections, and now twice, a loser they can control to a winner with disruptive ideas. Disruptive ideas the grassroots liked, that vested interests feared, but which Canadian citizens never had a chance to hear.

There is a lot of hope placed in the Conservatives to come to save the day and abolish the vaccine mandates, but their recent history shows it is misplaced. The Conservatives have been dragged to the left of the political spectrum. It is a safe bet to expect nothing but protection of vested interests from Leona Alleslev. She went from this:

To that:

Was her praise genuine? Or anything at all about her?

The point is:

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Besides the common legal principle, individuals whose advancement is largely due to portraying an image other than being upfront with their plan will keep relying on this as this is all they know. Politics are rife with such characters. It is unlikely that such individuals could relate to concepts of hard work and sacrifices, making them unfit to represent Canadians of all stripes. And now, Leona Alleslev entered the leadership race for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Interestingly, on September 18th 2018, she said:

“My oath is to country, not party, and my sacred obligation is to serve my constituents,’ said Alleslev."

“I must do what is right, not what is easy.”

“A country, its sovereignty and (its) values are fragile,” said Alleslev. “Vigilance in defending our nation’s freedom, and service to country, is who I am.

“When I left the military, I hug up my uniform, but I never ‘unswore’ my oath.”

While the statements sound good, they are certainly even more pertinent now than at the time, actioning those would be honorable, which we saw nothing of in the last two years; Conservatives have continuously played in the hand of the Liberals, showing their true colors, we have Conservatives in name only.

In contrast, Marc Dalton, "is running on the tag line of “A better Canada. Together” promises to trigger a national inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic to look at spending and what he called “coercive” measures the government used to get people vaccinated."

This is so obviously warranted, that it would not need to be a leadership race issue if human nature did not exhibit its ugly side with so little restraint in our civilized society.

Are we? Or do we just look like it?

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

There will be documentaries and history books on the handling of  the covid-19 events, there already is. The mainstream medias will double-dip, after writing in support of expensive, ineffective, excessive across the board measures by their existence-saving government; now turn around to ask themselves why, this fiasco have been the Klondike of the last two years, a cash cow, complete with bribery and backstage tomfoolery. Was Jerry Dias the tip of the iceberg? Is there others? In any case, it took $50,000 for Jerry Dias to throw its membership in front of the bus. After claiming to retire due to health reasons, it was already foreseeable after the bribes were publicly denounced that he would blame his corruption on alcohol problems. Not only that is a man that cannot live up to his mistakes, but he tries to play victim afterwards.

Interesting note is that Unifor, as the largest private sector union, represents 11,500 media employees according to the information on their website.

Their media policy states:

"All Unifor members in the Media Industry, including front-line workers, elected representatives, local leadership and national staff, should work collectively to advance the positions and priorities set out in this policy.

Through ongoing political action, lobbying, membership outreach and community engagement work, Unifor will strive to achieve its goals and the provisions of this policy"

The policy is filled with self-aggrandizing ideas of state interventionism that would serve unions, but make not only their members', but every Canadian's life more expensive; no one will see wages increases that maintain purchasing power.

The policy claims that citizens would have to save the media that cannot help themselves by being so far remote from Canadians' reality and refusing themselves to adapt to an emerging business model by preferring the strategy to impose their own. They seek to impose their hegemony and play the role of gatekeepers instead of working competitively to have an edge on their competitors; this also means not giving the public what they want, but the client is always right.

The media dug up their own hole when their handsomely paid executives refused to see the menace and opportunity the arrival of the internet involved. And we should reward them by bailing them out?

Meanwhile, unions are in it for themselves, they have become political players; as politics go, if gains can be made from throwing members in front of the bus, it is a possibility. Rethink about the Phoenix pay system fiasco in terms of motivation, poor decision making from one angle can be excellent decision making from another. Could incompetence be a convenient alibi? Was there gains to be made on the political chessboard from this proudly adorned incompetence? Who goes around claiming their incompetence? Could the culture of avoiding responsibility be a package deal with not rewarding competence and, more importantly, courage to do the right thing for the stated purpose of the public service?

Politicians can present seductive ideas all-day, without the courage to act on them, they are a pure distraction, a waste of everyone's time and energy that could be harnessed to push the political reality away from the abyss it is headed to.

On the other hand, voters who prefer comfortable truths are responsible for poor decision making attributable to a delusional baseline, a view of the world as they would like it to be, rather than how it is. It is impossible to collectively have a handle on things within our reality if the baseline is not agreed upon, even the dictionary definition of words is tampered with by an intellectually dishonest approach to debate.

Point in case, would you trust anyone whose everything about them is fake? This applies to everyone, every interpersonal relationship, but more importantly to politicians that could make decisions on behalf of an entire population.

Fake has been normalized, in the workplace and beyond, hypocrisy has essentially become expected behavior for advancement in all spheres of society. Are we promoting and rewarding people based on how much and how well they lie to us? Consciously?

Leona Alleslev stated, before crossing the floor: "When I became an officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force, I swore an oath to give my life for Queen and country — to serve and defend Canada, and the values for which it stands." Well, it looks like Canada does not even stand for its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms anymore.

The government's role is ever changing, as dictated by voters' cumulative choices, narrowing those choices to a monolithic option (well exemplified by the Liberal-NDP deal), leaves many Canadians with their voices unheard, dismissed a priori. What options are left when many tax paying citizens are left behind with their fiscal contribution taken for granted? See the "What Happened in Ottawa?" post for yourself.

The idea that citizens that contributed and continue contributing to this country's fiscal effort, see their ideas dismissed, worse, get name called by blanket statements from the highest office and Parliament, is appalling.

"Taxation without representation is tyranny."

Beyond the obvious floor walkers such as Leona Alleslev, some might just be more comfortable to show their true colors. After all, the current state of affairs could largely be attributable to patient work from the types who would rather infiltrate and take over rather than sell their ideas in a democratic manner. This can happen in any institution, political parties, corporations, schools, universities, the public service and unions among others. More on that aspect might come in the form of another article.

The preferred policies of leftist unions are very expensive virtue signaling. Taxes are a cost of doing business for corporations, this cost is passed on to consumers. Expect bank fees to rise if this is to go through.

The recent significant increase in cost of life could have been avoided by easing on the quantitative easing, not going deficit happy and, no surprise, targeted rather than across the board intervention. But these policies were all enacted by unions' favorites.

Giving unions too much rope? They might warrant more proactive scrutiny after all.

They act like it’s their money, but it’s our money. They’re criminals. Most unions are like big companies. ... The union will also double dip on dues especially for vacation pay if you don’t take the time off. For the company the union costs them money, but they work for them like a layer of management.

Remember Bill C-377? Perhaps it sought to bring balance on the playing field that was tilted to the advantage of the left? The following quote is from Adam Chapnick in the Toronto Star on June 4th 2013:

Given their common attitude towards the dangers of excess power, Conservatives should therefore instinctively sympathize with union leaders.

The writer is being intellectually dishonest here, because that is precisely why they would rather be wary of their influence fueled by the entire Canadian unionized salary mass. IIs it enough to transform a political party?