The Rand formula helped get Trudeau Liberals elected. It will keep helping Liberals getting elected, distorting our democracy with a pull to the left.

There's no way to salvage it. Unions are all on the left, there is no possible balancing act.

Should it be abolished? Reason?

— My Public Service (@_PublicService_) July 20, 2022

Too early? This poll will never be timely, because no one should never be made to chose between their livelihood and making their own health related decisions.

It might be more helpful for everyone to admit the flaws that led to this sentiment of helplessness,

This outcome was avoidable if everyone stuck together in solidarity, if employees openly discussed the matter, even to a fraction of the extent of the promotion of the vaccines. Solidarity, an important part of living in society in crucial times, merely transformed into a buzz-word overused by unions who showed anything but that when push comes to shove.

Our shared values, namely freedom, are what makes solidarity worthwhile, the more individual aspects of our lives are too specific to succinate such broad recognition of importance. Yet, even freedom seems not to appeal to the masses as it ought to be, but who does that fear serves really?

The poll question is for those who where coerced into vaccination against their will, either because they did not want the vaccine or were not ready at the time, but nevertheless forced their hand. You can answer the poll below on twitter.

For those who where coerced to vaccinate due to the federal vaccine mandate:

If your work experience enabled you to turn around and find another job with similar pay and benefits, would you have succumbed to the pressure to take the vaccine?

Further, many considerations exist around this question.

Without consideration of those who made a willful choice before mandates came in, if the majority succumbed to pressure, does that make it acceptable for them to expect the same from the remainder who did not?

Are those who succumbed to the pressure sympathetic to their colleagues who did not?

Is there an "I caved in so you should too" sentiment? Or an "it’s unfair to those who did it to keep their jobs" sentiment?

What about bosses that saw their subalterns show more courage than they possess themselves? Could it affect the way they see their employees? Would they see themselves under a different light?

Those who did not want the vaccine certainly could not have offended anyone by refusing it? What about those whose not-so personal choice was instrumentalized as additional pressure on the former? What implications would this have on the work climate should all this people eventually work together again?

Wonder why the vitriol is mostly directed at Pierre Poilievre in the current Conservative Party of Canada leadership race?

Simple. they ignored it then, they ignore it now and want to continue ignoring their duty of fair representation to pursue their political agenda, their true calling.

Unions ignore the Rand formula

If they don’t follow it, why should anyone?

Financial PostSpecial to Financial Post

After showing their true colors in arguably the most obvious manner possible, it will be next to impossible for unions to argue they remained politically neutral in their refusal to defend members who opposed vaccines mandates.

Unions certainly like the taken for granted cash cow that the rand formula is, but it comes with obligations they went massively in dereliction of. They made themselves useless at that one crucial time, that sells the idea of unionization, where they are needed.

Just like respect, the Rand formula is a two-way street. Members should not have to pay for nothing. It is time for the Rand formula to go!

Only then the public service will be capable to work for you as it should. Like other unionized organizations, the public service is currently a cash cow for leftist policies promotion. You can read more about this subject in the article linked in the caption below.

Unions have become political action committees at the expense of their members. If all unions are using member's contributions to push the political discourse to the left in unison, what does that mean for Canadian democracy?

Without a balancing act, the political playing field will be rigged in the left's favor, affecting negatively our democracy that benefits everyone when no one controls what can and cannot be an electoral issue.

There is nothing like accountability and oversight to ensure good results, neither of which the public service is subjected to, despite its cost to you. Unions have highjacked work organization for their own gain, there is no other reason that justifies the abysmal technology adoption rate, nor its excessive implantation costs when such solutions are adopted. A complete reform is needed, this will only be possible with the Rand formula out of the way.

Other sectors are affected, but none of them costs you as much as the public service does when ideologically invested in a political mission to support leftist parties. Help us make the public service at your service again! Help us get rid of the Rand formula!

Could Nicolay Hristozov, a federal public servant and Ottawa resident want to have his cake and eat it too?

Imagine, living in the Capital city and being upset by repercussions of political decisions impacting the city. Just like those who buy a property on a boulevard, to after complain about speed limits to the city; or buy property next to a quarry and complain about the noise.

You can read Nicolay's outrage over the convoy below.

The ‘Freedom’ Convoy in downtown Ottawa | Glebe Report

Glebe Report

I began to see their weekend parties as an insult to my city. - Nicolay Hristozov

Keep in mind this is from Ottawa, the city that always sleeps. Maybe it requested a wake-up call?

Could some think that the aberrant policies enacted by the government of the day are not only an insult to their intelligence, but an infringement of their rights?

What if the protest, which gained international recognition was, first of all, heard by office holders, but moreover used as a marketing strategy?

If it was well received, it would've have happened this way or lasted this long, but it wasn't, nor was it even heard. Although, the honking certainly was.

What Happened in Ottawa?

See for yourself, think for yourself. If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is worth a video?

My Public ServiceMy Public Service

This offered Ottawa an opportunity to use it as branding, to harness the notoriety from the protest for touristic purposes for years to come. Venues of all stripes could have been using the trucker theme.

This could have not only offsetted the policing costs, but also, if marketed properly, compensate for the burden of obnoxiousness by providing ongoing tourism.

Unions sided with the government when their members faced a vaccine mandate.

What's the likelihood that employees out of a job, due to unions refusal to represent them, will find suitable employment with similar compensation on the job market?https://t.co/5pzrJPegSE#cdnpoli

— My Public Service (@_PublicService_) May 12, 2022

No political representation for a significant proportion of the population gave birth to a large movement initiated by truckers that was referred to as a fringe minority by the highest office. But nevertheless sufficient to have him go in hiding?

It was merely a refusal to hear their pleas, to be proactive towards a resolution to this still ongoing situation. Unvaccinated employees are still losing their livelihoods and travel by plane and train is still prohibited to unvaccinated Canadians.

Regarding the vaccine mandate, PSAC announced they filed a policy grievances against federal vaccination policy on March 23rd 2022. They claimed the following:

Throughout the pandemic, we have continued to support members who have had their human rights or workplace rights violated because of their vaccination status.

Lies seem common from yellow unions, unless they consider unvaccinated members as subhuman? If PSAC supported members as it claims to have, Feds For Freedom would not have been created. Unions forced their members to seek external counsel from which stemmed already many lawsuits already. And they claim to have been supportive?

In the past unions have played a role of protecting David from Goliath, having by extension a positive impact on general quality of life conditions beyond their membership. But with the rise of cost of life in the past decades, beyond what any union will be able to negotiate for their members, their playing politics have costed all of us dearly.

Unions have been pretending to care for members for long enough without walking the talk. They are protecting their selfish rent-seeking interests by refusal of adaptation of work organization to the technological revolution. Forcing their members to become low market value employees directly caused by a subpar work experience the union style of work organization is responsible for.

All public servants are in on that "secret", but most are quiet because it benefits them, accountability is non-existent and expectations to adapt to new technology are low. A feeling of being overpaid compared to their private sector counterparts have long numbed employees desire to ask for more from their unions, until they were thrown in front of the bus.

Unvaccinated employees have been sent letters advising them to either get vaccinated, that they already did not want to, or be placed on administrative leave without pay, losing their ability to earn a living as a consequence for not doing something they object to. It is intimidation according to the letter of the law:

Section 243(1)b) of the Criminal Code of Canada reads as follow:

423 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,

(b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;

It is still unclear as to what enables this without criminal charges being pressed. It seems unlikely that the recipient of such a letter who would respond with a punch to the face to the emitter of such threats would not be indicted. But then what enables the signatories of those letters to get off scot free? Are we lead by mob rule? No law have ben changed. What use do have laws, as guardrails, if they have no force because the wind is blowing in a different direction?

Certainly, there are employees who are a threat to due process and cheerleaders of mob rule. This would have never got this far otherwise.

Many employees claimed to be vaccinated when attesting of their status, but there is no auditing of those attestations, it is a can of worms. The possibility of employees misrepresenting their status, presumably in an attempt to avoid confrontation, is plausible. An audit, likely occurring at a slow enough pace, like a steamroller, would crush any employee who misrepresented their status while preventing the mass reaction that a quick and general audit would.

Meanwhile, vaccinated employees' knowingly see their "choices" instrumentalized to justify throwing unvaccinated employees out like garbage and stay arms crossed; they have skin in the game.

Who would have thought that it is possible to harass employees by staying arms crossed? It is not new, oftentimes workplace reprehensible behavior is not unnoticed, but remains undisclosed; that makes those privy to it accomplices.

The workplace is just a subset of society, despite the only way to avoid conflict in a civilized society is to live and let live, we are expected to work with intolerant people like this.

But they cannot.

More than one in four Canadians support jail time for the unvaccinated, poll finds.

Meanwhile there is a focus on torts from the past for which none of the living is responsible, not that those were not atrocious, but there are ongoing torts happening that can be actioned in the immediate. Even animal rights activists seem to garner more sympathy than human beings pleading for informed consent.

But what to expect of those who have been ostracized, impeached from participating in society, as far as threatened with forced injection and additional taxes for Quebec residents? Would it not be expected that these individuals be warry of their counterparts, after losing their livelihood due to the intolerance of their peers that enabled such policies implicitly or explicitly?

Perhaps it is more pressing to address ongoing torts that are affecting living human beings? Or are we going to deplore how inhumane it was 10 years from now? Maybe make a national day for it?

Canada has become an international farce. Nothing to be proud of as Canadians, but see for yourself, think for yourself. If a picture is worth a thousand words, what are worth a bunch of video?

This scolding seems to have been avoided by the mainstream media. The media upon which Canadians rely to have a clear picture of the situation to make a sound decision in the voting booth.

This happened earlier in February:

Could Justin Trudeau have such low self-awareness?

Very few individuals could be plagued by such limitation, besides, he is at the forefront, but this is not all his making, many enablers were necessary for this conjunction of events to occur.

Would it be possible that the person whose job depends on management of a pandemic wants to maintain a perma-pandemic state of affairs? How many times are we going to be taken for a ride?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Voters have a major responsibility for the current state of affairs. Our consecutive collective choices led to this; there was red flags, bailing the media with public funds being a precursor of major importance to all of this.

Under the right conditions, an idea just has to be thrown on the public square to let human nature do the rest. Politicians, aware of the upsettedness of the vaccinated population against the unvaccinated population can harness it for political gains, despite the inhumane, or shall it be said, uncivilized implications.

After all, Justin Trudeau said:

They pretend to have easy solutions that play on people's fears.

Like vaccines after a death toll promotional campaign?

Looks like Mr. Trudeau is not as popular as he once was. But was he ever as portrayed? Could giving 600 millions to the mainstream media buy a lot of publicity? The only trustworthy news source for many, as this is being reinforced by the government of the day, attempting to censor local independent media.

Would that leave the international community as a better mirror of our own reality that some of us do not want to see?

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?

See for yourself, think for yourself. If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is worth a video?

In contrast...

Public sector union flying communist flag. Do they know how murderous that ideology is? Do they know human life is worthless and individual expression of life is oppressed, in the name of the greater good?

Meanwhile, some of us prefer long lasting discomfort from infringement on Canadian rights and freedoms over, admitedly annoying, but temporary discomfort from obnoxiousness. Do they know that everything we have, today's comfort level, was made possible by people who knew enduring discomfort was the path to comfort? Or they are taking it for granted because they were born into it?

And some among us decided to push the vaccine as a civic duty... Know your peers that cannot live and let live and make up threats... To feel important? Would they push fitness through good nutrition and exercise the same?

We work for the public service. That officially means you. Our name is deceptive, the truth is otherwise, as stated from the onset in the video below, some of us still remember who are the, so to speak, shareholders of the public service. Note how he says that he could do whatever he wants and tell you that it is for your own good, implying making choices for you because he would know better. But instead does the right thing and work for you, the shareholder; at the cost of getting heat for it.

If he got negative treatment due to doing the right thing, it can only be because his peers disagree that you are the shareholder of the public service. But would these same people come knock on your door to tell you that they take you fiscal contribution for granted? Would they admit they are entitled when keeping the bar so low in the public service, that in comparison, would mean dismissal for most Canadians financing the public service?

Shareholders are making decisions, through the board of directors, such as firing a CEO that embezzles company funds or diverts them for their own agenda. But to make sound decisions, shareholders must rely on the company executives' transparency and goodwill. That is why choosing the right people for these positions will enable a public service at the public's service and only you, the shareholders, can pressure the board of directors to select people to serve you instead of them.

Hiring, and promoting, is policy; it incentivizes expected behavior, it is currently not in your favor. If promotions were based on merit, the only factor that enables serving you in the best possible manner, they would reward those who perform well with technologic tools and are open to use it to its maximum potential. This would reflect in an entirely different state of affairs, especially with regards to technology adoption, a major factor in driving down the cost of operation for a given output. But more importantly, a major factor in enabling lower taxes, because that is in your favor.

Here, the opaque cloak is removed to provide a clear picture to shareholders. Occulting practices that cost Canadians a pretty penny is self-serving, immoral, unethical and could potentially be illegal.

Help us work for you, your taxes would be lower if we were actually enabled to do this, as the name of the public service itself implies deceptively.

Only you, the shareholders, can force an attitude adjustment from entitlement to a sense of duty towards Canadian taxpayers.

The Rand formula was based on an industrial work organization model where all workers display a visible output more or less accurately measurable in man hours. The new workplace is not be based on hours, technology completely uncoupled the relationship between output and time.

While an employer has what amounts to a subscription to a employees' prime time and energy, it would be reasonable to believe they would want to harness their full potential to make the best returns on their costs. But the public service's culture of carelessness does not only cost the Canadian public a fortune, they also turn competent employees into unvaluable prospects for private sector employers. What is referred to as the golden handcuffs could also be illustrated by the idea of turning employees into paperweights, a mere decorative object that bids its time.

Time is precious, time away from our own interests is no to be treated as standby time anymore. We get paid, but not to deliver outputs of a format and quality expected in the current job market, the locus of control is diluted to the point where claiming achievements for employees becomes impossible; difficult to fill a resume with career highlights. But this is precisely this type of achievement that sets a candidate apart from other contenders. Expecting us all to do a little portion of a larger meaningful output, making it less stimulating and rewarding in terms of experience.

While some are happy to have little on their plates, some can enjoy spending hours, sometimes way beyond the average, to bring a project to completion. Why the later type would have to be limited by the former type? Why is it acceptable to stifle career ambition of the later type, but not to expect more from the former type? It is an ethical issue to which the answer is obvious, it is not acceptable to impose one's limit on others; yet it is practiced in many ways, but always at the cost of forfeiting better results. In other words, if pushing others in the back is unacceptable so is holding back others.

Regarding the extra time some are willing to put towards making their life more comfortable, there are reasons why this extra time, logged to be paid, ought not to be taxed at all. Whether a lower or higher wage employee, this time is away from home, from their close ones; it is a sacrifice they are making. Making them contribute more to the fiscal efforts for sacrifices that many blatantly refuse, but would benefit from is a crass form of entitlement. We all know those who would never work overtime or an evening or weekend, that's a personal choice they are free to enjoy. The same principle applies for those who decide to put in more work, so they can enjoy the full return on that choice to work beyond what is deemed the standard workweek.

But sometimes, use of technology is the best determining factor that illustrates well time's irrelevance in certain scenarios. Someone could invest weeks to deliver a solution that ultimately enables to save 2 days from their weekly workload. But what is the incentive? Would the display of initiative be even welcome? Would that time become time off? Or would it still expected to bid time?

What incentive is there to improve processes when there is an obvious surplus of staff? If the staff was as busy as portrayed, any attempt, even a highly involved one, to relieve them from grunt work would be welcomed with a red carpet.

We do not all work the same way or at the same pace, we value work differently and the sustainability of our outputs as well. Sustainability as in not requiring to be eventually scrapped by thinking ahead and future proofing, a low maintenance long term approach which can be built upon.

Workers invest themselves body and soul into work at varying degrees. Since time cannot measure this involvement in every case, nor cutting time involved recognized, for situations where it applies the tangible impact reflected on our environment might be the best measure.

A good example that saves time and much overhead, telework, was possible a long time ago. Yet, absolute necessity, not good intentions regarding resources management, brought a technological improvement that can result in the saving of millions of dollars for Canadian taxpayers. But overhead has become part of your contribution to chosen suppliers, the rationale to support a return of workers on site is based in the notion of supporting the local economy. Does your personal business benefit from such largesse? What about those that preferred to stay open, try their best to lift their own weight? Why try to dull entrepreneurial spirit when it is the small and medium enterprises that are the driver of an effervescent economy?

The above explains why we cannot be well represented within a work organization model that assumes that time is equal as output and sees the public service as a political action committee. The conundrum goes beyond outdated and ruinous work organization, it has become a political vessel. Unions are used to bypass the requirements of public servants to be politically impartial, although from the state of affairs things are run in a way that reflects ideology, not best management practices. The unions swift move to go all-in with the government mandate for vaccination exposed a partisanship that contrasted with their reaction over the red tape reductions efforts of Harper's years. Efficiency gains are an utmost unethical evil, but mandatory vaccination or being jobless and ostracized from society is sunny ways.

The overly sympathetic, unanimous, decision in favor of the unions in the Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] case was justified by a restriction of freedom of association in virtue of Section 1 of the Charter of rights; the infringement on freedom of association was not defined, but inferred. Unions' ability to influence the way in which this country is headed was deemed important in 1991, before the internet reached everyone and then social media that magnified this very influence to create a major imbalance in the general ambient political discourse. Media being compensated for the lack of foresight, now pure dependence, from handsomely paid boards of directors who refused to see the threat and opportunity of the internet are also used as political vessels, money never come without string attached.  With coverage that seem to differ based on who cuts the cheques, is it reasonable to believe there was no political interference in the handling of the political vaccine mandate by our politically independent public service?

The rand formula has become a massive financing scheme that enables a systemic bias through a simple mechanism called “money talks”. The fact is a sizeable portion of membership is forced to contribute to the promotion of a political party while they vote for another. Besides the politically savvy, the term is used loosely, only those that vote for the union backed party benefit from this influence, yet you'll hear them complain about inflation the direct result of their favorite political stripes. Anyone else cannot possibly want their resources diverted towards political options they do not want; it has become a major influence to the point of distorting democracy.

Canadians of all political stripes should feel welcome in their workplace and have their best interest represented by their bargaining agent. After all, not all Canadians want an ever-growing government apparatus, it comes with a price. Beyond the surface, the ever-decreasing relative purchasing power of employees over the last two decades exposes the cost of increasing overhead that wages increases will never catch up too.

Moreover, the resources diverted directly from the employees’ compensation are then not only unavailable to them to finance a political party of their choice, but they are likely to be used to lobby to parties that have plans contrary to the members’ interests.

The rent-seekers provide little to none in return for their handsome fee; as they say, if both the employer and union agree, one is not necessary.

The public opinion is shaped with the information that is out there for everyone to see and decide for themselves. Currently our unions are doing exactly that, influencing public opinion, with our money, but against our best interests.

There are no golden handcuffs. Public servants are not paid for their work, they are getting compensated for getting turned into contribution-paying paperweights.

All unions take a cut on an increasingly large compensation volume, using these funds to push the public opinion persistently towards the left. This does not serve for the general betterment of work conditions at large anymore, as stated by a judge in 1991; it has become foremostly the engine of political activism.

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991]

My story is the shocking realization of the striking contrast of union reaction between the conservative red tape reduction and cost cutting initiative of Harper's Conservatives and the recent federal vaccine mandate of Trudeau's Liberals. The sought efficiencies were admittedly warranted if we want to recognize the fiscal effort of Canadian taxpayers. Today's technology does not warrant obsolete work organization, maintaining the same volume of employees for a given output is against the very nature of serving Canadian citizens, it is an insult to their efforts.

Still, despite the rational necessity to provide Canadians with the best possible services at the best possible cost, unions teared their shirts on the public square over what was the right thing to do. They placed their interests, union dues being directly dependent on salary mass, above that of the Canadian population they pretend to help.

What attrition enabled without hurting anyone's livelihood was and is still refused for obvious reasons of cash flow from contributions.

Unions pretend they achieve general betterment of work conditions stemming from their political influence, while that might have been true in the past, there is a large gap between compensation in the public and private sector. Most studies make the mistake of comparing average salaries without regard for actual positions and qualifications, statistics stratified by employment categories would offer a much different picture.

Reality is salary within the public sector are normalized towards the middle, not much higher or close to the private sector across the board. Practically, this means a clerical employee might make two to three times what their private sector counterpart makes. While professionals will make similar salaries compared an average counterpart, but be limited in terms of ability to invest more time and energy in their careers, work organization not allowing initiative to take more work voluntarily. The general pace does not enable it, the work culture is also responsible for this.

Having a job with lower expectations is a double edged sword, while it might be less effort, it is also easier to be replaced. Implications of finding work with compensation on par afterwards are not considered by those whose conception of a career is biding their time. But do government employees not have solid job security? Oh wait, that is only for those who cannot lift their own weight, not those who want to make choices that regard only themselves.

While it might not be acceptable to push workers in the back, it is not more acceptable to hold them back. Everyone has different limits, they should not be imposed on others; some might want to work more, get more things done, but they are not allowed to by collective agreements. Despite some members asking for more flexibility in work organization, union representatives never bring this matter on the table for collective agreement negotiation.

Going back to the red tape reduction years, I sliced off close to one quarter of the yearly budget that was under my control, without firing anyone nor negative impact on service delivery. In contrast, some applied the cuts to where it would be the most visible and most felt by the public, this could not be anything but political posturing to gain public sympathy, but these cuts did not have to hurt anyone.

Short terms savings are possible on immediate efficiency gains and a shift from subcontracting, decried by unions themselves, toward in-house work, giving a chance to employees to show what they are capable of, harnessing their full talent. Perhaps raise overall salaries in consequence, having this increased productivity to trade at the bargaining table. On the other hand, long term savings are made possible through attrition, while no immediate job loss is warranted, the headcount status quo is not, but harnessing the full possibilities offered by modern technology is.

Regarding the current vaccine mandate, unions were quick to have embraced in unison a policy that hurts people, forcing them to proceed to a medical intervention against their will. But what evil do efficiency gains imply that made them so unacceptable to unions in contrast?

Did unions have to return a favor for the cancellation of the union disclosure Bill C-377? Would a federal vaccine mandate be comparable in terms of trading value? Are the political contributions of our unions so egregious that it would expose why was a law deemed necessary for transparency?

The vaccine mandate exposed unions' obvious political partisanship, their propensity to place their interest above their members and the Canadian population and we cannot dismiss the political influence of unions working against all of us.

Let's face it, unions are pulling the political landscape consistently to the left, an ever growing public service comes with a hefty bill that makes every Canadian life more expensive. After a dollar has been processed through the system, not much is left in actual services to the population that saw decades of stagnating wages.

But what are 2% wage increases going to do against political choices that increase the cost of life at a much higher rate?

My Public Service's 1st Public Service Annoncementhttps://t.co/NnKp4M7OcW
Introductory Offer: Free Subscription for Founding Members

— My Public Service (@_PublicService_) March 13, 2022