Recently, Conservative member Pierre Poilievre proposed that union dues no longer be obligatory, legally. In Canada, if your sector has a union, you are forced to pay union dues – regardless if you want to be part of it. Pierre brings up some nice sounding points, particularly freedom of association (even though the court have already said, a long time ago, it doesn’t violate freedom of association) – he thinks Canadians should have the choice whether or not to pay union dues. On the face of things, it may not seem as though there’s really a problem. Though, it sounds fine, it has daunting and pernicious consequences.
The first more obvious problem is that making union dues voluntary would completely remove unions as a viable political force in Canada. Over the past few decades union membership has been gradually declining in Canada, and such a move to remove obligatory payment would obliterate the waning power they already wield. They would lose enormous amounts of money. What does this mean? Well, it means businesses and “management” will have an easier time firing people, paying less, and granting less benefits – as unions will have less to fight back. It means employers will have more power over employees. Considering the average wage for the lower and middle class in Canada hasn’t risen considerably (and actually declined) in the past three decades, removing unions would perhaps tilt that stagnation into decline. The exact figures are, the middle 20% household market income earners in Canada saw their wages decline 0.3% since 1980, and the bottom 20% saw theirs drop over 11%. Factor in inflation, which is higher cost on everything, then lack of increased income is even more troubling.
Unions increase income of Canadians, less unions means that income disparity will continue to rise in Canada. Indeed, there is a correlation between diminished union membership and income inequality in Canada, and other countries, including America.
The more underlying issue with removing mandated dues would be the further erosion of democracy in Canada. Unions support political parties, just as businesses do (including newspapers). Businesses donate to political parties, and rally for political parties through various means. Unions do the same thing, particularly lending support to their traditional ally: the NDP.
If Pierre’s proposal was granted, then opposition in Canada would be further weakened through lack of funds and support. Unions can only exist so long as there’s people backing them; businesses have always existed, and have made a ton of money. Unions need members, and money, ultimately, to have influence.
Consider the abolition of the per vote subsidy by the Conservatives, a subsidy the opposition relied to fund future campaigns. Now a Conservative member wants to attack another source of support for the now Official Opposition. Political parties need money in order to be effective, and Pierre wants to deprive the opposition of even more.
Mr. Poilievre may not seem to have malicious intent, but the results will be as such. The results will be an expanded plutocracy in Canada, with a minority of Canadians retaining awash of wealth while everybody elses’ wages stagnant and decline. Corporations will have even more of a surplus while their taxes are cut, and Canadians will have even more personal debt, while their taxes are raised. The NDP and other opposition parties will have a viable ally slashed and thus weakening chances of electoral victory. The end result will be a Conservative government longevity, as it would be officially attacking the direct sources that contest their incumbency. The end result will be a weakened democracy, a weakened population and a flourishing, corporate, aristocracy.
We are already headed in that direction, where the above could be an outcome – implementing his proposal would surely aggravate things.