Can I donate my union dues to charity(Ontario) ?

[pfbmgd]

Can I donate my union dues to charity(Ontario) ?

I heard there is a form you can fill out from the government.It allows you to send the dues to a charity instead of the union .Is there any truth to that ?

[Octavius]

Can I donate my union dues to charity(Ontario) ?

I heard there is a form you can fill out from the government.It allows you to send the dues to a charity instead of the union .Is there any truth to that ?

O_o

Why would the union allow this? Doesn't make economic sense :confused:

[pfbmgd]

O_o

Why would the union allow this? Doesn't make economic sense :confused:

It doesn`t to me either .But someone at a get together mentioned it was possible.

[woobie]

Yes you can, Or at least As a Ford worker and CAW member I know I have that option. I would then assume it is province wide but it something best looked into properly. Call your local Union and ask or ask labour relations at your work, Don't take the word of just people posting on the net.

[Uncle Cool]

You will still have to abide by union 'rules' and 'bylaws' if your dues are re-
directed, but you are not entitled to other union benefits or activities.

I think people should be allowed to opt out 100% no matter where they work.

Being hired for a job should not depend on you being a union member as long as you are qualified and certified for a job you are paid to do.

[Kommander_KornFlakes]

-
Yeah okay, and I will re-direct my rent to a charity too, see how long I last in my apartment before I'm evicted.

Dude, do you still believe in pregnant birds?

[Jucius Maximus]

I would keep paying it to the union. The tax benefit is better than charity.

(Note: I do donate to charity. It comes off my MasterCard every month.)

[goldenegg]

-
Yeah okay, and I will re-direct my rent to a charity too, see how long I last in my apartment before I'm evicted.

Dude, do you still believe in pregnant birds?

Why thread crap on a subject you obviously know nothing about?

If you even bothered to do a quick search on Google, you'd have found that donating union dues to charity is allowed in multiple states in the US. I'm fairly certain it is also allowed throughout Canada, but am not 100% sure.

[chrza]

-
Yeah okay, and I will re-direct my rent to a charity too, see how long I last in my apartment before I'm evicted.

Dude, do you still believe in pregnant birds?

Haha, it was already comfirmed that it was possible, you ding dong. At least read the first few posts before you make a fool out of yourself.

[monty613]

How does this benefit the union in any way? Do they take the tax credit from the charitable donation? If not, why would they allow funds to be diverted from the union?

[Uncle Cool]

How does this benefit the union in any way? Do they take the tax credit from the charitable donation? If not, why would they allow funds to be diverted from the union?

It's the low price they pay in exchange for having the 'legal right' to force people to become union members based entirely on where they work or their job title.

The 'Rand Formula' is ancient and outdated and should be eliminated as 'justification' for allowing unions so much power.

[Dustbunny]

When I was forced to join PSAC (Fed gv't union) the only way you could opt out was through some convoluted process to prove you were doing it for religious reasons (I think that was the only out...). Anyway it's generally discouraged because even if you don't like the union, if you opt out, some of the very pro union workers you come into contact with can make your life miserable (and you often have no idea how ugly the nicest people can be when they find out you went against their 'brothers and sisters' in the union) and you lose any options you may need for filing grievances etc.

So make sure you know all the pros and cons of doing it and the exact conditions of opting out for the particular union you have to join.

[iluvmikeharris]

Being hired for a job should not depend on you being a union member as long as you are qualified and certified for a job you are paid to do.

If you're okay with being labotamized, you can always work for Walmart as their stores will organize over their dead body (if a store organizes, they close it down).

[plymouthhater]

Rand formula
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off) is a workplace situation where the payment of trade union dues is mandatory regardless of the worker's union status. This formula is designed to ensure that no employee will opt out of the union simply to avoid dues yet reap the benefits of the union's accomplishments (such as ensuring higher wages, better job security or other benefits). Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ivan Rand, the eponym of this law, introduced this formula in 1946 as an arbitration decision ending the Ford Strike of 1945 in Windsor, Ontario. The Canada Labour Code and the labour relations laws of a majority of provinces contain provisions requiring the Rand formula when certain conditions are met. In those provinces where the labour relations laws do not make the Rand formula mandatory, the automatic check-off of union dues may become part of the collective bargaining agreement if both parties (i.e., the employer and the trade union) agree. If there are religious objections to paying dues the dues may be donated to a mutually agreed upon charity per Canada Labour Code Section 70. (1)


(Quoting Canada Labour Code Part I Section 70)

"Compulsory Check-Off Union dues to be deducted

70. (1) Where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union forthwith.

Religious objections

(2) Where the Board is satisfied that an employee, because of their religious conviction or beliefs, objects to joining a trade union or to paying regular union dues to a trade union, the Board may order that the provision in a collective agreement requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a trade union or requiring the payment of regular union dues to a trade union does not apply to that employee so long as an amount equal to the amount of the regular union dues is paid by the employee, either directly or by way of deduction from their wages, to a registered charity mutually agreed on by the employee and the trade union. Designation by Board

(3) Where an employee and the trade union are unable to agree on a registered charity for the purposes of subsection (2), the Board may designate any such charity as the charity to which payment should be made. "

[edit] Freedom of association issue
It has been argued that the Rand formula forces a person to join an association, thus violating his/her freedom of association. The Supreme Court of Canada determined that the Rand formula was indeed a violation of a person's freedom of association if the union does not use the fees it collects for the collective negotiation process (example : donations to a union in another country). This violation has although been, so far, determined as being justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [1].

[Uncle Cool]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms needs to be rewritten to reflect the realities of this century.

[Canuck32]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms needs to be rewritten to reflect the realities of this century.

You do realize the Charter was enacted in 1982, unlike the Constitution Act (BNA Act) which is from 1867? I guess technically we're in a new century.

The Rand Formula does make sense to me. Basically, it states that if your workplace voted in a union then you have to at least pay your dues while also recognizing the individual right to not be a member of the union. It does appear counterintuitive and relatively pointless for those who want out of the union; however unions just couldn't operate if anyone could pick and choose. I have never heard of donating dues to charity but I have no reason to disbelieve the posts in this thread saying it's possible.

[gordholio]

You do realize the Charter was enacted in 1982, unlike the Constitution Act (BNA Act) which is from 1867? I guess technically we're in a new century.

The Rand Formula does make sense to me. Basically, it states that if your workplace voted in a union then you have to at least pay your dues while also recognizing the individual right to not be a member of the union. It does appear counterintuitive and relatively pointless for those who want out of the union; however unions just couldn't operate if anyone could pick and choose. I have never heard of donating dues to charity but I have no reason to disbelieve the posts in this thread saying it's possible.

The Constitution was patriated in 1982 as well and updated. We are no longer under the British North America Act of 1867. :)

[gilboman]

You will still have to abide by union 'rules' and 'bylaws' if your dues are re-
directed, but you are not entitled to other union benefits or activities.

I think people should be allowed to opt out 100% no matter where they work.

Being hired for a job should not depend on you being a union member as long as you are qualified and certified for a job you are paid to do.

many jobs are like this where there is a requirement for professional designation.

but it makes no sense for people to opt out of union in a unionized environment. then you will be freeloading on others who pay dues.

[Uncle Cool]

many jobs are like this where there is a requirement for professional designation.

but it makes no sense for people to opt out of union in a unionized environment. then you will be freeloading on others who pay dues.

A union membership is not a 'professional designation'.


It makes no sense to force people to become union members based on what they want a career in.

[gilboman]

A union membership is not a 'professional designation'.


It makes no sense to force people to become union members based on what they want a career in.

union memebership is the same in the fact that you have to be part of the union to work in a chosen place, same as you need to be a P.Eng or CA to sign off on certain things.

nobody forces you to choose a certain career or workplace, if you dont want to be part of a union or Prof Designation, then don't choose that.

e.g. if you dont want to be part of the BAR in the states, you do not have to choose to be an attorney, but to be an attorney, you need to join the BAR first.

[Uncle Cool]

union memebership is the same in the fact that you have to be part of the union to work in a chosen place, same as you need to be a P.Eng or CA to sign off on certain things.

nobody forces you to choose a certain career or workplace, if you dont want to be part of a union or Prof Designation, then don't choose that.

e.g. if you dont want to be part of the BAR in the states, you do not have to choose to be an attorney, but to be an attorney, you need to join the BAR first.

Explain CUPE, CUPW, OSSTF, ETFO, CAW, and so on...

In my opinion, union membership should be 100% optional in every way, shape or form, no matter what the 'Rand Formula' says.

Right to Work should be law in Canada.

[Canuck32]

Explain CUPE, CUPW, OSSTF, ETFO, CAW, and so on...

In my opinion, union membership should be 100% optional in every way, shape or form, no matter what the 'Rand Formula' says.

Right to Work should be law in Canada.

There are legal processes in place to de-unionize. If you don't want a union, then put it to a vote. As said above, the Rand Formula is meant to prevent people from freeloading on the union. This isn't going to change.

[Uncle Cool]

There are legal processes in place to de-unionize. If you don't want a union, then put it to a vote. As said above, the Rand Formula is meant to prevent people from freeloading on the union. This isn't going to change.

If I was forced to join a union as a term of employment in the police force or as a garbage collector, I would make sure I got everything the union had to offer and cost the union a lot of money.

There is no such thing as 'freeloading' in any union.

Unions are out of control in this day and age and happen to be nothing remotely similar to the way they were when they were first created, and necessary.

Labour laws and safety standards are in place and have replaced the need for unions for the vast majority of workers.

Every strike or labour action in the last ten years included demands for more money, more benefits and/or fewer duties and responsibilities, even though the union media relations crews try to make other topics the 'main grievance'.

I couldn't care less in the private sector, but in the public sector it directly involves me, so I say ban all union monopolization in any and all public services and make union membership 100% optional in every way, shape or form.

Right to Work is coming. Bet on it.

[Canuck32]

Well this thread was meant to answer a question about the current state of the law. If you want to talk about your opinion on labour policy then maybe you should start another thread.

Suppose you were offered the chance to leave the union, but by doing so you would have to forfeit all of the salary increases and benefits which the union has gained as a result of collective bargaining. Would you take the lower salary? Didn't think so. That's what I mean by freeloading.

[Uncle Cool]

Well this thread was meant to answer a question about the current state of the law. If you want to talk about your opinion on labour policy then maybe you should start another thread.

Suppose you were offered the chance to leave the union, but by doing so you would have to forfeit all of the salary increases and benefits which the union has gained as a result of collective bargaining. Would you take the lower salary? Didn't think so. That's what I mean by freeloading.

You are right, it is off-topic.

I am all about merit. I don't like employees getting unearned raises. Only the exceptional ones should.

Original poster, yes you can re-direct dues away from the union. Always remember, the unions have no authority so you can ignore all of their rules and bylaws.

[ghostryder]

Unions are out of control in this day and age and happen to be nothing remotely similar to the way they were when they were first created, and necessary.

Labour laws and safety standards are in place and have replaced the need for unions for the vast majority of workers.


Sounds good in theory. Assuming those labour laws and safety standards are actually adhered to and enforced. Sometimes the only people who care that those laws and standards are adhered to is your union. In the past I have been in that situation.

[Canuck32]

You are right, it is off-topic.

I am all about merit. I don't like employees getting unearned raises. Only the exceptional ones should.


I don't mean to sound like a pro-union left-winger, but this post doesn't, in my mind, speak true to reality. It would be ideal to live in a completely merit-based society, but if that were the case then the corporations would just take advantage. Without the ability to collective bargain, salaries would be extremely low and there would be no benefits. Employees likely would not get earned or unearned raises. Do you really think employers would give raises on the basis of merit of employees in cases where it's not necessary to do so? This only happens in industries where there is a shortage of talent, resulting in the supply and demand effect benefiting workers. In most areas, there will always be another person with "merit" that can replace a similar worker.

Unions have a role in Canadian society, and they certainly have been extremely successful and necessary historically at protecting the rights of workers. There are certainly cases in today's climate where they have gotten out of hand, but I'm not sure I like the alternative either.

[Dustbunny]

It would be ideal to live in a completely merit-based society, but if that were the case then the corporations would just take advantage. Without the ability to collective bargain, salaries would be extremely low and there would be no benefits. Employees likely would not get earned or unearned raises. Do you really think employers would give raises on the basis of merit of employees in cases where it's not necessary to do so?

You are forgetting a couple of things. There are millions of non-union employers who pay their staff very well, regardless of supply, and not having a union capping wages means those who work harder can make more. That is a huge incentive for workers that benefits employers. Also employers are not stupid (well, most of them aren't). If they lose employees because of wages, they lose expertise and all the time it takes to train someone up. They also lose the ability to attract staff.

Where wages would drop without unions is where they should drop and that is for jobs which typically aren't really skill based to begin with. For the most part the unions have taken those jobs right out of common sense and low and behold they are finding themselves priced out of business in many industries.

In my experience until people get out of a union they don't usually have a very realistic picture of how the rest of the workers manage to get raises, advance, and have better benefits than what unions brainwash people into thinking. The trick is you had better have the skills and the right attitude and that is something often missing when it comes to union jobs (not all, but certainly many). In most places in this country, their time is pretty much done and they aren't serving the purpose they originally had which was ensuring workers were paid and treated fairly.

[Ubiquitous]

Yes, some of you can donate your Union Dues to Charity.

Check your applicable Collective Agreement.

Jennifer

[jcon]

Yes, some of you can donate your Union Dues to Charity.

Check your applicable Collective Agreement.

Jennifer

You dug up a thread with KK bs in it. That's 7 years bad luck!

[UrbanPoet]

-
Yeah okay, and I will re-direct my rent to a charity too, see how long I last in my apartment before I'm evicted.

Dude, do you still believe in pregnant birds?

Jerk.
Enjoy your ban.

oh wait, you're already banned. muahahaha

[beerbaron105]

If I was forced to join a union as a term of employment in the police force or as a garbage collector, I would make sure I got everything the union had to offer and cost the union a lot of money.

There is no such thing as 'freeloading' in any union.

Unions are out of control in this day and age and happen to be nothing remotely similar to the way they were when they were first created, and necessary.


Right to Work is coming. Bet on it.

That would be the reason, and you would be the reason why unions are failing and the general public has the mentality that it does about union members.