PS Unions

The Tyranny of Collective Rights

Part Two:  Public Service Unions

    There are two political theories of employment. And, only two. The line between the two is the line between right and left-wing philosophy.

    Right-wing philosophy is based upon respect for the principles of liberty and individual rights. A position of employment is recognised as the property of the employer. And, as a guest naturally considers the wishes of a host when visiting a home, so does an employee naturally respect the conditions offered by an employer. The employee is free to accept offered conditions, or to seek (or create) employment elsewhere. This is the system based upon a foundation of respect for the freedom of both parties. These principles apply to all employment, whether a lemonade stand, an automobile manufacturer, or the government.

       However, left-wing philosophy is based upon the principle of collectivism, which does not accept the right of private property. A job is not considered the property of the employer, but is considered collective property with the employee. This then leads to the “collective right” to bargain conditions, as employees form a union to bargain their own contracts against employers.

      In this system, the employer is not free to determine the conditions of employment, and the individual employee is not free to accept offered conditions.

      There is no middle ground between these two systems. Either, the employer is allowed the freedom and respect to decide conditions, or the employer is not.

      In a right-wing system, “fairness” is a clean and object line. The employer offers what is determined to be fair, and the employee makes a simple decision as to whether it is acceptable and fair. However, in a collectivist system, “fairness” is an entirely arbitrary line. The union can demand anything, and call it fair: or reject anything, and call it unfair.

       As always, the “collective right” is a violation of the true freedoms and rights of all.

     The existence of PS unions is an even more unacceptable assault on democracy and the principles of liberty. In a nation based upon respect for individual rights, our elected representatives must be 100% accountable to those who elect them and pay their salaries. Our politicians must be free and responsible to determine the conditions of PS employment. This includes any who receive tax dollars as wages, including teachers and police. However, the existence of PS unions denies our elected representatives the power to fulfill this crucial and correct role. It is an injustice and an offense that PS employees are able to “bargain” their own salaries and benefits against essentially defenceless working Canadians.

       The time has come to begin to identify and understand the line between policies which uphold liberty and individual rights, versus those that violate these values. The Left is constantly disguising and obscuring their agenda in endless, evasive new labels, yet the principles remain the same.

     We can no longer live in a society where some can claim a “collective right” which clearly violates respect for the rights of others. A strong, correct step is for governments to eliminate all PS unions, restoring accountability to our elected representatives, and respect for working Canadians. 

The Tyranny of Collective Rights: Part One

The Tyranny of Collective Rights

Part 1: Protests

    We live in a country where we are taught that a “collective right” allows an individual to violate the basic rights of another. We live in a country where the police do not uphold law and order, and allow individuals to block public roadways or occupy public spaces, because we have come to believe that they have a collective right to do so. Essentially, individuals believe that they have a right to ignore the basic civility and order of our society wherever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want. In this, the collective right is entirely arbitrary, without objective lines or limits on this behavior. There is no punishment or consequences for this behaviour. The government orders our police to stand back, more concerned with the safety and “rights” of those who break the laws of our society.

    If I decide to stand in the middle of the street or occupy a public space for any length of time, the police quickly and correctly ask me to move along, or arrest me if I refuse. Either way, the public space is efficiently cleared. There is no bargaining, no negotiating, no stand-offs.

      However, at some point, someone declared that there should be a “collective right” which allows individuals to violate this basic respect for law and order in our society.

     It is rightly the role of government to maintain law and order. Which, obviously includes keeping the streets cleared for the use of the public. This should be a simple and understood procedure. However, the problem is now more challenging because of the years of governments evading and failing this basic responsibility. The bottom line is that the authority of the state must be obeyed. If the police ask individuals to move along, this must happen. It can no longer be a case where the police must wait until the protesters feel like going home. The use of whatever force necessary to uphold the law is justified. This does not mean that we live in a “police state”. It means that we live in a society where there are police that uphold the law. Failing to uphold the law, or allowing the law to be ignored, is a state of anarchy. There is no middle ground. Either the law is obeyed, or it is ignored. The laws that apply to one person cannot be ignored when applied to a group of people. The laws must be applied to all equally.

    The time has come to draw a clear line between a right to peaceful assembly, and this entirely separate injustice of individuals blocking roadways and public places, created by the acceptance of these conflicting and contrary “collective rights”.

    As all nations embrace necessary austerity measures, the escalation of the danger, vandalism, and violence of these protests is inevitable. These demonstrations increasingly threaten all citizens, police forces, physical infrastructure, and commerce. Lack of respect for law and order, and disregard for civility and consideration for one another are signs and symptoms of a society regressing to its natural barbaric state. It is not too late to turn things around, but our governments must present a clear, concerted, and committed position on this unfolding issue.