4 ms·
I'm not convinced this is a bad thing, given only the information in your comment.
by jacobush 7y ago
I'm not convinced this is a bad thing, given only the information in your comment.
- cperciva 7y agoYou're not convinced that it's bad for the government to deliberately overpay for projects in order to funnel money into the pockets of its political donors?
- kareemm 7y agoI’m not sure that’s a fair characterization. Is it clear they’re overpaying? I’m not pro-union but unions aren’t the devil.
- fiblye 7y agoAssuming that comment isn't misrepresenting the issue (I know nothing about Canada and can't say), I think the main focus isn't the unions, but that only organizations that contribute to fattening politicians wallets can build anything. Those organizations just happen to be unions.
- bluGill 7y agoA union that is getting contracts because they contribute to the right people is the corrupt devil. A union that provides for their workers salary, safety, retirement, or whatever other good is fine, but many unions cross the line to not allowing non-union workers fair ground to compete with them and that is evil.
- jacobush 7y agoI'm not convinced it's because the unions are lining the coffers of the politicians. It's not like corporations are strangers to lobbying and influencing either. There have been many problems with non-union subcontractors skimping on workers protections, causing death and injury to workers. I don't know about the situation in Canada, but a few soundbites without data is not going to convince me "union bad", "big construction company good".
- cperciva 7y agoIs the situation clearer when you realize that it's only a subset of unions which are allowed to be involved with public construction contracts? The unions which didn't make "donations" have been shut out.