Sent to the CCF on 8Dec2012

I would like your views on the following essay as it may relate to the teachers' strikes that are currently plaguing our province and the legal/constitutional validity of the unions' ability to use collective actions to damage or destroy the property [public school system & the teaching services it provides for the children of these taxpayers.

>>=============>

What follows is an argument, based on Property Rights, that the teachers unions [and all labour unions for that matter] should have no rights to “negotiate” wages and employment benefits by taking any action that would destroy or damage the legitimate property rights of other parties --- in this case, the publicly-owned, taxpayer-funded school system.

The crux of this argument will show that the so-called  “successes” gained by the teachers’ unions over the past have been “won” using methods that are blatant violations to the property rights of hundreds of thousands of other tax-paying citizens.

To begin, I doubt that many would argue with me over the statement that property rights, and their protection, are an essential feature of a civil society. Without property rights, and the institutions needed to enforce them, the strong could take from the weak with impunity. The fact that Canadians place a very high value on the protection of property rights is directly reflected in the elaborate, costly and publicly-funded  institutions that we have created: our police forces, courts, national defense programme, health care system, insurance enterprises, etc .

Common sense tells us that the term “property” can be broken down into three categories: Person, Product and Resources.

Person:  People who have been raised in a free society will instinctively act to protect their most fundamental “property” – their bodies, thoughts and feelings.

Product:   A closely related category to “person” includes the things that one produces – their creations, the outputs of their labor and personal investments.

Resources:  Every human being depends on his/her access to the material resources of the world into which we were born. None of us could survive without food, water, land and sources of energy that are supplied by the earth and sun  ie the life essentials from which we nourish, clothe and shelter ourselves, and so much more.

Let’s apply these property concepts to the work place.

Question 1:  who owns the “job”?  the employee or the employer?

Answer:  the employer creates and funds the job which belongs to the Product property category.

Question 2:  who owns the skills to fulfill the requirements of the job?

Answer: the employ brings both his/her own Person and ability to create the Product desired by the employer.

Question 3: what is the nature of employment?

Answer:  trade.

The employer and employee reach an agreement to trade what they own. In almost all cases, the employer sets the terms of the trade and the employee either accepts these terms or rejects them. Outside of a non-monetary barter arrangement, employees generally trade a number of hours of their dedicated Person and Product-producing capability for an agreed-upon sum of money. This arrangement is frequently documented an a legally-binding employment agreement.

Question4:  who owns the money with which the labor compensation is made?

Answer: obviously, the employer

Question 5: how do employment agreements obtained through collective bargaining differ from those obtained through one-on-one negotiations between individual hiring managers and individual workers?

Answer: one is arrived at through threats and coercion; the other is arrived at voluntarily.

To explain:

In the absence of collective “bargaining”, each individual job candidate completes for jobs based on meeting qualifications requirements that have been determined as the “best fit” acceptance criteria by the employer. The candidates who present the best Person and Product qualifications are generally “short-listed” to become finalists in the job competition. The job is ultimately offered to the top-rated candidate by the employer at which point the management-approved terms of employment [salary, employment benefits, vacation allocations, bonus plans, commission rates, etc] are presented. The candidate can:  accept the terms of employment, reject them or attempt to negotiate them.

After an agreement has been reached, a legally-binding Employment Agreement [EA] is prepared and signed to lock in the agreement which remains binding until future performance reviews determine appropriate modifications to the EA. 

In other words, the EA clearly documents the exchange of property arrangement that has been reached by the parties.

Note that in such an employment contract, the employer may entrust the employee with the use of the company’s assets [money, equipment, intellectual property, proven operational procedures, and other employees who have signed similar employment contracts] in order to conduct profitable business for the company. However, they employee should never forget who owns these assets.

In the “collective bargaining scenario, the dynamics are quite different. Here’s how….

When a group of employees organize to remove their collective labor in a ‘strike’ action, the impact on the employer’s business is likely to be much greater than if a single employer choses not to work. Strikes and “work slowdowns” can result in  long-lasting costs to the business such as: lost profits; losing customers; paying penalties for not fulfilling the contractual terms that they had signed with their customers; product spoilage and waste; damage to the company reputation and community standing; etc.

Violations of property rights also occur when one party damages, destroys or steals the assets owned by another party. For example, if someone purposefully burned down your home, this action is punishable by laws that were designed to protect your property rights.  The real costs that can be brought to bear on the business owners due to a strike is no less real than the costs of vandalism or embezzlement.

The size of the damage is often directly related to the scale and duration of the strike. For example, when an employee uses his exemplary job performance to negotiate better terms of employment with his employer, he will likely be successful if the job performance warrants it, but unsuccessful if it does not. If the employee choses to leave his job as the result of a failed negotiation, the employer will likely be inconvenienced by the loss of this one employee is unlikely to inflict significant damages to the value of his property – his business. In most cases, the employer will readily find a replacement. However, how do you replace dozens or even hundreds of workers when union leaders call a strike, even if it were legal to do so? It is self-evident that the nature of such a collective action has much more serious consequences to the business owner(s) than the loss of a single employee over a failed compensation negotiation.

These strike losses are real,  and insurance coverage is not available to cover the.  A strike is a pre-meditated and planned action (ie does not occur by accident or and ‘act of God’). Therefore, the losses are not insurable.

And yet, the union leaders who orchestrate this destruction of personal property are free to do so under our laws. It is hard to imagine, in a civil society that has long traditions of property rights protection and the extensive institutions to enforce them, how the labor movement has been awarded the “right” to destroy the property of others as a form of negotiation.  And they have somehow been able to do this over something  for which they can claim no legitimate property ownership.

They do not own the company Brand and Name recognition  – this belongs to the employer and is an asset that takes years to build up through investments in marketing, market, research, customer service, product quality, customer convenience, competitive strategies, etc .

They do not own the loyal Customer -  these results for repeatedly satisfying each loyal customer time and time again.

They do not own the Capital investments made to “tool up” the business for productivity improvement.

They do not own the Organization, Processes and Systems that were  designed and are employed daily as the bedrock upon which the business stands. 

They do not own the Intellectual Property that provides the company with the ‘raison d’etre’ and competitive edge needed to succeed in its markets. This includes all business Data, Metadata  and Legal documents.

And last, but not least, they do not even own the Job and Employment Agreement that defines the terms of each Job.

They do own, however, their Selves – their individual bodies, skills, knowledge and talents which each uniquely bring to the Job and for which they agreed to trade under the terms outlined in EA.

Question 6: what is a strike or “work slowdown” ?

Answer: union leaders describe it as a "negotiation tactic". I see it for what it really is – blackmail.

And blackmail is a crime no less than embezzlement or vandalism.

There is no crime, however, in employees getting together to discuss ways to remedy workplace issues. Everyone has the right of free association.

Yet, while “collective bargaining” is even considered legal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nowhere is it written that it is legal to willfully damage or destroy the property of other citizens as a bi-product of collective bargaining. After all, is our government not considered 'of the people and for the people' - our collective property. And if it is, where is it written that special groups such as unions members  are entitled to a better arrangement that other  "equal" stakeholders in our governments?

Consider how unfair the public sector strikes really are. All taxpayers are forced to pay their taxes [ give up their personal Property]  under threat of legal repercussions. Are taxes owing negotiable? – only in your dreams. Having paid the prescribed tax bills, you  are not even guaranteed delivery of the services for which you are forced to pay! Instead of serving us [the paying ‘customer’], our governments have chosen to side with those we have been forced to pay !!  If this scenario doesn’t describe a mafia-style  ‘blackmail’ offer, I don’t know what else does!

Now, if we could just get a refund on our taxes whenever we have been short-changed by government strikes, this may possibly be considered a “fair” deal. But hell would freeze over before the government would agree to these terms and charge the losses back to the powerful unions and their members.

This issue, and its remedy, should be very straightforward.   Whenever an organized workers' group, and especially those who offer essential services under a monopoly [Note : ALL government services are operated as monopolies] undertakes to carry out any deliberate action that results in any loss to the employer [in this case, consider the employer to be the tax-paying citizen], charges should be laid on everyone who takes part in this crime.

What if a TABOR existed [ Taxpayers' Bill of Rights]?   – one where governments were forced to spend ONLY what they bring in from taxes? Balanced budgets  would be the first rule of government within which all union negotiations MUST legally abide. Since labor makes up the majority of government costs [ ~ 75%] , then reductions in labor costs must comprise  a significant part of the solution in order to balance the books.

In private sector enterprises, employers’ earnings may vary over time due to many societal and economic factors that are beyond their control. The employees of these companies may also see their paychecks and employment circumstances fluctuate due to these market influences. Many of the same economic forces that affect the prosperity of business have also been known to determine varying levels of  government receipts and outlays. I see no reason that public sector employees must be protected from economic circumstances that may dictate financial adjustments to mitigate against violating the terms a TABOR.

I was taught that it is best to “live within your means” …. I am simply asking that all public servants be prepared  to accept the same financial risks and consequences as the rest of the working population in Canada. 

Unfortunately, this may be a naiive dream. Since the politically powerful labor movement in Canada’s public sector has been successful at achieving what I like to refer to as a BABOR [Blackmailers' Bill of ‘Rights’], union leaders have repeated clubbed us with it to extract the current extravagant public sector wage and benefits packages at our expense and financial risk  [much of these gains are debt financed or paid from an inflation-producing monetary policy].

Its beyond me how some some union supporters  can claim that their  “negotiation tactics” can ethically acceptable when they damage or destroy the paid property of others?

I have worked as an IT Recruiter for since 1981 and have successfully placed over 1100 people. In every case, these jobs were filled through one-on-one negotiations between employer and employee within the private sector. If this long-established methods have worked successfully for the ~60% of the Canadian workforce that is not employed in the public sector, then I am certain it can also be successful in the public sector.

Unions may have played a useful role in the distant past, but their role in Canadian civil society is now long past its “best before “ date.  PLEASE … eliminate BABOR and replace it with a TABOR,  and I will never have to write another essay like this one! 

"PUT ME IN CHARGE"

Has anyone else seen this ???   It was sent to me today by an old friend [Rick].

I call it "PUT ME IN CHARGE"  and its message can be summarized by the final quote:
   
      "The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a  living."

For me, this message  beautifully addresses the 'entitlement attitude' that seems so common today amongst the electorate and it does so in a very interesting and forthright manner - somewhat blunt, maybe, but still an appropriate message just the same.

This was written by a British 21 yr old female who "gets it".  

It's her future she’s worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare system that she’s being forced to live in!  These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.

Read on ……  >>===================>


Put me in charge . . ..

Put me in charge of benefit payments.  I'd get rid of cash payments and provide vouchers for 50kg bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese, basic sanitary items and all the powdered milk you can use.  If you want  steak, burgers, takeaway and  junk food, then get a  job.

Put me in charge of the NHS. The first thing I'd do is to get women to have birth control implants.  Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce, use drugs, drink alcohol or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of local authority housing.  Ever live in military barracks?  You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections any time and possessions will be inventoried.  If you want  a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

Put me in charge of compulsory job search. You will either search for employment each week, no matter what the job, or you will report for community work.  This may be clearing the roadways and open spaces of rubbish, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you.  We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your "dooff dooff" stereo and speakers and put that money toward the  “common good.”

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realise that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our hard earned cash and housing assistance, accept our rules..  Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin someones "self  esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices.  The current system rewards those for continuing to make bad choices.

AND - While  you are on benefit income you no longer have the right to VOTE!
For you to vote would be a conflict of interest..... If you want to vote, then get a job.

Makes sense to me!  "The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a  living"

The “Libertarian Way” to address issues like “Child Poverty”

I have lived in Canada all of my life [since 1951]. Too many times to count, I have heard message that we Canadians are all so very fortunate to live a country full of caring and compassionate citizens – one that serves and protects every citizen by a broad slate of ‘free’ government programs.  

A lifetime bombardment of these messages has produced a powerful mechanism in my consciousness that leads a part of me to quickly and reflexively turn to government when societal issues arise …. such as child poverty. It almost feels natural to look to government for answers. I know that I am not alone in feeling this ‘knee-jerk’, “government is the answer“  response.

Many Canadians accept this “Government Way” without challenge because it offers the ‘easy way out’ ----  it absolves its supporters from taking any direct responsibility for the problem at hand.

The Government Way is also seductive because there is no obvious direct connection between the taxes you pay and the specific problem at hand -   hence the illusion held by many that public services are ‘free’.

For those citizens who do understand the connection between our tax contributions and public services, then it makes it easy to convince ourselves [and others] that we ‘have done our part’. Having washed our hands of any culpability, the government can then become a convenient ‘scapegoat’ whenever it fails to meet our expectations.

It is no wonder that, when our political leaders tell us not to worry because our hard-earned tax dollars are ‘hard at work‘ to produce the best possible solution, it’s a readily acceptable claim. It is the perfect salve to soothe our  guilty conscience.

I have long ago rejected the salve and accepted the reality that government is rarely capable of delivering the best solution to any problems. What’s more, I have also come to understand that excessive government is often the cause of many of our problems, not the resolver of them.

In is now clear to me that the centralized ‘command & control’ methods that are the “Government Way” are in no way as effective as the decentralized and personalized methods used by caring members within healthy and cohesive communities. This latter way is the “Libertarian Way.”   

Being community centered, the “Libertarian Way” is fueled by the natural impulse of any community member who cares for people that he/she knows personally – friends, family, co-workers. My attraction to the “Libertarian Way” is because it seems so natural to me as a compassionate and responsible man.

While the lure of the Government Way still beckons occasionally, especially when my plate is full with other responsibilities, I am quick to remember all the ways that government has failed us. The fleeting shred of guilt I feel when I find myself tempted by the ‘easy way out’ is now replaced with a sense of pride and honor as I turn to the more trustworthy “Libertarian Way” and experience the ‘joys of giving’ when I personally witness the results of my efforts.

It is difficult for many of us to imagine living in a Canada with a much smaller government footprint than we have come to know and expect in our lives. The unknown can be frightening.

Today I read “Volunteerism Trumps Taxes” in the National Post [page A19] which describes how the Colorado Springs community of citizens has taken control of its runaway city government spending problem by passing, by referendum, a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The TABOR, as it is known, strictly controls City Council to prevent it from spending more that it collects in taxes and from introducing new spending initiatives with approval of the citizens. This story is a heartening example of how ordinary citizens will contribute their time and resources to provide needed services on a voluntary basis. 

A Taxpayer Bill of Rights is a long overdue feature of our democracy in Ontario as well as Canada. Let’s join together and follow the example of Colorado Springs. Let’s reshape our society by rebuilding community spirit and let’s all take part in becoming Community Champions who, through volunteerism, can radically reduce the need for the size, cost and waste of today’s government institutions. Let’s privatize the services that should never have been part of government in the first place. Let’s enable our citizens to be more engaged in priority-setting and decision-making by creating an online web portal to host a referendum whenever significant changes in government costs and programs are tabled for consideration.

Most important, let’s renew our democracy around our communities. Let’s shed the centralized, statist model of government that has proven to be so ineffective at meeting the needs of a richly diverse, complex and challenge-plagued world in which we all inhabit.  This too is a change that is long overdue.

What to do about child poverty

This morning, I listened to The Morning Show  [CBC Matt galloway] who had as his guest Armine Yalnizyan  [http://www.policyalternatives.ca/authors/armine-yalnizyan], and  economist from the leftist Center of Policy Alternatives. Armine claimed that 1 in 7 children live in poverty. Knowing that Armine is a socialist who is very much interested in using issues like child property as a vehicle for achieving her visions of government-controlled income distribution from the so-called "rich"  to the so-called "poor", I see this claim as bogus,  However, child poverty exists. To the extent that it does exist, it is a serious issue and worthy of discussion and our attention.

Last night, in a conversation with my wife who is Principal of a public school, she described what she stands for as the leader of her school - to ensure that EVERY student can be the best that they can be so that they can become productive, law-abiding contributors to society throughout their lifetimes. She also said that NO  child should be left behind and that every teacher and school demonstrator must do everything possible to ensure that each and every child achieve their potential.

While Armine's statistics on child poverty may be exaggerated for political purposes, my wife's professional goals are to be supported. It is in everyone's  best interests that every member of society become an economically productive citizen and, as unpleasant as the truth may be, there are some members of society who lack the resources to do much more than simply survive with in our increasingly specialized and automated employment markets. 

I believe that they strong private sector - one that is freed from unnecessary and counter-productive government interference -  is the best medicine to cure poverty for the majority of our citizens. To be realistic, however, I know that not everyone will benefit from the benefits of this vision. To the extent that some people will be unable to participate, solutions must be found so that no one gets left behind.

It is in the best interests of the Ontario Libertarian Party to address child poverty in its platform. I encourage our members to contribute ideas to a discussion on this topic. Non-OLP members are welcome to the discussion.

Please participate.

the TRUTH about income inequality

Finally the TRUTH about income inequality has been published today in the FP Comment section of the National Post  under the title " 'Poor' getting richer". The authors, Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam, are economists at the Fraser Institute and co-authors of the recently released “Measuring Income Mobility in Canada,” available at www.fraserinstitute.org

As a Professional Recruiter since 1981, it has long been evident to me that personal incomes change as workers progress through various stages of their  careers. Peak earning years inevitably occur later in one's career as employees gain more experience and/or rise through the employers' ranks into progressively more responsible leadership roles.

Rather that taking a snapshot of income distributions like most 'leftist' economists are apt to do to skew their idealogical arguments,  Mr. Veldhuis and Lammam take a more appropriate longitudinal view in " 'Poor' getting richer" by tracking the income changes of 1 million Canadians over 19 years.
The conclusions were highly predicable and what should be common knowledge to everyone that the vast majority of our citizens move up from the lowest quintile of earnings throughout their careers. In addition,  this rising income distribution is spread somewhat evenly across  each of the 4 quintiles above the lowest income level.

For some time now, I have been disappointed in the mainstream media's focus on the need for more and better education in order to increase income levels [ ie through better paying 'specialist' jobs] rather than discussing the equally important 'career planning & development' contribution to these rising incomes. With better information and career guidance,  our citizens can make better career decisions and personal investments in order to navigate through increasingly complex employment markets. The goals is to help each citizen to contribute their best throughout every stage of their career for both their own well-being as well as that of their employers.

Prosperity in Ontario will come by removing government-imposed  hurdles to growth as well as to facilitate the creation of a 'careers-friendly' environment that will enable our "human capital" career hurdlers to function at Olympic  performance levels. Hopefully, some creative entrepreneur will cease on this business opportunity and serve this under-served need with a new business model that can be profitable for everyone. This is NOT a market that needs to be served by another government agency.

Let's think "careers", not just "education",  and we will all cross the finish line in record time.

Where does capitalism fit into government?

In a recent email exchange, by friend Rick asked: "Where do you see capitalism fitting into government? I understand where socialism fits in."  My reply....

Rick.

To make an adequate attempt to answers this question, it may be best to start by defining our terms. 

Capitalism is a form of economic organization whereby individuals or the owners of “for-profit” business enterprises  voluntarily choose to invest some or all of their existing assets [time, money, personal skills and any other owned] in order to increase the value of their asset holdings. They do this by creating and selling, at free market prices, the products or services that they create directly from these investments. Capitalism is also characterized by 'free trade' between 2 or more parties that stand to mutually gain from a voluntary, negotiated exchange of assets.

 Government is also a form of economic organization whereby revenues [taxes] are taken from individual citizens and private corporations by force, or by threat of force, and used to build and/or maintain political power. Tn turn, this political power is used to ‘buy’ the votes of citizens [usually organized in large and politically powerful special interest groups] by making promises which cater to the most politically powerful of these special interests groups. These promises [political IOUs] refer to potential personal gains for group members in exchange for votes.

 Most modern governments are modeled on the socialism model of economic organization which employs power centers [centralized government institutions] to take the assets of one group of wealthier economic participants and distribute these assets to the more numerous groups of relatively poorer economic participants in exchange for political support. Modern variants for Socialism include Fascism which is the collusion of powerful government/political players with leaders of powerful corporations who exchange political and financial assets in order to gain market/political advantage – this, of course, all transacted at the expense of consumers and other 'free market' economic players [think Wall Street banks and the Federal Reserve System and the Bush/ Obama economic stimulus packages].

 Now, to answer your question directly;  governments cannot  tolerate capitalism within their domains of operation because governments hate competition. However, Governments depend on Capitalism to exist. Their parasitic relationship with capitalistic enterprises is essential because governments could not exist if it had no hosts from which to suck its life blood - taxes.

 There is nothing "capitalistic"  about government operations.

 First of all, taxation does not qualify as a voluntary, 'free market' transaction.

 Second, the products of government [licenses, deeds, regulations and other forms of legislation, certifications, etc.] are not products for which most citizens would willingly pay. [think drivers license]

 Third, by the self-assigned ability to take property under the privilege of "eminent domain", personal property can be taken from citizens who are unable to make a sell/no sell decision and therefore, are unlikely to be able to negotiate a satisfactory price in return for the assets they must forfeit. [think the Green Belt decision]

 Fourth, even the products sold by government directly to consumers [LCBO, The Beer Store, Hydro One] are sold under monopoly pricing [compare the price of spirits in the USA to Ontario].

 Fifth, the services provided by government are also provided under dual monopoly structures that eliminate competition [example: the Canada Health Act] and employee 'monopoly labor' [public service unions employ ~75% of Ontario's 1,060,000 public servants].

Six, government leaders have no interest in preserving the long-term capital value of government-owned assets unless they are politically motivated to do so during their four-year elected term of office.

 Seven, government leaders have no interest in establishing limits to government spending and long-term debt accumulation unless they are politically motivated to do so during their four-year elected term of office.

 Eight, whereas capitalistic leaders of business enterprises make rational decisions that are motivated by profits and long-term capital accumulation to increase shareholder value, political leaders are not motivated to by financial gain for the enterprise at all, but by political gains [votes] for the political parties they represent; to achieve their ends, political leaders frequently favor emotional justifications over rational arguments to sway their constituents to their point of view.

 Nine, political leaders cater to the popular societal myth that everyone is "equal" and therefore equally deserving of the spoils of society. By contrast, business leaders recognize the reality that equality is a fiction among workers which is why they create compensation schemes [ raises, bonuses, business equity, performers clubs, promotions based on merit, etc]  that reward top performers over poorer performers.

 Ten, capitalism is based on the entrepreneurial spirit whereby enterprising individuals seek to profit financially by identifying a gap or scarcity of products/services that can be produced in order to profitably serve real human needs and/or desires. By contrast, government leaders often fabricate or exaggerate societal needs and/or issues in order to develop a campaign strategy that will help them to achieve political power.

Rick. I hope these points have convinced you that government is incompatible with capitalism as operational economic models with the only exception that the parasitic relationship is necessary for most government structures to stand.

 Thank you for the question. It was an interesting one to address.

The Property Rights View

After reading the pieces [ published in the Letters section of the National Post on Saturday November 10, 2012]  by Paul Moist, CUPE President, and Claude Poirier, CAPE President, I felt an urge to respond to the smug attitudes with which they claim the excessive entitlements that have been unethically bestowed on their union members. I hope that they will forgive me for raining on their parade with an argument that shows that their so-called  “successes” has been acquired by blatant violations to  the property rights of hundreds of thousands of other citizens.

 I doubt that many would argument with me over the statement that property rights, and their protection, are an essential feature of a civil society. Without property rights and the institutions needed to enforce them, the strong could take from the weak with impunity.

People who have been raised in a free society will instinctively act to protect their most fundamental “property” – their bodies, thoughts and feelings. A closely related category of “property” includes the things that they produce – their creations and the outputs of their labor and investments.  Another fundamental claim to “property” is our individual claim to our share of the natural world. None of us could survive without access to the material resources supplied by the earth and sun which are essential to all of us so that we can be fed, clothed, sheltered and much more.

Let’s apply these property concepts to the work place. 

An employee's job is not his/her personal property. The job belongs to the employer. It is created due to increasing demands on the enterprise and can only be authorized by the enterprise owner. The employee, who is approved for the job, accepts the work offered by the employer in exchange for mutually agreeable terms of trade. The employment contract serves to clearly document the remuneration that the employee will receive in exchange  the prescribed products required by the employer from the employee’s creativity and labor. 

In such an employment contract, the employer may entrust the employee with the use of the company’s assets [money, equipment, intellectual property, proven operational procedures, and other employees who have signed similar employment contracts] in order to conduct profitable business for the company. However, they employee should never forget who owns these assets. 

Violations of property rights occur when one party damages, destroys or steals the assets owned by another party. For example, if someone purposefully burned down your home, this action is punishable by laws that were designed to protect your property rights.  When an employee uses his exemplary job performance to negotiate better terms of employment with his employer, he will likely be successful if the job performance warrants it, but unsuccessful if it does not. If the employee choses to leave his job as the result of a failed negotiation, the employer will likely be inconvenienced by this loss but is unlikely to suffer significant losses to the value of his property – his business. In most cases, the employer will find a replacement.  

However, when a group of employees organize to remove their collective labor in a ‘strike’ action, the impact on the employer’s business is likely to be much greater. Strikes can bring long-lasting costs to the business such as: losing customers; paying penalties for not fulfilling the contractual terms that they had signed with their customers; product spoilage and waste; damage to the company reputation and community standing; etc. 

These are real losses to the business owners.  Since a strike is a planned action (ie does not occur by accident or and ‘act of God’) the losses are not insurable. Company owners cannot buy protection from the damages caused by a strike.  

And yet, the union leaders who orchestrate this destruction of personal property are free to do so under our laws. Amazingly, they have been given the “right” to negotiate the terms of something they do not own – the jobs. This needs to stop! 

A strike is described by union leaders as a "negotiation tactic". I see it for what it really is – blackmail. And blackmail is a crime. 

There is no crime, however, in employees getting together to discuss ways to remedy workplace issues. But whenever an organized group of workers takes any action that results in any loss to the employer whatsoever, charges should be laid to everyone who takes part in this crime. 

Regarding the hundreds of thousands of citizens whose property rights have been violated, think of the untold costs to all taxpayers who are given no option but to pay their taxes and, having paid their taxes dutifully, the unionized public sector worker has either used the threat of job action to “negotiate” costlier employment terms or, worse, have reneged on their side of the employment contract by going on strike. 

If we could get a refund on our taxes whenever we are dissatisfied with the public services we receive, this would be a fair arrangement. However, it is a vicious slap on the face to all tax-paying citizens to have to endure these union shenanigans even after we have fulfilled our end of the bargain. 

Gene Balfour

Ontario Libertarian Party,

Thornhill Riding