Associations, unions and federations

[flamingfingers]

I am quite curious to know how people perceive the differences between these entities.

We all know, or should know that membership in virtually any organization will come with a financial obligation in the form of fees, membership or (even) tithing.

Joining ICBA is easy! Simply complete the Application for Membership ( 36KB pdf) and mail it (along with your annual membership payment) to:

https://www.apeg.bc.ca/Become-a-Member/Fees
Applications received without the appropriate fee will not be processed.

https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/member-benefits/dues
2015 Annual Dues
Your total dues include membership in both Doctors of BC and the Canadian Medical Association.

When did “tithing” come to mean “giving 10% of your gross income to the Church”?
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... the-church

Union dues are a regular payment of money made by members of unions. Dues are the cost of membership; they are used to fund the various activities which the union engages in. Nearly all unions require their members to pay dues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_dues

How does one differ from another?

[flamingfingers]

^ I hate talking to myself, but here I thought that people would come out in droves to explain the differences between these various entities.

[Bsuds]

They are all the same...they just want your money and do little or nothing for it!

[Hurtlander]

They are all the same...they just want your money and do little or nothing for it!

They're not all the same, unions are ever so slightly more democratic than federations. The executive of the cfs actually takes its own members to court and sues them for daring to question and or criticize the cfs executive. I've never heard of union executives suing its members for asking questions.

[logicalview]

They're not all the same, unions are ever so slightly more democratic than federations. The executive of the cfs actually takes its own members to court and sues them for daring to question and or criticize the cfs executive. I've never heard of union executives suing its members for asking questions.

Of course you haven't heard of it. The person with the questions is just intimidated into silence. It was no different during the BCTF strike, when BCTF members were filming each other with their I-Phones, and encouraged to inform on each other. Union dissent is quelled via intimidation, so of course you won't get anybody suing.

[Hurtlander]

Of course you haven't heard of it. The person with the questions is just intimidated into silence. It was no different during the BCTF strike, when BCTF members were filming each other with their I-Phones, and encouraged to inform on each other. Union dissent is quelled via intimidation, so of course you won't get anybody suing.

What you're saying about federations is true, but you're incorrect about unions. I was in a trade union for 30 years, never was I intimidated for arguing with, or disagreeing with the union brass. I've been to many union conventions, both local and national, members were always welcome to take the floor and voice their concerns and opinions, the members opinions were always treated with respect. If you've got any factual info regarding a canadian Union intimidating members into silence I'm more than willing to listen.....but please don't confuse federations with unions...the BCTF and CFS are federations.

[The Green Barbarian]

What you're saying about federations is true, but you're incorrect about unions. I was in a trade union for 30 years, never was I intimidated for arguing with, or disagreeing with the union brass. I've been to many union conventions, both local and national, members were always welcome to take the floor and voice their concerns and opinions, the members opinions were always treated with respect. If you've got any factual info regarding a canadian Union intimidating members into silence I'm more than willing to listen.....but please don't confuse federations with unions...the BCTF and CFS are federations.

It's good to hear that you were never intimidated. Perhaps it was due to the fact that you never argued or disagreed with any policies. At any rate, during the BCTF strike, we did hear from frustrated CUPE employees who were being intimidated to "stand behind" the BCTF, even though they vehemently disagreed with them, and just wanted to work. Here was one example that a CUPE member posted during the strike:

Who is stopping CUPE workers from mowing the lawn? I'll tell you who. It isn't just CUPE supervisors. It's CUPE period. CUPE BC and CUPE National. Are you going to go to the CUPE big guys and give them a STERN TALKING TO? HA Yeah good luck with that.

When you shame the CUPE workers and suggesting that they should get off their lazy butts and go out and mow the lawn to be good citizens you are encouraging them to be scabs. If we are told by CUPE that we cannot cross the teacher picket lines, then we CANNOT cross their lines. Even to mow the lawn. What do you think happens to scabs? They are yelled at, called names, harassed and ostracized by their coworkers- both CUPE and teachers. Like elephants, people will never forget. Photos are taken of scabs and posted. Scabs are brought up on CHARGES by CUPE. That support worker wanting to do something nice like mow the lawn for the kids to play on will soon find himself facing severe penalties imposed by his union. The fuzzy feeling he may get from parents thanking him for mowing the grass is just not worth it.

Going against a big union and giving them a stern talking to accomplishes nothing other than getting you into a very bad place that you do NOT want to be in. You've obviously never been a union member. When it comes to the teachers and their picket lines- we do as we are told and we have no say. So don't come down on us. Our hands are tied.
Harley Rider

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=58625&start=30

While you say you weren't threatened, it is a bit naïve to assume that all members of all unions in Canada are treated equally.

[Urbane]

I've taken a lot of abuse on here for disagreeing with the BCTF. I'm a big boy so when people tell me to stuff it or that my posts are manure I can live with that but it's funny to hear people say there's no intimidation within unions when we've seen the invective directed my way for having the audacity, as a former union member, to criticize that union. I've been told that I should forfeit my pension etc. etc. etc. if I exercise my freedom of speech and I should be be ashamed of myself and I'm a horrible excuse for a human being. LOL . . . no intimidation . . . nothing to see here . . . LOL

[flamingfingers]

This thread REALLY is not about intimidation - by unions, federations or associations..or by persons known or unknown. It is about the DIFFERENCES or SIMILARITIES in structure between all three and why do you think it influences one's perceptions.

[Urbane]

This thread REALLY is not about intimidation - by unions, federations or associations..or by persons known or unknown. It is about the DIFFERENCES or SIMILARITIES in structure between all three and why do you think it influences one's perceptions.

Let's not confuse the name of an organization with what it actually is. The British Columbia Teachers' Federation, for example, is a union. The name wasn't changed when it gained union status. Similarly, the Central Okanagan Teachers' Association is a local of a union, i.e. the BCTF. So we're in rather murky waters and that might explain why you're getting so few responses on this thread.

[flamingfingers]

So from what I gather from your response, Urbane, that people really have no clue as to what makes an "Association" different from a "Federation" or a "Union". Is that correct?

[The Green Barbarian]

So from what I gather from your response, Urbane, that people really have no clue as to what makes an "Association" different from a "Federation" or a "Union". Is that correct?

I don't believe that associations have the right to strike. That's a pretty big one. If the BCTF had never been turned into a union, the people of BC wouldn't have been subjected to the horrific strike we had to endure this year.

[flamingfingers]

Well, the doctors of BC are an 'Association':

Strike : to stop work in order to force an employer to comply with demands

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strike

B.C. faces doctors' strike

CBC News Posted: May 21, 2002 10:01 PM ET Last Updated: May 21, 2002 10:01 PM ET
17 shares

Negotiations between British Columbia's doctors and the government have completely collapsed, leaving the province facing a potentially damaging doctors' strike .

Dr. Heidi Oetter, president of the British Columbia Medical Association, said Tuesday the government was not serious about negotiating a deal, and "now they are trying to trick British Columbians with more half-truths."

After meeting all day, the BCMA board concluded "we simply can't trust this government," she said in a statement. "So, the BC doctors will once again be forced to do the only thing they can to withdraw services." She apologized to those affected.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b-c-faces ... e-1.343788

And so are the lawyers:

B.C. lawyers withdraw services to protest lack of legal aid funding


By Vivian Luk, THE CANADIAN PRESS July 7, 2014

Legal aid lawyers who have withdrawn services to protest what they say is a severely underfunded system donned their black robes outside provincial court in Vancouver, saying the B.C. government is failing to meet the needs of the province's most vulnerable citizens.
VANCOUVER — Legal aid lawyers who have withdrawn services to protest what they say is a severely underfunded system donned their black robes outside provincial court in Vancouver, saying the B.C. government is failing to meet the needs of the province's most vulnerable citizens.
Members of the Trial Lawyers Association of BC, who stopped taking new cases on the weekend, said Monday that government funding for legal aid has remained the same for 23 years despite inflation and population growth.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lawyer ... z3M1NY0TaY

[Urbane]

Flaming: You're focusing on the names and that's just muddying the already murky waters. You could have a union that behaves in a professional manner or an association that behaves in an unprofessional manner. Call it what you will. For example, whether or not teachers are in a union is beside the point as long as they don't have the right to strike. And even a union that does have the right to strike might use that power appropriately. For example,CUPE is a union and I see them reaching contract agreements with government without resorting to strikes (usually) and the BCTF, on paper, is a federation that's actually a union and they have trouble reaching agreements with all governments. So when people say that they want the BCTF decertified or don't want teachers in a union they're talking more about professional versus unprofessional behaviour than they are about the labels.

[flamingfingers]

whether or not teachers are in a union is beside the point as long as they don't have the right to strike.

And here is where we get into the nitty gritty Urbane. Teachers should not have the right to strike because they belong to a 'union' but it is okay that lawyers and doctors can 'withdraw services' (strike in other words) over the very same issues that teachers 'withdraw services' (strike in other words) because they are an 'Association'.

Your logic does not follow.

Essentially what you are saying is that workers anywhere, whether they belong to 'Unions', 'Associations' or 'Federations' should NOT have the option of 'withdrawing services' (striking) because they feel they are being unfairly treated by the employer. Is that correct?