NS NDP, corner pocket

7 Responses to “NS NDP, corner pocket”

1. Anonymous on May 31st, 2009 12:09 pm [#]

   The NDP supports unions. It’s part of what the party believes in.

   What’s the story here?

2. Mark Peters on May 31st, 2009 3:41 pm [#]

   Believing in and beholden to are two different things, anon. It’s the latter that I’m concerned about.

   Union interests are not always the public’s interests; what is best for a union is not always best for the public. If CUPE is a key factor in the election of an NDP government, how much power will they exert over public or economic policy?

3. The Artful Nudger on May 31st, 2009 4:11 pm [#]

   To revise your statement, Mark:

   “Corporate interests are not always the public’s interests; what is best for industry is not always best for the public. If corporate supporters are a key factor in the election of a Conservative government, how much power will they exert over public or economic policy?”

   Although we don’t really have to ask that question hypothetically, do we?

4. Mark Peters on May 31st, 2009 5:06 pm [#]

   Nudger, your point about corporate interests not always being the public’s interests is well taken.

   Otherwise your revision falls flat because it has no basis in reality; Canadian corporations do not openly and earnestly rally employees to support the party of choice of the executive leadership.

   If you know of any that have engaged in outright politicking for a single party then I’ll gladly stand corrected.

5. Matthew Campbell on May 31st, 2009 9:05 pm [#]

   Let’ s not forget that it was the *Liberal* Party of Canada which had troubles raising cash after massive limits on corporate donations were put in place. As Mark said: “no basis in reality”!

6. Anonymous on May 31st, 2009 11:00 pm [#]

   I take your point that there are differences between supporting unions in general–or any other kind of economic enterprise–and being beholden to a particular entity, but I don’t think it really applies to the relationship unions and NDP.

   First, the relationship between unions and the NDP is based primarily on the NDP being the only party that openly advocates for the union movement as an important part of our economic system–not because unions expect some future payoff. All parties agree that businesses play an important role in our economy, but you hardly ever hear the equivalent about unions–except from the NDP.

   Second, the vast majority of Canadians make the vast majority of their income from work, not investments. So–whether you think unions ultimately serve the public interest or not–their larger constituency (workers) is much more closely related to the public interest than the constituency of corporations (investors).

   Third, the simple fact of the matter is that if unions, or a particular union, wanted political influence within government supporting the NDP would not be the easiest way to get it. CUPE, for instance, has support the NDP in many instances where the NDP has little obvious chance of forming government.

   Furthermore, whatever criticisms one may have of unions it is a simple fact that they have a long record of advocating policies that help workers in general–vacation, public pensions, the minimum wage, health & safety standards, etc.–that actually reduce the incentive for workers to join a union and thus hurt the ability of unions to expand their membership. There’s no other economic entity that behaves in this way.

   You certainly don’t see corporations advocating for equivalent public interest measures because the driving force behind corporations is profit while unions are far less obsessed with their own self-interest. This in turn reduces the degree to which they are interested in “quid pro quo” type arrangements and helps explain why they (tend to) support the NDP regardless of whether the NDP can offer them the spoils of power.

   To the subsidiary point about corporations engaging in outright politicking, I think you have your analogy wrong. Workers are to unions as shareholders are to corporations. Campaigning directly to shareholders would be silly as most shares in a given corporation are owned by a few individuals who get only one vote each or institutional investors that get no vote at all. So corporations just engaging in “politicking” by using their money. Who do you think Thomas D’Aquino works for?

7. The Artful Nudger on June 1st, 2009 1:20 pm [#]

   Anonymous clarified my point for me, so I needn’t say anything more. Financial leverage or membership, both are effective tools.

Got something to say? (Read the rules first)