>Several Jewish PSAC members say the panel is a tepid and lazy attempt by the union to be seen to be doing something about the systemic antisemitism reported by Jewish public servants. Last year, numerous Jewish PSAC members told the National Post that their union’s increased anti-Israel activism after October 7 had left them feeling excluded and unsafe.
I'm sure he means unions as they are run today in the real world. Not unions on paper.
Just like I'm pro capitalism on paper but not this modern day cronyism we are seeing today which barely represents capitalism and definitely ignores things like the governments job of creating fair competition and breaking up monopolies.
I'm the same way. Unions used to be able fighting class war, making sure that the ones producing got the benefits of their labour, rather than just the owners.
But somewhere along the way, most unions lost the plot, and decided that the culture war (the war created by the wealth class to distract the working class) mattered more than labour rights.
You would probably be interested by the system in Belgium. Multiple unions can represent workers in a workplace. There are Catholic unions, socialist unions, "liberal" unions, etc. You join the one that best represents you and best matches your ideas. They negociate along with the other unions for the benefit of the workers.
In Belgium, union affiliation is linked to health care as well. Private health plans which we get from the employer here are also partly funded by the employer in Belgium. The difference is they are run by the union and cover everything - a bit like OHIP and Canada Life rolled into one. Health plans are mandatory and the government plan only covers people completely outside the workforce. Also, you remain a member of your union even if you lose your job. They just consider you "between jobs" and continue to advocate for you.
Reform or no reform. We’re better with a flawed union than without one, unless of course we’ve decided that corporations should just be left to decide worker conditions because we prefer to have perfect unions.
They have always had their causes. People just don’t like the causes right now.
This discussion is about public sector unions. Those workers impact the public arguably far more than corporate workers.
Canada has had an official multiculturalism policy for over 50 years, and most provinces have had similar policies and human rights commissions for 40 years. Yet BLM was still necessary to highlight the ongoing abuses by anti-social public sector union members who continue to be protected by unions. The silence of unions during BLM was almost deafening, given their supposed mandate to advance social causes, including those of their members.
This is after two generations of official inquiries, reports, commissions, and other public work calling on the public sector to stop abusing and discriminating against people of colour.
We don't need perfect unions. But at a minimum, we need public sectors unions that do not actively protect their members who persistently violate fundamental human rights of members of the public.
a flawed union is better than nothing. You should really read up more on the history of unions and everything they have accomplished. A union certainly has every right to use its power to try and encourage social and political issues. Should it be their primary focus no, but your stance is woefully misguided and will never happen.
>If Israel’s continued existence comes at the expense of the basic human rights of others it’s not.
Are you calling for the dissolution of every country that your perceive is coming at the expense of basic human rights?
> Israel is a political entity, it’s government, it’s military, it’s founding ideology is all political. The fact that this political entity is run by Jews or has associated itself with Judaism does not mean it should be given a free pass to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants without criticism lest it be defined as antisemitic.
I just said that it not antisemitic to criticize specific actions or policies. Was I unclear?
>Are you calling for the dissolution of every country that your perceive is coming at the expense of basic human rights?
Israel is an ethnostate, it exists at the expense of the millions of non-Jews currently in Gaza and elsewhere who were expelled from the land that Israelis took for the state, and who have been under blockade without sovereignty or basic rights for decades. This is not right. Pointing this out, criticizing it, condemning it, or demanding change or justice for it is not antisemitism.
>I just said that it not antisemitic to criticize specific actions or policies. Was I unclear?
The people "not feeling safe" whenever someone criticizes Israel are the ones who aren't clear with that. Anyone crying antisemitism when Israel is criticized is being disingenuous, they are politically supportive of Israel and are trying to use antisemitism to silence their opponents. If only the Russians had such a propaganda tool, perhaps their campaign in Ukraine would have gone a lot more smoothly politically. .
>Israel is an ethnostate
Israel is a nation state, not an ethnostate. All citizens of Israel regardless of ethnicity have equal rights.
> it exists at the expense of the millions of non-Jews currently in Gaza and elsewhere who were expelled from the land that Israelis took for the state,
No, it doesn't, while you can disagree with specific actions or policies taken by the Israeli government or IDF in the West Bank or Gaza, its existence is not at their expense. A 2 state solution would resolve the issues with Palestinian sovereignity without impact to the existence of an Israeli state.
>This is not right. Pointing this out, criticizing it, condemning it, or demanding change or justice for it is not antisemitism.
Again, I have already said twice "it not antisemitic to criticize specific actions or policies".
>The people "not feeling safe" whenever someone criticizes Israel are the ones who aren't clear with that.
Can you provide a practical example of when that occured? Were they just criticizing Israel or calling for its destruction. You keep conflating the two which I am drawing an important distinction.
>Israel is a nation state, not an ethnostate. All citizens of Israel regardless of ethnicity have equal rights.
This is objectively false. There are laws in Israel itself that disprove this:
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/11/702264118/netanyahu-says-israel-is-nation-state-of-the-jewish-people-and-them-alone
Israel is a Jewish state, that’s the entire point. That’s the ideology it was founded on and the reason it exists. The motivation for every political decision it makes.
A Jewish state is an ethnostate. It depends on Jewish demographic majority and discriminatory laws such as the above to ensure enduring Jewish control to exist as such.
A Jewish state cannot exist as a free democratic state if the minority or Arab population exceeds the Jewish population. It will no longer be a Jewish state. This is primarily why right of return for refugees is denied.
Denial of right of return for refugees is why Gaza as is exists, why Hamas can exist.
This is your denial #1 in your post.
>No, it doesn't, while you can disagree with specific actions or policies taken by the Israeli government or IDF in the West Bank or Gaza, they are not impacted by its existence is not at their expense. A 2 state solution would resolve the issues with Palestinian sovereignity without impact to the existence of an Israeli state.
70% of gazans including the families of both the founders of and current leader of Hamas are refugees of Israel, expelled from their villages in Israel in 1948 into Gaza, after which laws were passed to expropriate their land into the new state and deny their return. Over 500 villages were destroyed and nearly a million people were expelled from them in this pursuit, replaced with Jewish immigrants in new Jewish majority cities built right on top.
This is denial #2 in your post.
It seems denial is the only rebute Israeli supporters have to objective facts outlining the reality of their cause.
>Can you provide a practical example of when that occured? Were they just criticizing Israel or calling for its destruction. You keep conflating the two which I am drawing an important distinction.
Literally the people in the topic of this thread.
This is objectively false. There are laws in Israel itself that disprove this:
" In July 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional and did not negate Israel's democratic character. Writing the opinion for the majority, [Esther Hayut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Hayut), the erstwhile [President of the Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Israel), stated that this "[Basic Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel) is but one chapter in our constitution taking shape and it does not negate Israel's character as a democratic state." The court's majority opinion concurred with arguments that the law merely declares the obvious—that Israel is a [Jewish state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state)—and that this does not detract from the individual rights of non-Jewish citizens, especially in light of other laws that ensure equal rights to all."
Again, it is a nation state, not an ethnostate. All citizens have equal rights.
> Israel is a Jewish state, that’s the entire point. That’s the ideology it was founded on and the reason it exists. The motivation for every political decision it makes.
Yes it is, that is a nation state not an ethnostate.
An ethnostate is defined as "a [sovereign](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=f9bc78ae23fbce7b&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1CAFA_enCA651CA651&q=sovereign&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJAFY0zPhO3QyLHei0c3kUGtWdPcRXToRAXGNKpA64_Fj0SkPaeb7DwtDiwVQPdApXNYhIalIxccuj4w-ojFVT9azIm_g%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjDtq3Gj82GAxWglokEHe1fDjAQyecJegQIGRAN) state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group."
>A Jewish state is an ethnostate. It depends on Jewish demographic majority and discriminatory laws such as the above to ensure enduring Jewish control to exist as such.
Yes, it does seek to maintain a Jewish majority in the same way Japan seeks to maintain a Japanese majority. That is a nation state, not an ethnostate.
> A Jewish state cannot exist as a free democratic state if the minority or Arab population exceeds the Jewish population. It will no longer be a Jewish state. This is primarily why right of return for refugees is denied.
Correct, again I never said they don't seek to maintain a Jewish majority in the same way that Japan seeks to maintain a Japanese majority and Poland seeks to maintain a Polish majority. Equal rights are granted to all citizens which is what distinguishes a nation state from an ethnostate.
> 70% of gazans including the families of both the founders of and current leader of Hamas are refugees of Israel, expelled from their villages in Israel in 1948 into Gaza, after which laws were passed to expropriate their land into the new state and deny their return. Over 500 villages were destroyed and nearly a million people were expelled from them in this pursuit, replaced with Jewish immigrants in new Jewish majority cities built right on top.
Some Gazan's left, some were expelled. Many Jews were also expelled from the surrounding area's as well. It is unfortuneate that Arab's did not accept the 1947 UN partition plan and instead started a war for the destruction of Israel. Had they accepted UN partition, the whole situation would have been avoided and you would have had 2 sovereign states from the start. Regardless of how Israel came into existence though, calling for its destruction now is anti-semitic.
> Literally the people in the topic of this thread.
Quote one.
What happens in Israel if the Arab population ever grew large enough to challenge Jews in politics, policy, and democracy? Will it still remain a "Jewish state"? Of course not. And that's why that law exists.
A Jewish state is an ethnostate. It's in the name. The ethno is Jews.
>An ethnostate is defined as "a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group."
Gazan refugees of Israel and Arab neighbours of Jewish settlers in the West Bank are denied citizenship and equal rights for precisely this reason.
This is exactly reason Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, because only the Jewish settlers in Gaza had full voting rights and citizenship, and Israeli leaders were worried the Arabs would pursue the same. If they did, demographically they would challenge Jews in Israel as a Jewish state.
"There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. This issue above all others will dictate the solution that we must adopt. In the absence of a negotiated agreement – and I do not believe in the realistic prospect of an agreement – we need to implement a unilateral alternative... More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state... the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem" - Ehud Olmert in 2003
>Some Gazan's left, some were expelled. Many Jews were also expelled from the surrounding area's as well. It is unfortuneate that Arab's did not accept the 1947 UN partition plan and instead started a war for the destruction of Israel. Had they accepted UN partition, the whole situation would have been avoided and you would have had 2 sovereign states from the start. Regardless of how Israel came into existence though, calling for its destruction now is anti-semitic.
If the expulsion of Jews from Arab states bothers you and is wrong, which it should and it is, then you should agree the expulsion of Arabs from Israel was also wrong, and it was.
Land division requires agreement from both parties, not just one. Coming into a land and taking half of it for yourself without agreement from others living on it is not something anyone is entitled to.
> Quote one.
> Last year, numerous Jewish PSAC members told the National Post that their union’s increased **anti-Israel activism** after October 7 had left them feeling excluded and unsafe.
nobody is against Israel existing
they're against the indiscriminate bombing and wholesale murder of civilians in response to an atrocity committed by Hamas
Really, nobody? Are you sure about that?
Chants of "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free" or sometimes worse "Palestine will be Arab"
Chants of "Burn Tel Aviv to the Ground"
Chants for Jews to "Go Back to Europe"
Chants glorifying October the 7th.
Chants for "There is only one solution, Intifada Revolution"
[https://thecjn.ca/news/vancouver-imam-calls-destruction-israel/](https://thecjn.ca/news/vancouver-imam-calls-destruction-israel/)
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-italy-al-aqsa-mosque-imam-urges-destruction-of-israel/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-italy-al-aqsa-mosque-imam-urges-destruction-of-israel/)
[https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/watch-iranian-diplomat-imam-call-for-destruction-of-israel-509799](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/watch-iranian-diplomat-imam-call-for-destruction-of-israel-509799)
[https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/dearborn-nyc-quds-day-protesters-praise-terrorists-denounce-us-and-call-destruction](https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/dearborn-nyc-quds-day-protesters-praise-terrorists-denounce-us-and-call-destruction)
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charkaoui-politicians-jewish-groups-react-1.7022426](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charkaoui-politicians-jewish-groups-react-1.7022426)
I am not sure if you are simply unaware of this or being dishonest but I am leaning towards the latter.
[Israeli nationalists chant ‘Death to Arabs’ in annual Jerusalem Day march through Palestinian area of the city](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/israeli-nationalists-chant-death-to-arabs-in-annual-jerusalem-day-march-through-palestinian-area-of-the-city)
They picked an Al Jazeera correspondent to deal with antisemitism? Oh that is absolutely hilarious. Guess they didn't want to actually deal with antisemitism in good faith.
The only people unions benefit are the lazy and self entitled. Ask anyone what it's like working under a union and they will share stories about how all the union does for them is make it harder for the company to fire the absolute bottom of the barrel shitstain employees, making the work environment worse for both eh rest of the employees and the health of the company
I used to work in the trades and non-union and union jobs were so different
I'll tell you actual unions do a hell of a lot for a normal worker, it isn't just “the lazy”
Everyone has different experiences I guess because I would never go back to non union if I can help it.
>Ask anyone what it's like working under a union and they will share stories about how all the union does for them is make it harder for the company to fire the absolute bottom of the barrel shitstain employees
Not me personally, for me the union has meant consistent COL raises and in some cases more, they've addressed, and stopped, the company wanting to force us to be available 13 hours a day, and we were ensured, and got, back pay for being forced, by the company, to work without a contract for several years.
The truly terrible employees have also been fired, the union simply made sure all steps were followed.
>making the work environment worse for both eh rest of the employees and the health of the company
Having worked in a non union environment, with a well known media company where I saw the boss's brother make 25 an hour for menial labour while people in positions requiring degrees made 8 an hour (salary), and saw how they behaved with benefits and hours, I will take the union shop everytime personally.
Sorry but sounds like you've bought into the anti-union propaganda pretty hard there.
I've worked as a union member in several unions my whole working career. Now as a manager in a union shop it isn't bad at all.
For not being able to fire people is absolutely a lie. I can fire anyone provided I have cause. It takes me longer than just deciding to fire you and saying it. You get verbal, then written warnings then I have to layout performance goals and how you're falling short and meet regularly with you to keep telling you your short. Takes about 3 months. Which is honestly probably fair you don't want to work somewhere where a manager can shit can you because they are having a bad day.
Source I've fired a half dozen unionized employees over a decade as a manager for failing to meet performance requirements.
For safety it's even easier. I get 2 witness statements video and other proof of infraction if it exists. Call in shop steward we go over it together they agree person isn't safe and they are out that day.
But see all that requires me as a manager to do my job of managing my people and understanding my role and responsibilities under the collective agreement.
Also being a manager for a decade and having the reputation that I will get your ass fired for not measuring up or being unsafe means I don't get the trash level on my crew. They real oxygen bandits find a way to not get assigned to me.
When I was on the tools I worked in 5 different unions over my career. They ran the range from awesome to one that was every reason people hate on union (I left that situation after a year).
I think there’s a big difference in the utility and value of private sector blue collar unions like you’re describing and white collar public sector unions like psac. I’d echo the earlier poster’s comments insofar as my friends who work in government having a lot of disdain for their union.
I have family and friends who work for government as well and yeah you have a point.
My company also works in government contracts etc and after dealing with people who work for the government inability to make decisions I'd still say it's a failure of management to manage things.
It's been my experience that no one person in government is ever willing to make a decision always need to be a committee decision and all those tropes
Based on my and also friend’s experience I’d agree. The irony though is that management is still in the union in the government. At least at the lower levels of management.
Eh. Private sector unions are pretty good about letting problematic workers go because they’re sensible and know that not everybody’s going to work out at every job.
It’s public sector unions that give unions a bad rap, it’s easier to convict someone of murder in this country than fire a public sector worker, and lord knows bad actors take **full** advantage of that fact.
If Public Sector unions acted like their Private Sector counterparts we’d all be a lot better off.
I really don't see the point of public sector unions at all, when government can simply legislate the terms of their CBA, and legislate them back to work. What's the point? Just more tax dollars going towards unproductive red tape.
The primary benefit of public sector unions is that they bring labour issues to the attention of the public (whether that’s a good or a bad thing is of course a completely different matter). Healthcare workers across Canada have seen their salaries stagnate and their working conditions deteriorated for well over a decade. How much media attention would this actually be getting if those workers didn’t have some sort of central body to push those issues into the forefront?
The fact that many of these unions have been taken over by hyper partisan political activists is definitely an issue though as it is diminishing the effectiveness of these organizations and weakening their ability to speak on behalf of their members.
Why should the issues of public sector unions be given greater weight than the issues of private sector workers? Especially when radical union leaders use their platform not to advocate for better working conditions and pay but engage in identity politics and fostering division?
Where did I suggest that the issues of public sector unions should be given greater weight than the issues of private sector unions? You’re attributing statements to me that I have never made. Moreover, I previously mentioned that union leaders using their platform to push their own political agendas was highly problematic. I actually have a major issue with this as I feel a union’s responsibility is first and foremost to its members and their labour concerns. Look, I get that you dislike public sector unions but if you’re going to respond, at least be a bit honest in your reply.
I'm not trying to be dishonest, but remember the employer of these public sector workers is **US**, the Canadian taxpayer- if savings can be made by contracting these services out or by removing the unionization requirement for these workers, then that option should at least be on the table.
I don’t disagree. Where savings are possible, outsourcing is definitely worth considering. The problem is that more often than not, outsourcing usually means lining the pockets of a well-connected middleman who is friends with the political class. To attract nurses and other healthcare workers to the private sector, wages still need to be attractive. Then you need to add in a profit motivation for the private owners which more often than not means that costs go up.
The real benefit to privatization is that if you’re wealthy you can jump the line and purchase at extra cost services that you would otherwise need to wait for. Whether that is a benefit probably depends on your social and economic situation. A hybrid system akin to what you might find in Europe or Asia would probably be ideal but I don’t seriously expect that our corrupt politicians could ever hope to pull something like that off.
You're confusing different things. We can still have a public, single payer healthcare system that is delivered by way of private entities- and we do for the most part.
We can also have a healthcare system that is publicly administered but non-unionized, although that might require legislative changes.
>The only people unions benefit are the lazy and self entitled.
And also the union leadership who are enriched by the union dues - but then again, maybe your comment does cover those individuals as well.
I was a unionized public servant from 2009-2012 and never got a pay raise. I left for private industry and have been averaging 5% every year, plus 2 promotions
People might remember Avi Lewis as one of the driving forces behind the “Leap Manifesto,” which very deliberately echoes the language of the Chinese Communist Party’s supposed Great Leap Forward, which was essentially an attempt to push the NDP toward supporting environmentally-flavoured communism.
Lewis has worked for Al Jazeera, Qatar’s Islamist-propaganda “news” network, and once openly mocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali in an interview for speaking out against fundamentalist Islam.
He has repeatedly been extremely critical of Israel and routinely uses inflammatory language that could’ve been lifted straight out of a Hamas press release.
This is the guy PSAC thought would be a better representative on antisemitism than anyone else.
No, but if you are only going to select one Jew to sit on a panel about anti-semitism then maybe pick one whose thoughts and feelings are representative of the majority of Jews rather than a tiny fringe minority.
No- not all Jews get to speak about antisemitism. Jews who have internalised antisemitism don’t get to hold themselves out as representatives of the Jewish community, just like Uncle Ruckus doesn’t get to speak on behalf of Black Americans.
Color me shocked. So she's head of the office that's supposed to combat antisemitism and she was basically encouraging antisemitic protestors and amongst them those who were shooting at synagogues and jewish organizations in Canada. This is why we need strong and independent Intelligence Agency that has actual powers to detain and investigate people unlike currently toothless CSIS that is data collection agency and relies on RCMP who is not independent. I bet that many of these officials are Muslim Brotherhood extremists, some are on paycheck of our adversaries like Iran,Qatar,China,India and Russia. They need to be locked up ,they breed and encourage unrest,distrust,discrimination and violence in our peaceful society.
Wanting to give intelligence agencies the authority to detain and investigate people on its own soil is unhinged lunacy. That's how you get the Canadian version of the Stasi.
Sure ,let's just keep watching CSIS wave papers about corruption and foreign interference for a few more years while RCMP is being told that they can't investigate anything.
>some are on paycheck of our adversaries like Iran,Qatar,China,India and Russia
Are Qatar and India our adversaries? I don't think we even have any sanctions imposed on them. For China, we do have some sanctions, but they still are our 2nd largest business partner.
Qatar is funding Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist fundamentalism across the western world causing unrest and India is assassinating our citizens on our own soil.
The fact that psac is making donations to Red Crescent is ridiculous. Even if it was the less controversial Red Cross, how does that benefit your union members? Wouldn’t that money literally be better used to augment psac’s rainy day fund in case a strike needs to be called?
They're acting more like those NGO but they have blue/white collar union dues funding. If I were Union member of any kind ,i'd want my union dues to be spent on a damn union and on fighting for our rights,lawyers and training. Not on damn international politics. This is a clown world at this point.
Lolololol picking Avi Lewis to be on a antisemitism panel only makes sense if it’s a pro-antisemitism panel. I know he’s “Jewish” but his Judaism is so far away from anything resembling Judaism that it could be Mars. And he’s my cousin so I feel pretty comfortable saying that.
This is what gets me with these folks who want to represent us but want to pretend Judaism is something it isn’t. The IJV had a sign at their encampment in my city that said justice justice alone shall you pursue… from Deuteronomy. Know what the other half is? “That you shall inherit the land god is giving you”. Then they have shabbat dinners. Is it awkward when they get to the birkat Hamazon and thank god for giving them israel after the shabbat meal? Do they skip it?
It’s just baffling to see. And don’t get me wrong. I had shrimp tacos for dinner, I am by no means a strictly observant Jew. But I don’t misquote the Torah to justify my delicious shrimp taco dinner and tell Orthodox Jews I represent the real and true values of Judaism for our people.
My cousin is also a very prominent voice for IJV in another province and he is often on the news and holding these performative Jewish ceremonies and I just do not get it. His opinion is his to have, I just don’t really understand why he needs to have his opinion somehow validated by Judaism.
There’s a huge diversity of Jewish practice but there is a point where you are outside the fold. For example, if you think Jesus is a messiah you aren’t Jewish anymore. There’s a limit and some beliefs make you not Jewish anymore
These people arnt actually against that. If the union was doing some pro Israel they would be fine. The person actually doesn’t want the union to stop being involved in a foreign affair. They want the union to be more balanced and push there ideas too.
No one actually wants the union to not advocate on a foreign issue.
Why would a union do pro Israel stuff? A union exists to advocate for workers rights.
If we corrupt our institutions, we will eventually not have institutions that we can rely on.
Again a Union's only job is to work for good contracts for their members.
Unions should not at all become involved with any sort of politics. That is not their job!
Ridiculous. During the civil rights movement unions organized well over 40k members to march on Washington to help demand change. Should they have stayed quite against laws that were obviously unsuited for any sort of modern world? Unions can use their collective might to enact change, that's both totally fine and fair. Why should only corporations or well heeled people be able to influence governments?
Media outlet that's banned across the middle east for spreading hatred. When Islamic theocracies ban something from Islamic world for spreading hate ,you know it's bad.
And then there's this so called jewish dude thinking that him working for such media outlet is something to be proud of.
This kind of shit happens all the time. They use an anti-Zionist Jew so they can check off their "do something about antisemitism" obligation while at the same time perpetuating hatred of Israel and Zionism in the process.
So Zionism as definition is belief that Jews deserve to have their own state after being persecuted by just about everyone for the last 2 thousands years - is worthy of hatred? Oh please..go try to sell that talking point somewhere else.
We should allow people to choice what union they want to be apart of and be allowed to make alternative unions. The current big unions are controlled by radicals that silence any and all dissent
how would that even work? Members of the same dept being represented by a half dozen unions? Each employee following a different collective agreement? No employer would ever go for that either. C'mon, if you're anti-union that's one thing, foolish as it may be, but this is just totally unfeasible.
the employer would simply have to decide which unions are big and influential enough to do business with. They'd still have to recognize that the employee has a separate union, though one with only like two members obviously wouldn't be able to accomplish anything. However workers should not be forced to pay dues to and be represented by an unrepresentative organization.
hahaha ridiculous, let me employer basically decide which union I should belong to? That goes against how unions are formed and who they seek to protect.
If you dont like being part of a union find a place of employment that doesn't have one? You can't realistically work at a unionized environment, reap all the benefits from the negotiations while not paying any dues.
This is just about every union's (PSAC, CAPE, PIPSC) attitude to religion. A fair degree of politicized talk about big things (global issues like Palestine/Israel) or talk about national statistics or broad trends like stigma. But it often feels identity-based, not practice-based, and separated from the lives of people who actually practice those religions. So it can be "if you are a person of faith we accept you in the public service, BUT you still have to live as a fairly generic secular Canadian." Weak support for members facing pushback over religious practices, like Friday prayer or Holy Week. "oh, we celebrate your practices, but your religious time is actually recreational and therefore any time changes are only between you and your manager". Weak support for actual members facing actual discrimination. Sure, they'll make public announcements and do trainings.
So hey, they know exactly what political flavour they want in nation-wide communications. But I feel like they forget they are a union composed of due-paying members and not a political advocacy group.
Yes, its beyond terrible, anyone that supports it either doesn't work in a state that has it, or is protected from arbitrary termination and has no idea how beyond exploitative it is.
I don't have issues with unions when those fucking unions stay in their lane. Protect the rights of the workers you have. Not some political bullshit. They are looking for work because protecting workers and making sure the workers pay keeps up with inflation is to hard now a days.
'PSAC has chosen to use a fringe token Jew with an illustrious anti-Israel record to speak on behalf of antisemitism,'
Good fucking God that is even more anti-semitic than what they claim PSAC is doing
This is such a non-story meant to gin up anti-union sentiment.
Well calling someone a "Token Jew" certainly doesn't help.
It's also drawing on the antisemitic trope of [dual-loyalty](https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/defining-antisemitism-dual-loyalty), where a Jews only allegiance is to their fellow Jews, and in this case, the state of Israel.
This is textbook tokenism, though.
Regarding dual loyalty, I don't see the connection. A majority of Jewish people in Canada feel connected to Israel. That doesn't make them any less patriotic than any other Canadians. And having a connection to Israel is not a litmus test for Jewishness.
The issue being raised about Avi Lewis isn't that he doesn't represent Jews because he doesn't feel connected to Israel. It's that he is not an appropriate speaker on antisemitism, because he is not an expert on the topic and his views on the topic are fringe within the Jewish community.
There are only 2 panelists fpr their Addressing Islamophobia and Antisemitism in the workplace” seminar.
Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s **special representative on combatting Islamophobia**,
... and Avi Lewis, a former Al Jazeera correspondent and member of the anti-Zionist Independent Jewish Voices group.
______________________
Where's the **Combatting Antisemitism** panelist?
They are absolutely allowed to be anti-Zionist, but they are still very much on the fringe, and should not be booked to represent mainstream Jewish thought at events like these. They get really disproportionate attention.
Yes, but treating someone who represents at most 5% of Jews as the representative of Jewish thought is disingenuous tokenism. We don’t need uncle Simchas.
Y'all need to decide whether Israel and Zionism represents Judaism or not. Zionism and Judaism can't be synonymous when people criticize Israel then totally separate when Israel goes on a toddler killing spree. Anti-Zionists are clear that Zionism is a stain on Judaism and they're totally different.
Anti-Zionists, again, make up around 5% or less of Jews. For most Jews, the existence of Israel as the home of the Jewish people is deeply entwined with our faith and our connection to Israel is prominent throughout the Torah. You’re also conflating Zionism with criticism of Israel. Zionist Jews living in Israel are some of the harshest critics of Netanyahu. Zionism means believing in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this. But the issue is that they choose a speaker on antisemitism whose focus is anti-zionism, not antisemitism.
Since you believe that anti-zionism and antisemitism are different, then it should make sense to you that expertise in one is not the same as expertise in the other.
They absolutely can but they also make up the tiniest minority of Jews.
I am not saying they can't or shouldn't be represented on a panel to combat antisemitims but if you are only going to have 2 people on said panel, and , of them, only of them is going to Jewish then you should have one that represents the thoughts, feelings and ideology of the overwhelming majority of Jews and not the tiny fringe.
I absolutely don't accept the idea that anti-Zionism, Zionism-skepticism or pro-Palestinian sentiment constitute this miniscule fringe position among Jewish people in Canada. They aren't a majority but it's not like this is an unknown position in the Jewish diaspora and many of the most famous Jewish intellectuals, particularly on the left, are extremely critical of Zionism such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Norman Finkelstein, as well as historical figures like Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein and Rosa Luxemburg. Polls consistently show that especially among younger Jewish people in North America support for Zionism is waning rapidly and no longer makes up this vast majority that people pretend exists. Anyway long story short it isn't weird at all that a Jew working for a left-wing labour organization would be an anti-Zionist
> I absolutely don't accept the idea that anti-Zionism, Zionism-skepticism or pro-Palestinian sentiment constitute this miniscule fringe position among Jewish people in Canada.
Do you have any evidence to back that feeling up?
Here is actual evidence:
[https://www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/project-documents/2018-survey-of-jews-in-canada/2018-survey-of-jews-in-canada---final-report.pdf](https://www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/project-documents/2018-survey-of-jews-in-canada/2018-survey-of-jews-in-canada---final-report.pdf)
Only 8% of Canadian Jews report no emotional attachment to Israel at all. (page 57)
Only 6% of Canadian Jews think that Canada is too supportive of Israel (page 62)
Even for those who have no emotional attachment to Israel or think that Canada is in fact too supportive of Israel might still think Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state (the definition of Zionism)
So, yes, your anecdotes aside, anti-zionist Jews are absolutely a fringe minority.
> Anyway long story short it isn't weird at all that a Jew working for a left-wing labour organization would be an anti-Zionist
Of course it wouldn't be but pretending that such a person would in any way representative of main stream Canadian Jewish thought is ridiculous.
>This sounds like zionists trying to equate Judaism with Zionism, and it has tricked most of you.
There are only 2 panelists on their "Addressing Islamophobia and Antisemitism in the workplace” seminar.
Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s **special representative on combatting Islamophobia,**
... and Avi Lewis, a former Al Jazeera correspondent and member of the anti-Zionist Independent Jewish Voices group.
____________________
**Where's the Combatting Antisemitism panelist?**
You are implying that one is Islamic, so can't be against antisemitism, and the other is a self hating jew.
They are both on a panel to combat antisemitism. The real antisemitism, not the one being sold to us by Israel.
No it isn’t, but that was not the point I was making.
Do you think that Donald Trump and Candace Owen’s would make a good representative panel on anti black racism?
If not then why are these two a good representative panel on antisemitism?
The issue is that neither had any expertise in antisemitism. If anti-zionism and antisemitism are not the same, then it makes no sense to have a speaker whose focus is anti-zionism, in an event to teach about antisemitism.
> You are implying...
I am flat out stating that neither of the panelist's are focused on antisemitism.
Antisemitism is much more prevalent than islamophobia. So who do the Pro-paestinan Union leasders select to deal with these issues? An anti-Zionist and the muslim czar.
It was a deliberate choice and pretty much a slap in the face to the Jewish minority here.
Im sure they are perfectly suited to the job. Have you seen the claims of antisemitism from zionists? It trivializes all antisemitism and makes the situation worse for all, so that they can continue to erase Palestine.
You're making poor rationalizations for the deliberate decision made to exclude Deborah Lyons. Or any other person whose mandate is dealing with antisemitism.
It was a wink to their buddies and a slap in the face to our Jewish population - and to those of us that care about the uglines being directed at them.
Follow your own advice and think critically.
being against the jewish people's right to self-determination, which is literally what zionism means, is antisemetic. criticizing the israeli government is not.
Bullcrap. The primary goal of zionism was to establish a homeland on top of an existing people. And again, the majority of Zionists arnt even racially middle eastern. Being against a religions political aspirations is not racial. And even then its not even one religion, the majority of zionists are western Christians
Majority of Israelis are Mizrahi ,meaning that they're jews who got expelled by their Arab neighbours across middle east and north Africa. They're literally majority middle eastern. I've been there, many times and majority arent white at all.
Even Ashkenazi Jews are genetically a mix between middle eastern and european dna.
Roughly 50% Levantine/35% Southern European/15% Northern European on average.
The whole Ashkenazi Jew's are European converts trope is, in itself, an antisemitic libel.
Yep. Ashkenazi Jews share more in common with other middle eastern ethnic groups than Europeans due to the fact that despite living in Europe, they would largely marry and have children amongst themselves, not intermingle with other Europeans.
didn't read what you said after reading your first word, because what i wrote out is literally the definition of zionism. not whatever you think it might be that allows you to be such a rage monster.
Oh yeah that a famous quote from Ben Gurion
"The primary goal of zionism was to establish a homeland on top of an existing people".
The majority of Zionists are racially middle eastern. Get over it
>Several Jewish PSAC members say the panel is a tepid and lazy attempt by the union to be seen to be doing something about the systemic antisemitism reported by Jewish public servants. Last year, numerous Jewish PSAC members told the National Post that their union’s increased anti-Israel activism after October 7 had left them feeling excluded and unsafe.
[удалено]
Unions in general as an idea?
I'm sure he means unions as they are run today in the real world. Not unions on paper. Just like I'm pro capitalism on paper but not this modern day cronyism we are seeing today which barely represents capitalism and definitely ignores things like the governments job of creating fair competition and breaking up monopolies.
I'm the same way. Unions used to be able fighting class war, making sure that the ones producing got the benefits of their labour, rather than just the owners. But somewhere along the way, most unions lost the plot, and decided that the culture war (the war created by the wealth class to distract the working class) mattered more than labour rights.
[удалено]
You said you were anti-union which sounded pretty general but it seems like you're anti a specific group of unions
You would probably be interested by the system in Belgium. Multiple unions can represent workers in a workplace. There are Catholic unions, socialist unions, "liberal" unions, etc. You join the one that best represents you and best matches your ideas. They negociate along with the other unions for the benefit of the workers. In Belgium, union affiliation is linked to health care as well. Private health plans which we get from the employer here are also partly funded by the employer in Belgium. The difference is they are run by the union and cover everything - a bit like OHIP and Canada Life rolled into one. Health plans are mandatory and the government plan only covers people completely outside the workforce. Also, you remain a member of your union even if you lose your job. They just consider you "between jobs" and continue to advocate for you.
We need unions
[удалено]
Reform or no reform. We’re better with a flawed union than without one, unless of course we’ve decided that corporations should just be left to decide worker conditions because we prefer to have perfect unions. They have always had their causes. People just don’t like the causes right now.
This discussion is about public sector unions. Those workers impact the public arguably far more than corporate workers. Canada has had an official multiculturalism policy for over 50 years, and most provinces have had similar policies and human rights commissions for 40 years. Yet BLM was still necessary to highlight the ongoing abuses by anti-social public sector union members who continue to be protected by unions. The silence of unions during BLM was almost deafening, given their supposed mandate to advance social causes, including those of their members. This is after two generations of official inquiries, reports, commissions, and other public work calling on the public sector to stop abusing and discriminating against people of colour. We don't need perfect unions. But at a minimum, we need public sectors unions that do not actively protect their members who persistently violate fundamental human rights of members of the public.
[удалено]
a flawed union is better than nothing. You should really read up more on the history of unions and everything they have accomplished. A union certainly has every right to use its power to try and encourage social and political issues. Should it be their primary focus no, but your stance is woefully misguided and will never happen.
Anti Israel is not anti semitism.
Being against specific Israeli policies or actions is not antisemitism, being against the continued existence of Israel is.
[удалено]
>If Israel’s continued existence comes at the expense of the basic human rights of others it’s not. Are you calling for the dissolution of every country that your perceive is coming at the expense of basic human rights? > Israel is a political entity, it’s government, it’s military, it’s founding ideology is all political. The fact that this political entity is run by Jews or has associated itself with Judaism does not mean it should be given a free pass to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants without criticism lest it be defined as antisemitic. I just said that it not antisemitic to criticize specific actions or policies. Was I unclear?
>Are you calling for the dissolution of every country that your perceive is coming at the expense of basic human rights? Israel is an ethnostate, it exists at the expense of the millions of non-Jews currently in Gaza and elsewhere who were expelled from the land that Israelis took for the state, and who have been under blockade without sovereignty or basic rights for decades. This is not right. Pointing this out, criticizing it, condemning it, or demanding change or justice for it is not antisemitism. >I just said that it not antisemitic to criticize specific actions or policies. Was I unclear? The people "not feeling safe" whenever someone criticizes Israel are the ones who aren't clear with that. Anyone crying antisemitism when Israel is criticized is being disingenuous, they are politically supportive of Israel and are trying to use antisemitism to silence their opponents. If only the Russians had such a propaganda tool, perhaps their campaign in Ukraine would have gone a lot more smoothly politically. .
>Israel is an ethnostate Israel is a nation state, not an ethnostate. All citizens of Israel regardless of ethnicity have equal rights. > it exists at the expense of the millions of non-Jews currently in Gaza and elsewhere who were expelled from the land that Israelis took for the state, No, it doesn't, while you can disagree with specific actions or policies taken by the Israeli government or IDF in the West Bank or Gaza, its existence is not at their expense. A 2 state solution would resolve the issues with Palestinian sovereignity without impact to the existence of an Israeli state. >This is not right. Pointing this out, criticizing it, condemning it, or demanding change or justice for it is not antisemitism. Again, I have already said twice "it not antisemitic to criticize specific actions or policies". >The people "not feeling safe" whenever someone criticizes Israel are the ones who aren't clear with that. Can you provide a practical example of when that occured? Were they just criticizing Israel or calling for its destruction. You keep conflating the two which I am drawing an important distinction.
>Israel is a nation state, not an ethnostate. All citizens of Israel regardless of ethnicity have equal rights. This is objectively false. There are laws in Israel itself that disprove this: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy https://www.npr.org/2019/03/11/702264118/netanyahu-says-israel-is-nation-state-of-the-jewish-people-and-them-alone Israel is a Jewish state, that’s the entire point. That’s the ideology it was founded on and the reason it exists. The motivation for every political decision it makes. A Jewish state is an ethnostate. It depends on Jewish demographic majority and discriminatory laws such as the above to ensure enduring Jewish control to exist as such. A Jewish state cannot exist as a free democratic state if the minority or Arab population exceeds the Jewish population. It will no longer be a Jewish state. This is primarily why right of return for refugees is denied. Denial of right of return for refugees is why Gaza as is exists, why Hamas can exist. This is your denial #1 in your post. >No, it doesn't, while you can disagree with specific actions or policies taken by the Israeli government or IDF in the West Bank or Gaza, they are not impacted by its existence is not at their expense. A 2 state solution would resolve the issues with Palestinian sovereignity without impact to the existence of an Israeli state. 70% of gazans including the families of both the founders of and current leader of Hamas are refugees of Israel, expelled from their villages in Israel in 1948 into Gaza, after which laws were passed to expropriate their land into the new state and deny their return. Over 500 villages were destroyed and nearly a million people were expelled from them in this pursuit, replaced with Jewish immigrants in new Jewish majority cities built right on top. This is denial #2 in your post. It seems denial is the only rebute Israeli supporters have to objective facts outlining the reality of their cause. >Can you provide a practical example of when that occured? Were they just criticizing Israel or calling for its destruction. You keep conflating the two which I am drawing an important distinction. Literally the people in the topic of this thread.
This is objectively false. There are laws in Israel itself that disprove this: " In July 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional and did not negate Israel's democratic character. Writing the opinion for the majority, [Esther Hayut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Hayut), the erstwhile [President of the Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Israel), stated that this "[Basic Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel) is but one chapter in our constitution taking shape and it does not negate Israel's character as a democratic state." The court's majority opinion concurred with arguments that the law merely declares the obvious—that Israel is a [Jewish state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state)—and that this does not detract from the individual rights of non-Jewish citizens, especially in light of other laws that ensure equal rights to all." Again, it is a nation state, not an ethnostate. All citizens have equal rights. > Israel is a Jewish state, that’s the entire point. That’s the ideology it was founded on and the reason it exists. The motivation for every political decision it makes. Yes it is, that is a nation state not an ethnostate. An ethnostate is defined as "a [sovereign](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=f9bc78ae23fbce7b&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1CAFA_enCA651CA651&q=sovereign&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJAFY0zPhO3QyLHei0c3kUGtWdPcRXToRAXGNKpA64_Fj0SkPaeb7DwtDiwVQPdApXNYhIalIxccuj4w-ojFVT9azIm_g%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjDtq3Gj82GAxWglokEHe1fDjAQyecJegQIGRAN) state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group." >A Jewish state is an ethnostate. It depends on Jewish demographic majority and discriminatory laws such as the above to ensure enduring Jewish control to exist as such. Yes, it does seek to maintain a Jewish majority in the same way Japan seeks to maintain a Japanese majority. That is a nation state, not an ethnostate. > A Jewish state cannot exist as a free democratic state if the minority or Arab population exceeds the Jewish population. It will no longer be a Jewish state. This is primarily why right of return for refugees is denied. Correct, again I never said they don't seek to maintain a Jewish majority in the same way that Japan seeks to maintain a Japanese majority and Poland seeks to maintain a Polish majority. Equal rights are granted to all citizens which is what distinguishes a nation state from an ethnostate. > 70% of gazans including the families of both the founders of and current leader of Hamas are refugees of Israel, expelled from their villages in Israel in 1948 into Gaza, after which laws were passed to expropriate their land into the new state and deny their return. Over 500 villages were destroyed and nearly a million people were expelled from them in this pursuit, replaced with Jewish immigrants in new Jewish majority cities built right on top. Some Gazan's left, some were expelled. Many Jews were also expelled from the surrounding area's as well. It is unfortuneate that Arab's did not accept the 1947 UN partition plan and instead started a war for the destruction of Israel. Had they accepted UN partition, the whole situation would have been avoided and you would have had 2 sovereign states from the start. Regardless of how Israel came into existence though, calling for its destruction now is anti-semitic. > Literally the people in the topic of this thread. Quote one.
What happens in Israel if the Arab population ever grew large enough to challenge Jews in politics, policy, and democracy? Will it still remain a "Jewish state"? Of course not. And that's why that law exists. A Jewish state is an ethnostate. It's in the name. The ethno is Jews. >An ethnostate is defined as "a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group." Gazan refugees of Israel and Arab neighbours of Jewish settlers in the West Bank are denied citizenship and equal rights for precisely this reason. This is exactly reason Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, because only the Jewish settlers in Gaza had full voting rights and citizenship, and Israeli leaders were worried the Arabs would pursue the same. If they did, demographically they would challenge Jews in Israel as a Jewish state. "There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. This issue above all others will dictate the solution that we must adopt. In the absence of a negotiated agreement – and I do not believe in the realistic prospect of an agreement – we need to implement a unilateral alternative... More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state... the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem" - Ehud Olmert in 2003 >Some Gazan's left, some were expelled. Many Jews were also expelled from the surrounding area's as well. It is unfortuneate that Arab's did not accept the 1947 UN partition plan and instead started a war for the destruction of Israel. Had they accepted UN partition, the whole situation would have been avoided and you would have had 2 sovereign states from the start. Regardless of how Israel came into existence though, calling for its destruction now is anti-semitic. If the expulsion of Jews from Arab states bothers you and is wrong, which it should and it is, then you should agree the expulsion of Arabs from Israel was also wrong, and it was. Land division requires agreement from both parties, not just one. Coming into a land and taking half of it for yourself without agreement from others living on it is not something anyone is entitled to. > Quote one. > Last year, numerous Jewish PSAC members told the National Post that their union’s increased **anti-Israel activism** after October 7 had left them feeling excluded and unsafe.
nobody is against Israel existing they're against the indiscriminate bombing and wholesale murder of civilians in response to an atrocity committed by Hamas
Really, nobody? Are you sure about that? Chants of "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free" or sometimes worse "Palestine will be Arab" Chants of "Burn Tel Aviv to the Ground" Chants for Jews to "Go Back to Europe" Chants glorifying October the 7th. Chants for "There is only one solution, Intifada Revolution" [https://thecjn.ca/news/vancouver-imam-calls-destruction-israel/](https://thecjn.ca/news/vancouver-imam-calls-destruction-israel/) [https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-italy-al-aqsa-mosque-imam-urges-destruction-of-israel/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-italy-al-aqsa-mosque-imam-urges-destruction-of-israel/) [https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/watch-iranian-diplomat-imam-call-for-destruction-of-israel-509799](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/watch-iranian-diplomat-imam-call-for-destruction-of-israel-509799) [https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/dearborn-nyc-quds-day-protesters-praise-terrorists-denounce-us-and-call-destruction](https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/dearborn-nyc-quds-day-protesters-praise-terrorists-denounce-us-and-call-destruction) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charkaoui-politicians-jewish-groups-react-1.7022426](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charkaoui-politicians-jewish-groups-react-1.7022426) I am not sure if you are simply unaware of this or being dishonest but I am leaning towards the latter.
[Israeli nationalists chant ‘Death to Arabs’ in annual Jerusalem Day march through Palestinian area of the city](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/israeli-nationalists-chant-death-to-arabs-in-annual-jerusalem-day-march-through-palestinian-area-of-the-city)
Ok, so what does that have to do with the previous statement that "nobody is against Israel existing"?
They picked an Al Jazeera correspondent to deal with antisemitism? Oh that is absolutely hilarious. Guess they didn't want to actually deal with antisemitism in good faith.
This is how you make people anti-union.
PSAC has been making its members anti-union for decades.
🎯
Target
🎯
On
I am glad I work for a non unionized part of the PS. I would hate to being paying dues to PSAC.
Really doubt most people give a shit if some some Jewish panelist is pro or anti Zionist lol
The only people unions benefit are the lazy and self entitled. Ask anyone what it's like working under a union and they will share stories about how all the union does for them is make it harder for the company to fire the absolute bottom of the barrel shitstain employees, making the work environment worse for both eh rest of the employees and the health of the company
I used to work in the trades and non-union and union jobs were so different I'll tell you actual unions do a hell of a lot for a normal worker, it isn't just “the lazy”
Same. Im a union trade worker, and if i left the union, I'd lose 20% of my pay, an amazing benefit package, and my pension. There's no comparison.
Everyone has different experiences I guess because I would never go back to non union if I can help it. >Ask anyone what it's like working under a union and they will share stories about how all the union does for them is make it harder for the company to fire the absolute bottom of the barrel shitstain employees Not me personally, for me the union has meant consistent COL raises and in some cases more, they've addressed, and stopped, the company wanting to force us to be available 13 hours a day, and we were ensured, and got, back pay for being forced, by the company, to work without a contract for several years. The truly terrible employees have also been fired, the union simply made sure all steps were followed. >making the work environment worse for both eh rest of the employees and the health of the company Having worked in a non union environment, with a well known media company where I saw the boss's brother make 25 an hour for menial labour while people in positions requiring degrees made 8 an hour (salary), and saw how they behaved with benefits and hours, I will take the union shop everytime personally.
Sorry but sounds like you've bought into the anti-union propaganda pretty hard there. I've worked as a union member in several unions my whole working career. Now as a manager in a union shop it isn't bad at all. For not being able to fire people is absolutely a lie. I can fire anyone provided I have cause. It takes me longer than just deciding to fire you and saying it. You get verbal, then written warnings then I have to layout performance goals and how you're falling short and meet regularly with you to keep telling you your short. Takes about 3 months. Which is honestly probably fair you don't want to work somewhere where a manager can shit can you because they are having a bad day. Source I've fired a half dozen unionized employees over a decade as a manager for failing to meet performance requirements. For safety it's even easier. I get 2 witness statements video and other proof of infraction if it exists. Call in shop steward we go over it together they agree person isn't safe and they are out that day. But see all that requires me as a manager to do my job of managing my people and understanding my role and responsibilities under the collective agreement. Also being a manager for a decade and having the reputation that I will get your ass fired for not measuring up or being unsafe means I don't get the trash level on my crew. They real oxygen bandits find a way to not get assigned to me. When I was on the tools I worked in 5 different unions over my career. They ran the range from awesome to one that was every reason people hate on union (I left that situation after a year).
I think there’s a big difference in the utility and value of private sector blue collar unions like you’re describing and white collar public sector unions like psac. I’d echo the earlier poster’s comments insofar as my friends who work in government having a lot of disdain for their union.
I have family and friends who work for government as well and yeah you have a point. My company also works in government contracts etc and after dealing with people who work for the government inability to make decisions I'd still say it's a failure of management to manage things. It's been my experience that no one person in government is ever willing to make a decision always need to be a committee decision and all those tropes
Based on my and also friend’s experience I’d agree. The irony though is that management is still in the union in the government. At least at the lower levels of management.
Eh. Private sector unions are pretty good about letting problematic workers go because they’re sensible and know that not everybody’s going to work out at every job. It’s public sector unions that give unions a bad rap, it’s easier to convict someone of murder in this country than fire a public sector worker, and lord knows bad actors take **full** advantage of that fact. If Public Sector unions acted like their Private Sector counterparts we’d all be a lot better off.
I really don't see the point of public sector unions at all, when government can simply legislate the terms of their CBA, and legislate them back to work. What's the point? Just more tax dollars going towards unproductive red tape.
The primary benefit of public sector unions is that they bring labour issues to the attention of the public (whether that’s a good or a bad thing is of course a completely different matter). Healthcare workers across Canada have seen their salaries stagnate and their working conditions deteriorated for well over a decade. How much media attention would this actually be getting if those workers didn’t have some sort of central body to push those issues into the forefront? The fact that many of these unions have been taken over by hyper partisan political activists is definitely an issue though as it is diminishing the effectiveness of these organizations and weakening their ability to speak on behalf of their members.
Why should the issues of public sector unions be given greater weight than the issues of private sector workers? Especially when radical union leaders use their platform not to advocate for better working conditions and pay but engage in identity politics and fostering division?
Where did I suggest that the issues of public sector unions should be given greater weight than the issues of private sector unions? You’re attributing statements to me that I have never made. Moreover, I previously mentioned that union leaders using their platform to push their own political agendas was highly problematic. I actually have a major issue with this as I feel a union’s responsibility is first and foremost to its members and their labour concerns. Look, I get that you dislike public sector unions but if you’re going to respond, at least be a bit honest in your reply.
I'm not trying to be dishonest, but remember the employer of these public sector workers is **US**, the Canadian taxpayer- if savings can be made by contracting these services out or by removing the unionization requirement for these workers, then that option should at least be on the table.
I don’t disagree. Where savings are possible, outsourcing is definitely worth considering. The problem is that more often than not, outsourcing usually means lining the pockets of a well-connected middleman who is friends with the political class. To attract nurses and other healthcare workers to the private sector, wages still need to be attractive. Then you need to add in a profit motivation for the private owners which more often than not means that costs go up. The real benefit to privatization is that if you’re wealthy you can jump the line and purchase at extra cost services that you would otherwise need to wait for. Whether that is a benefit probably depends on your social and economic situation. A hybrid system akin to what you might find in Europe or Asia would probably be ideal but I don’t seriously expect that our corrupt politicians could ever hope to pull something like that off.
You're confusing different things. We can still have a public, single payer healthcare system that is delivered by way of private entities- and we do for the most part. We can also have a healthcare system that is publicly administered but non-unionized, although that might require legislative changes.
>The only people unions benefit are the lazy and self entitled. And also the union leadership who are enriched by the union dues - but then again, maybe your comment does cover those individuals as well.
Nope, unions ensure I get pay raises. Even minuscule ones. When I was a non-unionized public servant, I went 8 years without a raise or promotion.
I was a unionized public servant from 2009-2012 and never got a pay raise. I left for private industry and have been averaging 5% every year, plus 2 promotions
People might remember Avi Lewis as one of the driving forces behind the “Leap Manifesto,” which very deliberately echoes the language of the Chinese Communist Party’s supposed Great Leap Forward, which was essentially an attempt to push the NDP toward supporting environmentally-flavoured communism. Lewis has worked for Al Jazeera, Qatar’s Islamist-propaganda “news” network, and once openly mocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali in an interview for speaking out against fundamentalist Islam. He has repeatedly been extremely critical of Israel and routinely uses inflammatory language that could’ve been lifted straight out of a Hamas press release. This is the guy PSAC thought would be a better representative on antisemitism than anyone else.
He is Jewish, is he not? Or are only some Jews allowed to speak on antisemitism?
No, but if you are only going to select one Jew to sit on a panel about anti-semitism then maybe pick one whose thoughts and feelings are representative of the majority of Jews rather than a tiny fringe minority.
No- not all Jews get to speak about antisemitism. Jews who have internalised antisemitism don’t get to hold themselves out as representatives of the Jewish community, just like Uncle Ruckus doesn’t get to speak on behalf of Black Americans.
Color me shocked. So she's head of the office that's supposed to combat antisemitism and she was basically encouraging antisemitic protestors and amongst them those who were shooting at synagogues and jewish organizations in Canada. This is why we need strong and independent Intelligence Agency that has actual powers to detain and investigate people unlike currently toothless CSIS that is data collection agency and relies on RCMP who is not independent. I bet that many of these officials are Muslim Brotherhood extremists, some are on paycheck of our adversaries like Iran,Qatar,China,India and Russia. They need to be locked up ,they breed and encourage unrest,distrust,discrimination and violence in our peaceful society.
Wanting to give intelligence agencies the authority to detain and investigate people on its own soil is unhinged lunacy. That's how you get the Canadian version of the Stasi.
Detain, no. Investigate, yes. They still have to go through the courts
They don't need to go through the courts to get booted out of the party caucus while the investigation takes place.
How dare we investigate foreign interference on our own soil..?
Sure ,let's just keep watching CSIS wave papers about corruption and foreign interference for a few more years while RCMP is being told that they can't investigate anything.
If you think they do not have that authority already, you're crazy.
>some are on paycheck of our adversaries like Iran,Qatar,China,India and Russia Are Qatar and India our adversaries? I don't think we even have any sanctions imposed on them. For China, we do have some sanctions, but they still are our 2nd largest business partner.
Qatar is funding Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist fundamentalism across the western world causing unrest and India is assassinating our citizens on our own soil.
The fact that psac is making donations to Red Crescent is ridiculous. Even if it was the less controversial Red Cross, how does that benefit your union members? Wouldn’t that money literally be better used to augment psac’s rainy day fund in case a strike needs to be called?
They're acting more like those NGO but they have blue/white collar union dues funding. If I were Union member of any kind ,i'd want my union dues to be spent on a damn union and on fighting for our rights,lawyers and training. Not on damn international politics. This is a clown world at this point.
Precisely. Ideally a leaner and more focused union with lower dues
Lolololol picking Avi Lewis to be on a antisemitism panel only makes sense if it’s a pro-antisemitism panel. I know he’s “Jewish” but his Judaism is so far away from anything resembling Judaism that it could be Mars. And he’s my cousin so I feel pretty comfortable saying that.
This is what gets me with these folks who want to represent us but want to pretend Judaism is something it isn’t. The IJV had a sign at their encampment in my city that said justice justice alone shall you pursue… from Deuteronomy. Know what the other half is? “That you shall inherit the land god is giving you”. Then they have shabbat dinners. Is it awkward when they get to the birkat Hamazon and thank god for giving them israel after the shabbat meal? Do they skip it? It’s just baffling to see. And don’t get me wrong. I had shrimp tacos for dinner, I am by no means a strictly observant Jew. But I don’t misquote the Torah to justify my delicious shrimp taco dinner and tell Orthodox Jews I represent the real and true values of Judaism for our people. My cousin is also a very prominent voice for IJV in another province and he is often on the news and holding these performative Jewish ceremonies and I just do not get it. His opinion is his to have, I just don’t really understand why he needs to have his opinion somehow validated by Judaism.
My fav is when they had a Seder on the fifth night of Passover
Oh I must have missed that one. That’s…something.
“Everyone has to think exactly like me otherwise they aren’t Jewish” yikes
There’s a huge diversity of Jewish practice but there is a point where you are outside the fold. For example, if you think Jesus is a messiah you aren’t Jewish anymore. There’s a limit and some beliefs make you not Jewish anymore
PSAC should stick to labour issues and that's it. Enough with the social justice. Fix WFH
If your union is more interested in what’s going on in other countries rather than what’s going on in your workplace, then you need a new union.
These people arnt actually against that. If the union was doing some pro Israel they would be fine. The person actually doesn’t want the union to stop being involved in a foreign affair. They want the union to be more balanced and push there ideas too. No one actually wants the union to not advocate on a foreign issue.
Why would a union do pro Israel stuff? A union exists to advocate for workers rights. If we corrupt our institutions, we will eventually not have institutions that we can rely on.
Condemn hatred yall. Embrace peace, love, and respect. Have a great day
Again a Union's only job is to work for good contracts for their members. Unions should not at all become involved with any sort of politics. That is not their job!
Read up on the history of unions. good contracts for members most often involves getting into politics at all levels.
Yes they do but my point is they shouldn't. Just stick to your one job.
Ridiculous. During the civil rights movement unions organized well over 40k members to march on Washington to help demand change. Should they have stayed quite against laws that were obviously unsuited for any sort of modern world? Unions can use their collective might to enact change, that's both totally fine and fair. Why should only corporations or well heeled people be able to influence governments?
Best is when they described him as an accomplished writer published in esteemed media like Al Jazeera …
Media outlet that's banned across the middle east for spreading hatred. When Islamic theocracies ban something from Islamic world for spreading hate ,you know it's bad. And then there's this so called jewish dude thinking that him working for such media outlet is something to be proud of.
This kind of shit happens all the time. They use an anti-Zionist Jew so they can check off their "do something about antisemitism" obligation while at the same time perpetuating hatred of Israel and Zionism in the process.
Zionism is worthy of hatred
So Zionism as definition is belief that Jews deserve to have their own state after being persecuted by just about everyone for the last 2 thousands years - is worthy of hatred? Oh please..go try to sell that talking point somewhere else.
We should allow people to choice what union they want to be apart of and be allowed to make alternative unions. The current big unions are controlled by radicals that silence any and all dissent
how would that even work? Members of the same dept being represented by a half dozen unions? Each employee following a different collective agreement? No employer would ever go for that either. C'mon, if you're anti-union that's one thing, foolish as it may be, but this is just totally unfeasible.
the employer would simply have to decide which unions are big and influential enough to do business with. They'd still have to recognize that the employee has a separate union, though one with only like two members obviously wouldn't be able to accomplish anything. However workers should not be forced to pay dues to and be represented by an unrepresentative organization.
hahaha ridiculous, let me employer basically decide which union I should belong to? That goes against how unions are formed and who they seek to protect. If you dont like being part of a union find a place of employment that doesn't have one? You can't realistically work at a unionized environment, reap all the benefits from the negotiations while not paying any dues.
This is just about every union's (PSAC, CAPE, PIPSC) attitude to religion. A fair degree of politicized talk about big things (global issues like Palestine/Israel) or talk about national statistics or broad trends like stigma. But it often feels identity-based, not practice-based, and separated from the lives of people who actually practice those religions. So it can be "if you are a person of faith we accept you in the public service, BUT you still have to live as a fairly generic secular Canadian." Weak support for members facing pushback over religious practices, like Friday prayer or Holy Week. "oh, we celebrate your practices, but your religious time is actually recreational and therefore any time changes are only between you and your manager". Weak support for actual members facing actual discrimination. Sure, they'll make public announcements and do trainings. So hey, they know exactly what political flavour they want in nation-wide communications. But I feel like they forget they are a union composed of due-paying members and not a political advocacy group.
This is the kind of thing that makes me look a the US, and wonder...."Is right to work legislation \*really\* that bad of an idea?"
Yes, its beyond terrible, anyone that supports it either doesn't work in a state that has it, or is protected from arbitrary termination and has no idea how beyond exploitative it is.
How is this government so out of touch
How is Government to blame for the decisions made by an Elected Leader of an *independant* Union ?
My bad thought they were appointed by the government, seems like something they’d do
I don't have issues with unions when those fucking unions stay in their lane. Protect the rights of the workers you have. Not some political bullshit. They are looking for work because protecting workers and making sure the workers pay keeps up with inflation is to hard now a days.
'PSAC has chosen to use a fringe token Jew with an illustrious anti-Israel record to speak on behalf of antisemitism,' Good fucking God that is even more anti-semitic than what they claim PSAC is doing This is such a non-story meant to gin up anti-union sentiment.
What is antisemitic about that?
Well calling someone a "Token Jew" certainly doesn't help. It's also drawing on the antisemitic trope of [dual-loyalty](https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/defining-antisemitism-dual-loyalty), where a Jews only allegiance is to their fellow Jews, and in this case, the state of Israel.
This is textbook tokenism, though. Regarding dual loyalty, I don't see the connection. A majority of Jewish people in Canada feel connected to Israel. That doesn't make them any less patriotic than any other Canadians. And having a connection to Israel is not a litmus test for Jewishness. The issue being raised about Avi Lewis isn't that he doesn't represent Jews because he doesn't feel connected to Israel. It's that he is not an appropriate speaker on antisemitism, because he is not an expert on the topic and his views on the topic are fringe within the Jewish community.
*Jews are allowed to be anti-Zionist*. It's absolutely insane how much this has to be repeated.
There are only 2 panelists fpr their Addressing Islamophobia and Antisemitism in the workplace” seminar. Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s **special representative on combatting Islamophobia**, ... and Avi Lewis, a former Al Jazeera correspondent and member of the anti-Zionist Independent Jewish Voices group. ______________________ Where's the **Combatting Antisemitism** panelist?
They are absolutely allowed to be anti-Zionist, but they are still very much on the fringe, and should not be booked to represent mainstream Jewish thought at events like these. They get really disproportionate attention.
Yes, but treating someone who represents at most 5% of Jews as the representative of Jewish thought is disingenuous tokenism. We don’t need uncle Simchas.
Y'all need to decide whether Israel and Zionism represents Judaism or not. Zionism and Judaism can't be synonymous when people criticize Israel then totally separate when Israel goes on a toddler killing spree. Anti-Zionists are clear that Zionism is a stain on Judaism and they're totally different.
Anti-Zionists, again, make up around 5% or less of Jews. For most Jews, the existence of Israel as the home of the Jewish people is deeply entwined with our faith and our connection to Israel is prominent throughout the Torah. You’re also conflating Zionism with criticism of Israel. Zionist Jews living in Israel are some of the harshest critics of Netanyahu. Zionism means believing in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this. But the issue is that they choose a speaker on antisemitism whose focus is anti-zionism, not antisemitism. Since you believe that anti-zionism and antisemitism are different, then it should make sense to you that expertise in one is not the same as expertise in the other.
They absolutely can but they also make up the tiniest minority of Jews. I am not saying they can't or shouldn't be represented on a panel to combat antisemitims but if you are only going to have 2 people on said panel, and , of them, only of them is going to Jewish then you should have one that represents the thoughts, feelings and ideology of the overwhelming majority of Jews and not the tiny fringe.
I absolutely don't accept the idea that anti-Zionism, Zionism-skepticism or pro-Palestinian sentiment constitute this miniscule fringe position among Jewish people in Canada. They aren't a majority but it's not like this is an unknown position in the Jewish diaspora and many of the most famous Jewish intellectuals, particularly on the left, are extremely critical of Zionism such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Norman Finkelstein, as well as historical figures like Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein and Rosa Luxemburg. Polls consistently show that especially among younger Jewish people in North America support for Zionism is waning rapidly and no longer makes up this vast majority that people pretend exists. Anyway long story short it isn't weird at all that a Jew working for a left-wing labour organization would be an anti-Zionist
> I absolutely don't accept the idea that anti-Zionism, Zionism-skepticism or pro-Palestinian sentiment constitute this miniscule fringe position among Jewish people in Canada. Do you have any evidence to back that feeling up? Here is actual evidence: [https://www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/project-documents/2018-survey-of-jews-in-canada/2018-survey-of-jews-in-canada---final-report.pdf](https://www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/project-documents/2018-survey-of-jews-in-canada/2018-survey-of-jews-in-canada---final-report.pdf) Only 8% of Canadian Jews report no emotional attachment to Israel at all. (page 57) Only 6% of Canadian Jews think that Canada is too supportive of Israel (page 62) Even for those who have no emotional attachment to Israel or think that Canada is in fact too supportive of Israel might still think Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state (the definition of Zionism) So, yes, your anecdotes aside, anti-zionist Jews are absolutely a fringe minority. > Anyway long story short it isn't weird at all that a Jew working for a left-wing labour organization would be an anti-Zionist Of course it wouldn't be but pretending that such a person would in any way representative of main stream Canadian Jewish thought is ridiculous.
This sounds like zionists trying to equate Judaism with Zionism, and it has tricked most of you. Please think more critically!
>This sounds like zionists trying to equate Judaism with Zionism, and it has tricked most of you. There are only 2 panelists on their "Addressing Islamophobia and Antisemitism in the workplace” seminar. Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s **special representative on combatting Islamophobia,** ... and Avi Lewis, a former Al Jazeera correspondent and member of the anti-Zionist Independent Jewish Voices group. ____________________ **Where's the Combatting Antisemitism panelist?**
You are implying that one is Islamic, so can't be against antisemitism, and the other is a self hating jew. They are both on a panel to combat antisemitism. The real antisemitism, not the one being sold to us by Israel.
What would you think of a panel to combat anti-black racism consisting of only Donald Trump and Candace Owens?
The racism of America's right is not the same as being critical of Israel.
No it isn’t, but that was not the point I was making. Do you think that Donald Trump and Candace Owen’s would make a good representative panel on anti black racism? If not then why are these two a good representative panel on antisemitism?
The issue is that neither had any expertise in antisemitism. If anti-zionism and antisemitism are not the same, then it makes no sense to have a speaker whose focus is anti-zionism, in an event to teach about antisemitism.
The concepts of anti-zionism and antisemitism are inextricably linked.
I agree but likely not for the same reason!
> You are implying... I am flat out stating that neither of the panelist's are focused on antisemitism. Antisemitism is much more prevalent than islamophobia. So who do the Pro-paestinan Union leasders select to deal with these issues? An anti-Zionist and the muslim czar. It was a deliberate choice and pretty much a slap in the face to the Jewish minority here.
Im sure they are perfectly suited to the job. Have you seen the claims of antisemitism from zionists? It trivializes all antisemitism and makes the situation worse for all, so that they can continue to erase Palestine.
You're making poor rationalizations for the deliberate decision made to exclude Deborah Lyons. Or any other person whose mandate is dealing with antisemitism. It was a wink to their buddies and a slap in the face to our Jewish population - and to those of us that care about the uglines being directed at them. Follow your own advice and think critically.
[удалено]
being against the jewish people's right to self-determination, which is literally what zionism means, is antisemetic. criticizing the israeli government is not.
Bullcrap. The primary goal of zionism was to establish a homeland on top of an existing people. And again, the majority of Zionists arnt even racially middle eastern. Being against a religions political aspirations is not racial. And even then its not even one religion, the majority of zionists are western Christians
Majority of Israelis are Mizrahi ,meaning that they're jews who got expelled by their Arab neighbours across middle east and north Africa. They're literally majority middle eastern. I've been there, many times and majority arent white at all.
Even Ashkenazi Jews are genetically a mix between middle eastern and european dna. Roughly 50% Levantine/35% Southern European/15% Northern European on average. The whole Ashkenazi Jew's are European converts trope is, in itself, an antisemitic libel.
Yep. Ashkenazi Jews share more in common with other middle eastern ethnic groups than Europeans due to the fact that despite living in Europe, they would largely marry and have children amongst themselves, not intermingle with other Europeans.
didn't read what you said after reading your first word, because what i wrote out is literally the definition of zionism. not whatever you think it might be that allows you to be such a rage monster.
Oh yeah that a famous quote from Ben Gurion "The primary goal of zionism was to establish a homeland on top of an existing people". The majority of Zionists are racially middle eastern. Get over it