There's practically nothing I could disagree with, except for the very last phrase:
Public sector unions unlike the private sector are actually unionized against... well against you.It almost sounds as if the private sector unions were different; as if they unionized against someone else. Well, let's think what exactly (if anything) makes private sector unions different.
It's definitely not their stance on social issues. When it comes to throwing their support behind yet another initiative against traditional family values, upholding unrestricted abortions through 9 months of pregnancy or supporting yet another special interest group's quest for extra privileges at society's expense, the CAW is not any different than CUPE. Fiscal issues? I doubt it. When it comes to pension reform, both public and private sector unions are bashing the proposed Pooled Retirement Pension Plans, demanding an expansion of a forced government-run pension plan instead:
Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's proposal for a pooled retirement pension plan is a step backward from real pension reform. Instead of improving the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), Flaherty's proposal is a sign Canada's banks and financial institutions have hijacked this important issue, says Canada's largest union.So where do they think the CPP invests its surplus revenues? No, that doesn't go towards buying back Canada's public debt. CPP surplus funds are invested in highly volatile stock markets of the "developing" countries. If the PRPP proposal serves the interests of "banks and insurance companies" then what about expanding CPP? Whose interests (and whose countries) does that serve?
"It's outrageous that Canada's banks and financial institutions have managed to pull the Conservative government's strings to put this option on the table," says Moist. "This proposal will only leave Canadians exposed to gouging by Canada's mutual fund industry, who charge the highest administration fees in the world."
The best, most effective, and most cost-efficient route to addressing retirement income insecurity, says Moist, is expanding the CPP, the option overwhelmingly supported by Canadians.
OFL President Sid Ryan told media and activists that he did not want anything interfering with the profoundly important message being delivered to Flaherty: REAL retirement security can only be achieved through an expanded CPP. Any plan that enables banks and insurance companies to cash in on the backs of working people is a huge betrayal.(Source)
As for the CPP being the "most effective, and most cost-efficient route to addressing retirement income insecurity" - could it be that union leaders have already forgot how the CPP premiums went up a whooping 175% in 1986-2003? I doubt it. Don't they realize that if a private plan had the same performance record as the CPP, people would be rushing away from it at first opportunity? So how come they keep insisting on making the worst solution mandatory for all?
Unions, public and private sector alike are not interested in success and prosperity. They are interested in perpetuating poverty so they can be in the anti-poverty vanguard. They are interested in more broken families, more single parents struggling to make ends meet, more seniors who have saved nothing for retirement, more special interest groups who couldn't (or who believe they couldn't) survive without government handouts, token jobs and ethnic quotas... They want all of us, the silent majority, to foot the bill for their vision of "social justice". Public or private sector unions - it makes no difference; they're all unionized against us.