From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Bill 40 (Labour law) was Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:57:26 GMT

SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge) writes:
> The word "extort" appears in this discussion when referring to
> Union bargaining. This makes no sense, for two reasons: first,
> refusing to cooperate with another person until they accept your
> price is not "extortion". The supermarket sells me food at (their)
> fixed price; that's not extortion.

If a law was passed saying that John G. Spragge MUST buy all his food
at Food City you would be open to extortion by Food City.

Bill 40 outlaws replacement workers of any type (scabs, management, and
workers from other plants) hence some workers will be able to extort
their bosses because some workers WILL be able to completely shut down
a business.

> To anticipate a counter argument, does the legislation not force
> companies to employ only union members, and to shut down if they
> and the union can't agree?

Since unions become incredibly easy to start under Bill 40 and
will have their first 'agreement' 'negotiated' by law, an
employer may suddenly find his workers unionized, over-paid, and
capable of shuting down his business on a whim.

> We can disagree on the fairness of this
> if you like (I will deal with it in a later post), but there is
> no tinge of illegality to using a legislated prerogative.

Well of course it isn't illegal,  by definition.
Morally it sucks.

> I own
> half a corporation. Incorporation is really a species of legalized
> fraud: I can declare (corporate) bankruptcy, say sayonara and tough
> luck, and sail away from debts other people trusted I would pay, with
> hardly a fillip.

How could they trust YOU to pay since it is the corporation that
owes them money?   Are your lenders and suppliers that stupid
that they think you owe them money?  Who are these patsies?

Going bankrupt is not as easy as you make it sound and the debtors
get all what's left of the bankrupt company.  If you've robbed
the corporation of all/some of it's assets before going belly up
it IS fraud.

Of course anybody lending money to a corporation can inquire into
it's finacial state and not lend money if it is going concern.

> But the does not mean incorporation of itself is
> fraudulent or unethical.

You haven't shown a specific example of why a corporation is 'legalized
fraud' so of course it doesn't generalize.

> I (and many other business people) could
> not justify the risks I take without the protection of incorporation.

Which is what a corporation is: limited risk for the provider of capitol.

> In the same way, unions who use the (enhanced) strike weapon in
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> negotiation may be short sighted, but they will not be guilty of
> "extortion".

I've read this three times now and I still don't get this connection.

How does the fact that a corporation folding is legalized fraud (giving
you that point for a moment) mean that a strike under Bill 40 is not
legalized extortion?  Do you know what extortion means?

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Xref: sparky can.politics:8126 soc.culture.canada:7255