Link (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/woman-exempted-from-union-membership-due-to-religious-beliefs-1.6617261)
QuoteA Saskatchewan woman has been exempted from union membership in her workplace because of her religious beliefs.
In a ruling late last month, the Saskatchewan Labour Relations board granted the government worker's request. She argued her Jehovah's Witness beliefs prohibit her from joining political organizations. The woman, who represented herself at the hearing, said that includes unions.
"... She believes that she is to have only one loyalty and it is to the kingdom of God," states the Sept. 29 decision.
The woman acknowledged that not all Jehovah's Witness adherents feel this way about unions, and there is no specific religious teaching prohibiting union membership. She said this is her interpretation of her faith.
"She acknowledges that many governments and unions try to improve the conditions of peoples' lives but there are limitations to what earthly governments and political entities can really accomplish. The kingdom of God is a solution to all problems on earth and will bring about the conditions to benefit all people. It will replace all other earthly governments and will remove any need for 'man-made' institutions," states the decision.
It's unclear whether the woman was asked if she considers her employer, the Government of Saskatchewan, to be a political organization as well.
Even though the woman is now exempt from paying union dues, she will still receive the full benefits of any work conditions negotiated by the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union (SGEU).
"This is very unusual. Many labour lawyers would probably never encounter this kind of issue in the course of their practice," Queen's University law professor Kevin Banks said.
He said cases like this go back decades, but that there were likely only a handful of them across the country during that time.
Banks said the board made it clear this was an exceptional circumstance. He said the woman was required to prove a deep, long standing belief, so he doesn't think this will lead to abuse of the rules.
"The board went into some depth and care in coming to its conclusion that these [beliefs] were sincerely held," Banks said.
York University law professor Valerio De Stefano agreed that careful consideration was given to this complex case.
"On the one hand, the need not to undermine union security clauses [is] a lynchpin of our labour legislation. On the other, the protection of profoundly and demonstrably held religious beliefs," De Stefano said in an emailed statement.
"While it is questionable that unions can be considered 'political entities' in our system, the Board decided not to engage in a theological examination of the merits of those beliefs and decided to accept the worker's request for an exclusion. At the same time, it stressed out the exceptional nature of this exclusion from our model of industrial relations."
An SGEU official said they have no comment on the matter.
It's a good thing freedom of religion sits at the top of our values, way above all the laws of our country. I'm sure everyone on the left will agree with this judicial decision that sets a precedent. :) It's only fair to not pay union dues, after all... :)
Anti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?
Being in the union isn't voluntary? Wtf?
QuoteThe kingdom of God is a solution to all problems on earth and will bring about the conditions to benefit all people. It will replace all other earthly governments and will remove any need for 'man-made' institutions," states the decision.
Of course Jehovah's Witnesses believe that mass genocide of billions is how the problems of the world will be solved by God. Kind of a weird way to "benefit all people" but hey it makes sense if you are a JW.
Anyway the whole mandatory union stuff has always been controversial. I don't really care for it but understand why it exists.
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 01:08:05 AMBeing in the union isn't voluntary? Wtf?
It is voluntary. People don't have to work for an employer who has been unionized.
If what you were talking about is union busting laws, no Canada tends not to have those.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 07:26:17 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 01:08:05 AMBeing in the union isn't voluntary? Wtf?
It is voluntary. People don't have to work for an employer who has been unionized.
If what you were talking about is union busting laws, no Canada tends not to have those.
What is a union busting law?
I don't understand the gotcha here.
You think the left support religious people doing whatever they want?
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 07:30:18 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 07:26:17 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 01:08:05 AMBeing in the union isn't voluntary? Wtf?
It is voluntary. People don't have to work for an employer who has been unionized.
If what you were talking about is union busting laws, no Canada tends not to have those.
What is a union busting law?
One that your first post indicates you would favour
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 09:02:16 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 07:30:18 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 07:26:17 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 01:08:05 AMBeing in the union isn't voluntary? Wtf?
It is voluntary. People don't have to work for an employer who has been unionized.
If what you were talking about is union busting laws, no Canada tends not to have those.
What is a union busting law?
One that your first post indicates you would favour
Can't you just tell me?
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 09:25:22 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 09:02:16 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 07:30:18 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 07:26:17 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 01:08:05 AMBeing in the union isn't voluntary? Wtf?
It is voluntary. People don't have to work for an employer who has been unionized.
If what you were talking about is union busting laws, no Canada tends not to have those.
What is a union busting law?
One that your first post indicates you would favour
Can't you just tell me?
Sure
:unsure:
Anyone else care to tell me?
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 09:33:25 AM:unsure:
Anyone else care to tell me?
A law that I believe would be considered "union-busting" is one that allows employees who don't pay union dues the same jobs, pay. benefits, and protections that are enjoyed by union members. If one can get the same results without paying union dues, then the union is busted.
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2022, 09:36:14 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 09:33:25 AM:unsure:
Anyone else care to tell me?
A law that I believe would be considered "union-busting" is one that allows employees who don't pay union dues the same jobs, pay. benefits, and protections that are enjoyed by union members. If one can get the same results without paying union dues, then the union is busted.
Thanks. Would the lack of a law that makes it obligatory to be in the union be considered a union busting law do you think?
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 09:41:14 AMThanks. Would the lack of a law that makes it obligatory to be in the union be considered a union busting law do you think?
I'm not sure lack of a law would be considered a law per se, but lack of laws preventing corporations from busting up attempts to unionize would certainly promote union-busting. Union-busting is an activity more than a law, IMO.
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2022, 09:47:00 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 09:41:14 AMThanks. Would the lack of a law that makes it obligatory to be in the union be considered a union busting law do you think?
I'm not sure lack of a law would be considered a law per se, but lack of laws preventing corporations from busting up attempts to unionize would certainly promote union-busting. Union-busting is an activity more than a law, IMO.
What exactly does unionize mean here? I assume it means more than forming a union?
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 09:48:24 AMQuote from: grumbler on October 17, 2022, 09:47:00 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 09:41:14 AMThanks. Would the lack of a law that makes it obligatory to be in the union be considered a union busting law do you think?
I'm not sure lack of a law would be considered a law per se, but lack of laws preventing corporations from busting up attempts to unionize would certainly promote union-busting. Union-busting is an activity more than a law, IMO.
What exactly does unionize mean here? I assume it means more than forming a union?
Normally it means that a union has been certified to represent the workers at a particular worksite - that is an oversimplification, but for the purposes of your question it will suffice.
Once certified, the union then negotiates directly with the employer to get a collective agreement which will apply to all workers at the site who are covered by the collective agreement. So basically wages, benefits and working conditions will be agreed to between the union and the employer. Workers who are not covered by the collective agreement are typically management types - and they enter into their own personal individual contracts of employment with the employer. In most jurisdictions, union membership is required to work in a job which is subject to a collective agreement or union certification. Places where that is not the case, and belonging to a union is optional, are generally jurisdictions where there are a number of laws which make union certification and the results of becoming certified much more onerous on a union.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 10:53:37 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 09:48:24 AMQuote from: grumbler on October 17, 2022, 09:47:00 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 09:41:14 AMThanks. Would the lack of a law that makes it obligatory to be in the union be considered a union busting law do you think?
I'm not sure lack of a law would be considered a law per se, but lack of laws preventing corporations from busting up attempts to unionize would certainly promote union-busting. Union-busting is an activity more than a law, IMO.
What exactly does unionize mean here? I assume it means more than forming a union?
Normally it means that a union has been certified to represent the workers at a particular worksite - that is an oversimplification, but for the purposes of your question it will suffice.
Once certified, the union then negotiates directly with the employer to get a collective agreement which will apply to all workers at the site who are covered by the collective agreement. So basically wages, benefits and working conditions will be agreed to between the union and the employer. Workers who are not covered by the collective agreement are typically management types - and they enter into their own personal individual contracts of employment with the employer. In most jurisdictions, union membership is required to work in a job which is subject to a collective agreement or union certification. Places where that is not the case, and belonging to a union is optional, are generally jurisdictions where there are a number of laws which make union certification and the results of becoming certified much more onerous on a union.
What's the purpose of certification? Which is the certifying authority?
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 11:37:21 AMWhat's the purpose of certification? Which is the certifying authority?
The certification hearing is normally conducted through the labour board. It is a statutory body which regulates labour law matters and is given the statutory authority to determine these questions.
The purpose of certification is to determine two things a) whether the union has met the statutory requirements to become certified to the workplace. That generally involves determining if the union has the requirement amount of support amongst the workers; and b) who will be the union certified to act as the bargaining agent for the workers. This is rarer, but there can be fights between unions as to who should be certified as the bargaining agent.
Once a union is certified to be the bargaining agent, the employer must now deal with the union directly and cannot make separate agreements with the workers in the bargaining unit. The union now handles all negotiations, grievances etc on behalf of the workers. This is administratively costly, and so one tactic of antiunion politicians is to pass legislation which allows workers to opt out from joining the union. The people who opt out then get all the benefits of the work of the union without paying the dues required to pay for that work.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 12:39:22 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 11:37:21 AMWhat's the purpose of certification? Which is the certifying authority?
The certification hearing is normally conducted through the labour board. It is a statutory body which regulates labour law matters and is given the statutory authority to determine these questions.
The purpose of certification is to determine two things a) whether the union has met the statutory requirements to become certified to the workplace. That generally involves determining if the union has the requirement amount of support amongst the workers; and b) who will be the union certified to act as the bargaining agent for the workers. This is rarer, but there can be fights between unions as to who should be certified as the bargaining agent.
Once a union is certified to be the bargaining agent, the employer must now deal with the union directly and cannot make separate agreements with the workers in the bargaining unit. The union now handles all negotiations, grievances etc on behalf of the workers. This is administratively costly, and so one tactic of antiunion politicians is to pass legislation which allows workers to opt out from joining the union. The people who opt out then get all the benefits of the work of the union without paying the dues required to pay for that work.
Thanks!
In Sweden you pick which union you want to be in, if any, looking at which ones accept your profession as members, their size, and what their fees and services look like. As a member you get union services that non-members of course don't get. It's illegal to punish an employee for being in a union. The system seems to work fine.
Why would they necessarily get the benefits if they opt out?
Why can't those who opt out NOT get the benefits of the union in return for not choosing to join it?
The company can negotiate with those who opt out separately, right? Presumably if the Union is doing their job, the benefit of joining it ought to be obviously better for the employee, forcing the company to get its workers from the union pool.
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2022, 12:51:00 PMWhy would they necessarily get the benefits if they opt out?
Why can't those who opt out NOT get the benefits of the union in return for not choosing to join it?
The company can negotiate with those who opt out separately, right? Presumably if the Union is doing their job, the benefit of joining it ought to be obviously better for the employee, forcing the company to get its workers from the union pool.
I am not sure how that works. If a union is the certified bargaining agent for all employees of a particular description, it is not then possible to opt out of that representation.
I am not sure how the states where this sort of thing happens deal with it, I suspect it is that the unions are not actually certified to negotiate on behalf of all employees. But then that sort of defeats the whole purpose of collective bargaining.
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 12:50:35 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 12:39:22 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 11:37:21 AMWhat's the purpose of certification? Which is the certifying authority?
The certification hearing is normally conducted through the labour board. It is a statutory body which regulates labour law matters and is given the statutory authority to determine these questions.
The purpose of certification is to determine two things a) whether the union has met the statutory requirements to become certified to the workplace. That generally involves determining if the union has the requirement amount of support amongst the workers; and b) who will be the union certified to act as the bargaining agent for the workers. This is rarer, but there can be fights between unions as to who should be certified as the bargaining agent.
Once a union is certified to be the bargaining agent, the employer must now deal with the union directly and cannot make separate agreements with the workers in the bargaining unit. The union now handles all negotiations, grievances etc on behalf of the workers. This is administratively costly, and so one tactic of antiunion politicians is to pass legislation which allows workers to opt out from joining the union. The people who opt out then get all the benefits of the work of the union without paying the dues required to pay for that work.
Thanks!
In Sweden you pick which union you want to be in, if any, looking at which ones accept your profession as members, their size, and what their fees and services look like. As a member you get union services that non-members of course don't get. It's illegal to punish an employee for being in a union. The system seems to work fine.
Yes, this is the b part I was mentioning. Sometimes two or more unions compete to represent the employees at a particular work site. The workers get to decide which union will represent them. And if one union already represents are large number of workers across a number of jobs, a competitor union might come in and "raid" some of that membership with the claim that they will be better at representing that subset of workers - its pretty common with workers with specific skills/concerns.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 01:23:03 PMYes, this is the b part I was mentioning. Sometimes two or more unions compete to represent the employees at a particular work site. The workers get to decide which union will represent them. And if one union already represents are large number of workers across a number of jobs, a competitor union might come in and "raid" some of that membership with the claim that they will be better at representing that subset of workers - its pretty common with workers with specific skills/concerns.
In Sweden unions negotiate for their members. There are often several unions at a workplace. Everyone gets represented by the union they are member of.
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 01:27:29 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 01:23:03 PMYes, this is the b part I was mentioning. Sometimes two or more unions compete to represent the employees at a particular work site. The workers get to decide which union will represent them. And if one union already represents are large number of workers across a number of jobs, a competitor union might come in and "raid" some of that membership with the claim that they will be better at representing that subset of workers - its pretty common with workers with specific skills/concerns.
In Sweden unions negotiate for their members. There are often several unions at a workplace. Everyone gets represented by the union they are member of.
Is it then possible for two employees, doing exactly the same job, to have different pay, benefits, etc. because they have different unions? Or do the unions bargain collectively with the employer?
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 12:50:35 PMThanks!
In Sweden you pick which union you want to be in, if any, looking at which ones accept your profession as members, their size, and what their fees and services look like. As a member you get union services that non-members of course don't get. It's illegal to punish an employee for being in a union. The system seems to work fine.
There is a decent difference in how continental Europe (and to an extent the Nordic countries, which are slightly different from continental Europe) has handled labor unions and the Anglosphere--I don't know the full history but there are more similarities among the Anglo countries than most of continental Europe and vice versa--but no two countries have identical labor laws so there is a bit of generalization going on in this explanation.
Roughly speaking, many continental European countries unionism is typically going to mean that bargaining often happens at a sectoral level. Meaning a large union that represents say, pipe fitters, working anywhere in the country, negotiates sectoral agreements. All employers in the country then have to abide by those agreements when employing an employee of that union. Individual shops (union-speak for "work location"), may have members of several sectoral unions all working under the same roof, and the worker chooses which union (if any) to be part of; many of the sectoral agreements the large unions negotiate benefit all workers, but sometimes there are union-specific benefits and such.
The Anglosphere has more of an employer-centric form of unionization--bargaining agreements are between unions and a specific employer, with lots of variation between the countries.
In the United States, historically we had the "closed shop", which meant if a union had an agreement with an employer at a specific location, that employer
would not hire anyone who was not a member of that union. As an example imagine a major port city, and there are a number of employers with facilities at the port. There is one union representing all the dockworkers, and none of the companies operating out of the port will hire anyone who is not a member of the dock workers union. To get a job as a dock worker means you first have to apply and join the union, and then usually based on seniority (how long you have been in the union), in the daily hire-out, union members get assigned to specific jobs to work and unload ships.
This was frequently open to very serious abuse--and often organized crime involvement as well. This form of closed shop union became illegal in the United States in 1947, and I think Britain outlawed it under Thatcher. I'm less familiar with how Australia and Canada handle this.
However, many jobs in the United States through the 1980s continued to require union membership. How? With what is called the post-entry union shop--in that system an employer could hire whomever they wanted, but within a set period of time (negotiated by the union, often 30 / 60 / or 90 days) that new hire had to join the union that represented the shop. If the employee refused to do so, they were dismissed from employment. This is still law of the land in a number of States. Red states have eliminated this through what they call "right to work" laws, which are functionally union busting laws. In "right to work" states, a union shop still has to hire non-union workers, but cannot compel them to join the union, so it creates (an intentional) freerider problem for the union--because under these laws the non-joiners get all the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement but do not have to pay anything into the union.
Some States created a hybrid called the "agency shop", where you can refuse to join the union, but you still had to pay an agency fee to the union that organized the workplace, by law in agency shop States, the agency fee typically has to be a pro-rated fee based on the actual administrative costs of performing collective bargaining. For regular union members, they pay a higher fee than the freeriders who are paying an agency fee--and some of that higher fee goes to various union activities not directly related to collective bargaining.
The Supreme Court has issued several rulings since 1985 that have created carve outs to many of these laws, which have further undermined the viability of union shops in the United States.
Muddying things considerably--I said at the beginning of my post that sector wide negotiations are more typical of continental European systems--but there is actually some level of sector wide negotiating that happens with unions in the Anglo countries as well, it just usually is not the primary mechanism of union agreement, and that also varies considerably by industry.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 01:31:17 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 01:27:29 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2022, 01:23:03 PMYes, this is the b part I was mentioning. Sometimes two or more unions compete to represent the employees at a particular work site. The workers get to decide which union will represent them. And if one union already represents are large number of workers across a number of jobs, a competitor union might come in and "raid" some of that membership with the claim that they will be better at representing that subset of workers - its pretty common with workers with specific skills/concerns.
In Sweden unions negotiate for their members. There are often several unions at a workplace. Everyone gets represented by the union they are member of.
Is it then possible for two employees, doing exactly the same job, to have different pay, benefits, etc. because they have different unions? Or do the unions bargain collectively with the employer?
I'm not sure of all the details, if there is collaboration like that between unions and what it looks like, and the details around central negotiations etc (thanks OvB for describing the basic European system). Pay is normally individual though, and unions don't negotiate on the detailed level of every specific individual's pay (but if the union thinks that a member is getting shafted they can get involved).
Oh and thanks OvB for the detailed description of the US system.
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 02:05:17 PMI'm not sure of all the details, if there is collaboration like that between unions and what it looks like, and the details around central negotiations etc (thanks OvB for describing the basic European system). Pay is normally individual though, and unions don't negotiate on the detailed level of every specific individual's pay (but if the union thinks that a member is getting shafted they can get involved).
Yeah - interestingly when Labour moved to supporting the end of the closed shop in the 80s it was explicitly described as bringing the UK in line with Europe (and reflecting the Social Charter which included a right to join or not to join a union). I think it was Tony Blair's first big shadow cabinet job and very much part of his view of modernisation and Europe being totally intwined.
Not sure how they work but there are definitely different unions in the same workplace here - who can have different styles and priorities. I work for a media organisation and editorial staff are ovewhelmingly in the National Union of Journalists, while union members in the rest of the organisation tend to be in different unions (I think mainly Unite, but I could be wrong).
The negotiations are between the business and "the unions" in general. I'm not fully sure how they work and I assume the unions cooperate but clearly there will be issues and interests that are specifically relevant to editorial/non-editorial workers so they may have different approaches.
Similarly I know there's big campaigns to unionise cleaners, support staff etc in big organisations (that are often quite unionised) like the civil service, NHS, law firms etc precisely because there's a sense that the existing unions in those sectors don't have the same interests as the poorest workers and aren't actually that interested in unionising them.
Quote from: HVC on October 16, 2022, 11:54:06 PMAnti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?
The left is all pro religion nowadays. At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs. I'm curious about what it'll be here.
Quote from: viper37 on October 17, 2022, 10:55:35 PMQuote from: HVC on October 16, 2022, 11:54:06 PMAnti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?
The left is all pro religion nowadays. At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs. I'm curious about what it'll be here.
There is a significant difference between opposing discrimination and being pro religion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2022, 08:15:03 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 17, 2022, 10:55:35 PMQuote from: HVC on October 16, 2022, 11:54:06 PMAnti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?
The left is all pro religion nowadays. At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs. I'm curious about what it'll be here.
There is a significant difference between opposing discrimination and being pro religion.
A line that my lefty brethren too often cross. Today's anglo-saxon influence left sees religion based discrimination as something that needs defending. Especially, like viper notes, if it's non-Christian.
I think the court decision is right :ph34r:
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2022, 08:55:20 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2022, 08:15:03 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 17, 2022, 10:55:35 PMQuote from: HVC on October 16, 2022, 11:54:06 PMAnti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?
The left is all pro religion nowadays. At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs. I'm curious about what it'll be here.
There is a significant difference between opposing discrimination and being pro religion.
A line that my lefty brethren too often cross. Today's anglo-saxon influence left sees religion based discrimination as something that needs defending. Especially, like viper notes, if it's non-Christian.
Really? I often see the left opposing discrimination against non-Christian religious minorities. Can you cite an example where the left defends it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2022, 09:49:45 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2022, 08:55:20 AMA line that my lefty brethren too often cross. Today's anglo-saxon influence left sees religion based discrimination as something that needs defending. Especially, like viper notes, if it's non-Christian.
Really? I often see the left opposing discrimination against non-Christian religious minorities. Can you cite an example where the left defends it?
Religious discrimination is discrimination for religious reasons, not discrimination against religion.
An example of religious discrimination might be where leftists support Sharia law in family matters, if those who are subject to it "agree." Sharia law heavily discriminates against women, however (e.g. they get half the share of an inheritance a male gets). The degree to which Muslim woman can refuse to agree to the application of Sharia law is naturally very limited, given that they would need to oppose their own family in order to do it. What seems like a fair system ("everyone agreed") is not, in fact, fair at all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2022, 09:49:45 AMReally? I often see the left opposing discrimination against non-Christian religious minorities. Can you cite an example where the left defends it?
Well it is a tricky line because often that position leads to alliances of convenience with conservative and ugly political forces of that religion that can sometimes lead leftists to defending some unsavory things in the service of that alliance. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.
But the idea that leftists are out there praising non-Christian religions as objectively good things is ridiculous.
Of course there probably are tribalist leftists who just hate Christians and the majority culture and will favor anybody who isn't them. Like all those dumbass "leftists" who are supporting Russia's fascist invasion of Ukraine just because Russia is not the US.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 18, 2022, 09:03:30 AMI think the court decision is right :ph34r:
I do too, actually. At the same time I strongly identify with CC's position, I don't really like making religious exceptions to laws. But I also think there is some room in society, when the law being excepted doesn't undermine some other person's core / fundamental rights, and isn't a major disruption to public policy, for allowing some exceptions to laws.
A few examples I can think of--Sikhs are allowed to maintain their full beards while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, despite a general grooming rule that only allows a neatly trimmed moustache. This is basically an order & discipline rule, and letting a Sikh adhere to a traditional cultural/religious practice that is very important to them, does not meaningfully undermine their abilities as a soldier or undermining American interests, and it is entirely victimless. Mind you before a certain period of time, formal appearance for American officers often included a full beard, and we have always allowed special forces to grow full beards if they were operating in areas where they were seen as helping them blend into the culture of whatever locals they were working with.
Another one is Amish not paying into Social Security. I think that is a good example, because if we just let huge swathes of society opt out of Social Security for a religious reason, it could undermine the entire system. The Amish however have a very well documented, very easily verified belief against participating in such schemes--and importantly, they have developed an internal social welfare system for caring for their elderly--elderly and infirm people are basically never left to die alone in Amish country because Amish society doesn't have the sort of concepts of individualism and everyone out for themselves mentality that largely defines the majority of the neoliberal West.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2022, 08:15:03 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 17, 2022, 10:55:35 PMQuote from: HVC on October 16, 2022, 11:54:06 PMAnti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?
The left is all pro religion nowadays. At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs. I'm curious about what it'll be here.
There is a significant difference between opposing discrimination and being pro religion.
In this case, it is blatant discrimination against anyone not religious. Non religious people have to pay their union dues, no matter their beliefs on the subject, but religious people are allowed to bust the union.
It is clearly a double standard, which is discrimination against non theist, of which there are plenty of cases in this country.
"Discrimination" is recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. It can be just or unjust, but by itself is neutral. The woman in the warehouse with the broken arm doesn't have to lift boxes, while the woman without the broken arm does, no matter her beliefs about lifting boxes.
It is clearly a double standard, which is discrimination against non broken-armed, of which there are plenty of cases in this country.
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 01:27:29 PMIn Sweden unions negotiate for their members. There are often several unions at a workplace. Everyone gets represented by the union they are member of.
The Scandinavian union model is significantly less adversarial than the North American one. I follow Danish labour negotiations on-and-off (mostly when it makes the news) and I assume Sweden is not too far off. It's much more a we-recognize-we-need-each-other, collaborative, win-win type situation than what you see in the US and Canada - here it's way more zero-sum, we'll-screw-you-any-way-we-can outright fuckery in many places.
Quote from: viper37 on October 18, 2022, 08:27:31 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2022, 08:15:03 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 17, 2022, 10:55:35 PMQuote from: HVC on October 16, 2022, 11:54:06 PMAnti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?
The left is all pro religion nowadays. At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs. I'm curious about what it'll be here.
There is a significant difference between opposing discrimination and being pro religion.
In this case, it is blatant discrimination against anyone not religious. Non religious people have to pay their union dues, no matter their beliefs on the subject, but religious people are allowed to bust the union.
It is clearly a double standard, which is discrimination against non theist, of which there are plenty of cases in this country.
Jesus man. I am as "New Atheist" as most, but like....relax.
Discrimination to mean anything has to be systemic, or at least rampant.
"Religious people are allowed to bust the union".
No, they are not. *One* religious person has been given an exemption. To get this exemption, one needs to show reasonably that their religious views, held honestly and in good faith, make such an exemption reasonable, and in the balance, not significantly harmful.
You know what does harm non-theists? Silly hyperbole.
The rise in edgy hard right atheism in recent years is most curious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 18, 2022, 09:03:30 AMI think the court decision is right :ph34r:
It wasn't a court decision. It was a decision of the labour board which is subject to judicial review. I would be surprised if the union didn't apply to court for judicial review. I think the decision maker put too much emphasis on the first branch of the test which is establishing a bona fide religious belief. But that is only the beginning of the analysis. To use an extreme example, at least in Canada, someone can't claim that paying taxes is against their religion and save themselves from a lifetime of taxation. Apparently in the United States, according to Otto, that is possible. I don't know what the analysis is in the United States for establishing A religious freedom argument. But that would not fly in Canada.
Likewise, this person cannot merely assert that belonging to a union is contrary to their religion to achieve their remedy.
The nuances are considerable, and I don't propose to set it all out here. We are about to receive a decision from the British Columbia Court of appeal which will likely provide some further explanation as to what is required in order to establish a violation of religious freedom. When that comes out I will post here, for your benefit, to give a bit of analysis of what the court said.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2022, 09:02:10 AMBut that is only the beginning of the analysis. To use an extreme example, at least in Canada, someone can't claim that paying taxes is against their religion and save themselves from a lifetime of taxation. Apparently in the United States, according to Otto, that is possible.
The Amish don't receive exemptions from all taxation--only ones that they have been able to justify violate their religious beliefs, and that the government has agreed they can be exempted from without harming public policy. The Amish have a well documented religious belief against insurance, and any form of insurance scheme. The exemption given to the Amish for Social Security, Unemployment and Medicare however was not granted by a court, it was actually established by Federal law in 1965. It also doesn't technically exempt "Amish", but rather a member of a religious sect that can meet certain criteria (which virtually only the Amish / Mennonites can meet, but a few others may as well.)
They do not get any exemptions on income or property tax--even though they actually utilize very few of the services that, for example, local property taxes fund. One of the largest expenses funded by local property taxes are schools, and the Amish more or less universally do not participate in the public school system.
They also are only exempt as individuals--if they run a business, they still have to pay the employer share of all of the relevant taxes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2022, 12:36:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2022, 09:02:10 AMBut that is only the beginning of the analysis. To use an extreme example, at least in Canada, someone can't claim that paying taxes is against their religion and save themselves from a lifetime of taxation. Apparently in the United States, according to Otto, that is possible.
The Amish don't receive exemptions from all taxation--only ones that they have been able to justify violate their religious beliefs, and that the government has agreed they can be exempted from without harming public policy. The Amish have a well documented religious belief against insurance, and any form of insurance scheme. The exemption given to the Amish for Social Security, Unemployment and Medicare however was not granted by a court, it was actually established by Federal law in 1965. It also doesn't technically exempt "Amish", but rather a member of a religious sect that can meet certain criteria (which virtually only the Amish / Mennonites can meet, but a few others may as well.)
They do not get any exemptions on income or property tax--even though they actually utilize very few of the services that, for example, local property taxes fund. One of the largest expenses funded by local property taxes are schools, and the Amish more or less universally do not participate in the public school system.
They also are only exempt as individuals--if they run a business, they still have to pay the employer share of all of the relevant taxes.
Sure, but that is my point. The Labour boards decision is much more consistent with US law which permits a religious community to carve out certain autonomy from the state. That is not how the Canadian law has developed and so that is why I am surprised the labour board decided the case the way they did. I would be surprised if Canadian law developed in the same way that US law has. However, I might have to rethink that after we receive the court of appeal decision. But I'm willing to bet that the court will provide reasons that make it very difficult for a religious community to make the argument that they do not have to interact with the rest of society and follow the rules and general law of that society.
I would posit it is pretty damn hard to meet the criteria of the Amish--they are an incredibly small group that grows almost solely through biological reproduction. There aren't really people casually becoming Amish, and many people leave the community in early adulthood.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2022, 01:07:22 PMgrows almost solely through biological reproduction.
You know that a lot of Amish porn is fake, right?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2022, 01:07:22 PMI would posit it is pretty damn hard to meet the criteria of the Amish--they are an incredibly small group that grows almost solely through biological reproduction. There aren't really people casually becoming Amish, and many people leave the community in early adulthood.
Ok, but establishing that a community is a closed club does not mean they get special treatment - unless the law provides for it (ie indigenous communities are given special status under our constitution). The closed club members still need to comply with the general law of the land unless expressly exempted by the law.
From your description the Amish have made a constitutional rights argument which would likely not be accepted by a Canadian court. But again, I might have to eat my words depending on what our CA has to say about it in the coming months.
Quote from: The Brain on October 19, 2022, 01:11:45 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2022, 01:07:22 PMgrows almost solely through biological reproduction.
You know that a lot of Amish porn is fake, right?
There is some that isn't?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2022, 03:27:59 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 19, 2022, 01:11:45 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2022, 01:07:22 PMgrows almost solely through biological reproduction.
You know that a lot of Amish porn is fake, right?
There is some that isn't?
I like not to give up completely on humanity.
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2022, 02:39:04 AMNo, they are not. *One* religious person has been given an exemption. To get this exemption, one needs to show reasonably that their religious views, held honestly and in good faith, make such an exemption reasonable, and in the balance, not significantly harmful.
There is a precedent set for any religious people to follow, if they wish.
This is the first case. If it is not overturned, there will be others.
Either everyone is allowed to not join a union for their personal convictions, or no everyone follows the rules.
I think not being forced to join the union in 99% of the sectors and paying your dues is enough to calm moral convictions and still protect the work of the unions. But this case is simply silly. Why make an exemption for dubious religious beliefs?
Quote from: viper37 on October 21, 2022, 10:00:26 AMThere is a precedent set for any religious people to follow, if they wish.
This is the first case. If it is not overturned, there will be others.
Either everyone is allowed to not join a union for their personal convictions, or no everyone follows the rules.
I think not being forced to join the union in 99% of the sectors and paying your dues is enough to calm moral convictions and still protect the work of the unions. But this case is simply silly. Why make an exemption for dubious religious beliefs?
Black and white thinking isn't particularly useful in a world of grey. The concept that "everyone must follow the exact same rules in the exact same way without exception" is called Legalism, and hasn't been successful when implemented (notably in the Qin dynasty of China).
All beliefs are dubious in the eyes of non-believers. What matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2022, 10:34:49 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 21, 2022, 10:00:26 AMThere is a precedent set for any religious people to follow, if they wish.
This is the first case. If it is not overturned, there will be others.
Either everyone is allowed to not join a union for their personal convictions, or no everyone follows the rules.
I think not being forced to join the union in 99% of the sectors and paying your dues is enough to calm moral convictions and still protect the work of the unions. But this case is simply silly. Why make an exemption for dubious religious beliefs?
Black and white thinking isn't particularly useful in a world of grey. The concept that "everyone must follow the exact same rules in the exact same way without exception" is called Legalism, and hasn't been successful when implemented (notably in the Qin dynasty of China).
All beliefs are dubious in the eyes of non-believers. What matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.
And under Canadian law at least, that is only the start of the analysis.
There are many occasions on which a religious freedom conflicts with other rights or laws and where, despite a sincere belief, the religious right does not prevail.
A good example is an observant Sikh, who wears a turban, employed on a job site which requires wearing a hard hat. The religious right does not automatically prevail even though it is sincerely held. Instead, there is an analysis of whether the hard hat rule is a bona fide safety requirement. And that will vary depending on the circumstances of the worksite.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2022, 11:10:27 AMThere are many occasions on which a religious freedom conflicts with other rights or laws and where, despite a sincere belief, the religious right does not prevail.
A good example is an observant Sikh, who wears a turban, employed on a job site which requires wearing a hard hat. The religious right does not automatically prevail even though it is sincerely held. Instead, there is an analysis of whether the hard hat rule is a bona fide safety requirement. And that will vary depending on the circumstances of the worksite.
Yeah - in Europe it'd be the principle of proportionality. And it also applies to sincerely held political or philosophical beliefs.
But this case seems clearly to me on the side of that individual. It's not like a health and safety requirement and it doesn't affect the rights and freedoms of others.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2022, 11:13:59 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2022, 11:10:27 AMThere are many occasions on which a religious freedom conflicts with other rights or laws and where, despite a sincere belief, the religious right does not prevail.
A good example is an observant Sikh, who wears a turban, employed on a job site which requires wearing a hard hat. The religious right does not automatically prevail even though it is sincerely held. Instead, there is an analysis of whether the hard hat rule is a bona fide safety requirement. And that will vary depending on the circumstances of the worksite.
Yeah - in Europe it'd be the principle of proportionality. And it also applies to sincerely held political or philosophical beliefs.
But this case seems clearly to me on the side of that individual. It's not like a health and safety requirement and it doesn't affect the rights and freedoms of others.
Yes, but occupational health and safety is not the issue being balanced in the case in this thread. The balancing in this case is the degree to which her religious freedom is actually being interfered with by simply being required to pay dues. That is something the Labour Board assumed in its decision, and where I would argue they went wrong.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2022, 10:34:49 AMWhat matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.
A) People may have sincere non religious beliefs.
B) It is nearly impossible to challenge the sincerity of a religious belief without insulting the religion. See the case of the Federal government in the case of mandatory vaccination. People whose personal religious conviction were said to interfere with the mandate were excluded. Which was another dumb decision to accommodate religious people. Either we are all subject to the same rules, or we grant exemptions to everyone on the same basis, religion or no religion.
Quote from: viper37 on October 22, 2022, 06:28:52 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 21, 2022, 10:34:49 AMWhat matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.
A) People may have sincere non religious beliefs.
B) It is nearly impossible to challenge the sincerity of a religious belief without insulting the religion. See the case of the Federal government in the case of mandatory vaccination. People whose personal religious conviction were said to interfere with the mandate were excluded. Which was another dumb decision to accommodate religious people. Either we are all subject to the same rules, or we grant exemptions to everyone on the same basis, religion or no religion.
That is how it works in the US. Religion gives you special privileges. In WWII you had to have religious grounds to be a conscientious objector, whereas in the UK it could also be for other non-religious reasons. If you believe in religious magic you get special rights that believing in other magic does not.
Otherwise it would make persecuting people for their religion easy.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2022, 11:19:35 PMOtherwise it would make persecuting people for their religion easy.
Well I thought it was because in the 18th century the church had special rights and privileges and we decided to make things more equal by just giving all religions that same status. In the 21st century though, it does seem a little weird that just religions and not other types of philosophical considerations get those rights.
But maybe it is better this way. If you want to persecute people for their religion, I guess it is better to make it more challenging. Explain your thinking about this. Does the UK persecute people for their religion more than we do?
Or is this some kind of cheap shot at Quebec and Viper and I am taking you too seriously here :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2022, 09:44:55 PMThat is how it works in the US. Religion gives you special privileges. In WWII you had to have religious grounds to be a conscientious objector, whereas in the UK it could also be for other non-religious reasons. If you believe in religious magic you get special rights that believing in other magic does not.
Yeah in the UK equalities and anti-discrimination law applies to religion as well as political and philosophical beliefs (for example, ethical veganism).
The exception is for beliefs that are basically not worthy of respect in a democratic society - for example racism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2022, 09:44:55 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 22, 2022, 06:28:52 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 21, 2022, 10:34:49 AMWhat matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.
A) People may have sincere non religious beliefs.
B) It is nearly impossible to challenge the sincerity of a religious belief without insulting the religion. See the case of the Federal government in the case of mandatory vaccination. People whose personal religious conviction were said to interfere with the mandate were excluded. Which was another dumb decision to accommodate religious people. Either we are all subject to the same rules, or we grant exemptions to everyone on the same basis, religion or no religion.
That is how it works in the US. Religion gives you special privileges. In WWII you had to have religious grounds to be a conscientious objector, whereas in the UK it could also be for other non-religious reasons. If you believe in religious magic you get special rights that believing in other magic does not.
Maybe, but this case happened in Canada, and as I tried to explain a few times, the law is a bit different here.
Sincerity of belief is just the star of the analysis
Quote from: viper37 on October 22, 2022, 06:28:52 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 21, 2022, 10:34:49 AMWhat matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.
A) People may have sincere non religious beliefs.
Non-religious beliefs are not generally considered to be protected in the same manner that religious views are held.
QuoteB) It is nearly impossible to challenge the sincerity of a religious belief without insulting the religion. See the case of the Federal government in the case of mandatory vaccination. People whose personal religious conviction were said to interfere with the mandate were excluded. Which was another dumb decision to accommodate religious people. Either we are all subject to the same rules, or we grant exemptions to everyone on the same basis, religion or no religion.
There is good historical precedent for what happens when the State decides to get involved in religious beliefs. It generally doesn't end well.
This is not black and white, and isn't going to be for some time, if ever.
A lot of the responses here IMO are overly legalistic and tone deaf to the practicalities of making a government work. There are some countries that are basically entirely atheist like the UK or Sweden, but in much of the world making some sort of accommodation with religious belief is a simple necessity of having a stable and secure society. When you can further that goal with what IMO are minor accommodations, limited in scope, that are vetted for sincerity and which do not infringe meaningful on a third party, I'm all for it. The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2022, 11:30:46 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2022, 11:19:35 PMOtherwise it would make persecuting people for their religion easy.
Well I thought it was because in the 18th century the church had special rights and privileges and we decided to make things more equal by just giving all religions that same status. In the 21st century though, it does seem a little weird that just religions and not other types of philosophical considerations get those rights.
But maybe it is better this way. If you want to persecute people for their religion, I guess it is better to make it more challenging. Explain your thinking about this. Does the UK persecute people for their religion more than we do?
Or is this some kind of cheap shot at Quebec and Viper and I am taking you too seriously here :lol:
My point is that you could make laws that specifically target religions (all school children must eat pork). If you have religious opt outs it makes those sorts of laws pointless.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 23, 2022, 12:36:09 PMA lot of the responses here IMO are overly legalistic and tone deaf to the practicalities of making a government work. There are some countries that are basically entirely atheist like the UK or Sweden, but in much of the world making some sort of accommodation with religious belief is a simple necessity of having a stable and secure society. When you can further that goal with what IMO are minor accommodations, limited in scope, that are vetted for sincerity and which do not infringe meaningful on a third party, I'm all for it. The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.
The percentage of Swedes who are ultra-religious has been on the rise for decades. These days you have to tread carefully in Sweden and take religious views into account.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 23, 2022, 12:36:09 PMA lot of the responses here IMO are overly legalistic and tone deaf to the practicalities of making a government work. There are some countries that are basically entirely atheist like the UK or Sweden, but in much of the world making some sort of accommodation with religious belief is a simple necessity of having a stable and secure society. When you can further that goal with what IMO are minor accommodations, limited in scope, that are vetted for sincerity and which do not infringe meaningful on a third party, I'm all for it. The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.
The thread is a discussion of a legal case ;)
It isn't interesting as a discussion of a legal case. There's probably forums for Canadian lawyers that would be able to weigh in more meaningfully than that--but this is an issue that affects everyone in every country, and it is entirely germane to bring up the societal viewpoint. It is unsurprising a lawyer wants to restrict every and all discussion to legalism, since that gives your class excess power (and this is actually a problem in society at large, too.) It is mostly irrelevant for society what the law is, what is relevant is how the law should be.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 23, 2022, 07:13:39 PMIt isn't interesting as a discussion of a legal case. There's probably forums for Canadian lawyers that would be able to weigh in more meaningfully than that--but this is an issue that affects everyone in every country, and it is entirely germane to bring up the societal viewpoint. It is unsurprising a lawyer wants to restrict every and all discussion to legalism, since that gives your class excess power (and this is actually a problem in society at large, too.) It is mostly irrelevant for society what the law is, what is relevant is how the law should be.
This isn't a question of legalism. Rather a discussion of whether the case was rightly decided. A side benefit of this discussion is the interesting ways in which the US approaches the question differently.
If you think discussing those differences is not interesting - I don't agree.
The U.S. approaches it differently because we have different laws, it isn't a matter AFAIK of a difference in judicial philosophy so much as courts following the statutes. We specifically have legal apparatus that exempts people from certain things based on religious belief, some are individual carve outs in tax laws (like the 1965 provision for the Amish), and some are generalized from our "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA) which was passed in the early 1990s.
Prior to that there had been something called the "Sherbert Test", which held that strict scrutiny be used in evaluating if the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment had been violated. This test had been standard in jurisprudence for some decades, but the decision in Employment Division v. Smith was seen to have indicated a judicial erosion of the Sherbert Test, the RFRA was passed to codify the Sherbert test as part of statutory law.
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2022, 11:43:12 AMNon-religious beliefs are not generally considered to be protected in the same manner that religious views are held.
I believe that non religious beliefs should get the same treatment as religious beliefs. You either ignore both, or you give exemption to both.
QuoteThere is good historical precedent for what happens when the State decides to get involved in religious beliefs. It generally doesn't end well.
This is not black and white, and isn't going to be for some time, if ever.
No, it is not black and white, but letting "religious freedoms" run amock is generally not a good thing. The needle has got to be in the center. Look, if an adult Jehovah's Witness does not want to receive a blood transfusion to save his/her life, I'm ok with it. Anyone can refuse a blood transfusion at the hospital. I could have a protection mandate specifying that some cares are not to be provided, religious or not.
But granting exemptions to laws, when such exemptions could become jurisprudence for the future, I don't think it's a wise thing.
I'll worry about that once I think religious freedoms start running amok in Canada or the US.
Quote from: viper37 on October 26, 2022, 10:42:47 PMI believe that non religious beliefs should get the same treatment as religious beliefs. You either ignore both, or you give exemption to both.
Section 2(a) of the Charter of Rights covers "freedom of conscience and religion".
As I understand it, the general sense in Canada is that s. 2(a) will cover someone's comprehensive value system, even if it does not arise from a religious belief. For example if someone is a devout vegetarian and strong believer in animal rights, those beliefs would likely be protected under the Charter. It likely doesn't cover something like "I don't believe in Covid vaccines".
But quick googling suggests there is no compelling SCC caselaw on the point.
All coleslaw is compelling IMHO.
I hope there was a line of publications on legal matters that is called "Cole's Law".
Is there?
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2022, 01:01:08 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 26, 2022, 10:42:47 PMI believe that non religious beliefs should get the same treatment as religious beliefs. You either ignore both, or you give exemption to both.
Section 2(a) of the Charter of Rights covers "freedom of conscience and religion".
As I understand it, the general sense in Canada is that s. 2(a) will cover someone's comprehensive value system, even if it does not arise from a religious belief. For example if someone is a devout vegetarian and strong believer in animal rights, those beliefs would likely be protected under the Charter. It likely doesn't cover something like "I don't believe in Covid vaccines".
But quick googling suggests there is no compelling SCC caselaw on the point.
I will dig up some law on this when I have a chance - but you are essentially correct.