Just don’t get confused about which is which. Opening the wrong one at the wrong time could be either very embarrassing or rapidly fatal. 
It would certainly add a twist to The Devil’s Trill.
“The other one is a ukulele. Don’t make me get it out.”
At least it’s not a banjo. Now that would be intimidating.
And the F is for Fiat - an Italian Company. I’m not saying that all Italians are Mafia, but remember, where there’s smoke…
… there’s a guy in a suburban backyard trying to get the grill working.
While this is outside the scope of the topic in this thread, I can’t help myself:
For the three people in the world that haven’t seen the Godfather: Olive oil import was the front/money laundering for the Corleone family. The movie was released 50 years ago and depict events in the 1940’s.
So @Whack-a-Mole almost everyone in the world know of this. I should’ve taken your bet.
The real irony is that when the unions were in bed with the Mob, their pension funds were in better shape than after the legitimate managers took over.
I have no experience with Unions, but as management, how would that make you a scab? As the presumed adversary wouldn’t it be expected for you to go into the office? I always thought “crossing the picket line” or being called a scab referred to fellow union workers who broke ranks with the strike or outsiders coming in to replace those striking.
A handful of people didn’t know what the precise definition of a scab was? Or they didn’t know that my father or I and a handful of colleagues were management rather than replacement workers?
We weren’t normally working in the unionized facilities, but in an office tower somewhere else. They recognized their local facility’s management and were actually very civil and even friendly with them.
I think we’ve disposed of the OP’s obsolete suspicion that unions are mob-controlled. The real meat is the second half of his title, union’s ability to affect politics. Here’s something to ponder on that point:
A US publicly traded corporation may spend as much money as it wants on political donations. That’s money that came from revenue and belongs to the shareholders. Management can spend as much as it wants however it wants to achieve whatever purpose it wants. And is only held in check by activist shareholders complaining about the expense. Read more about it here:
Conversely, it is a violation of federal labor law for a union to spend a single dollar on political donations. None, zero, zip, zilch, nada of a union’s revenue can be spent on politics.
What unions can (and do) do, is create a PAC which is then funded only by voluntary contributions by the members.
If society wanted to level the playing field, we’d prohibit all corporate political donations, require them to ask their employees to donate money to the corporation’s PAC, and also prohibit (and actually prosecute) any / all attempts at management coercion aimed at forcing their employees to donate.
Politics runs on money. One side has functionally unlimited funds, the other has relatively negligible funds. The result is rather predictable.
LSLGuy
Former national-level union official
In Canada at the federal level, neither unions nor corps can donate to politicians. Only real, live, breathing people.
Does that stop unions from running ads or sponsoring community groups of concerned citizens?
Those ads run by unions are paid for with PAC funds, as @LSLGuy descrubed.
Not in Canada, they aren’t. I am unsure if these are just provincial ads or federal as well.
Oops, I missed the part about Canada, my bad.
(Previous post edited to remove reference to Canada interfering in American elections.)
Very likely (Canada does interfere in US politics). In addition to unfair tariffs on softwood lumber, you guys just aren’t consuming your fair share of maple syrup, Beavertails, fish ‘n brewis, bannock, butter tarts, dulce, screech, curling matches or amoral Quebecois soap operas. These items are the backbone of our economy, eh?
We will create social media groups apologizing then registering our moderate disappointment with these actions. Sorry!
Third parties (ie not political parties or candidates), such as unions and corporations, can also spend money in elections, but are subject to regulation and spending limits under the Canada Elections Act. All money spent must be publicly reported to the Chief Electoral Officer.
See:
Thanks, that is fairly clear. When there are recent complaints that Canadian law needs to be updated given the increasing likelihood of foreign interference in Canadian elections, do these refer municipal and provincial levels of government? Are the protections for federal elections sufficiently robust, given that such groups may be unlikely to register as a third party? Should there possibly be amendments to the criminal code or civil law, or the Elections Act? Are there other protections elsewhere apart from what was linked?