An Open Letter to the President of the Canadian Labour Congress
September 06, 2002
Ken Georgetti
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Dear Mr. Georgetti,
In a document from the 23rd Constitutional Convention titled "Labour's Political Activism", is this:
Paragraph 2, "Just as the political status quo never matched the needs and expectations of workers and their unions, so too labour's political activism never rested on the belief that its status quo was fully adequate. It is no different today as we search for ways and means to better represent the interests of our membership."
Paragraph 4, "Labour's first duty, above all else, is to represent workers at the workplace. Good collective agreements are the foundation upon which working people achieve a better life for themselves and their families."
As a union member for over 26 years I concur and congratulate the CLC for reminding all of us what is at stake, what a unions purpose is, and the sacrifice our predecessors made to get this far. Unionism is truly the voice for working people. In this age of globalization and the race to the bottom this voice needs to strong and united.
But what will be the workers fate if unions start to act against one another in the interests of accumulating members? Who will be their voice when unions abandon their "first duty" and instead engage in the war to accumulate members. Do they then not take on the characteristics of their nemesis? When the foundation of "good collective agreements" is eroded by this dynamic then what is unionism's purpose? I suggest to you that this dynamic is one you will have to address sooner or later and that it is currently in question by thousands of union members.
The issues the CLC raise in this document are valid and pressing. Political activism has always been a valid and needed part of any democratic process. How this applies to the current state of unionism is not mentioned in the article. It seems to me that political activism within the union movement is now a relevant and important aspect in pursuing your stated goals. Unionism of today seems to mandate that we dare not criticize lest a weakness be displayed, a lack of solidarity. This form of change is somehow painted as radicalism or agitation. The truth is that it is fundamental to meeting the ever changing and fast paced challenges that labour is confronted with.
From the same convention is this from a document titled "Declaration of Solidarity and Human Rights":
Paragraph 1, "Unity and solidarity are fundamental to the strength of the labour movement. Improvements to the standard of living, working conditions and quality of life and collective rights for working people achieved through collective action." Certainly these things flow from adherence to the "first duty" mentioned above. Quality collective agreements are what unionism is all about.
Paragraph 11, "The unity of working people is the only thing that stands in the way of the corporate agenda that seeks to increase profit at any cost- that seeks to privatize public services, lower wages, undermine pay and employment equity measures, eliminate environmental protection, and manipulate the rules of trade."
This letter addresses the shift in unionism from the "first duty" of unionism to what is commonly called "biz unionism" or the desire to maximize dues collection revenue, to accumulate as many members as possible. If that is the direction that unionism chooses then how can anyone really expect "unity of the working people"?
I believe that the actions and inaction of the UFCW and the RWU unions warrant some scrutiny in this regard. Are they adhering to the "first duty" you describe or to the dynamic I describe?
We have had some time to assess the impact of the 777 local and the flood of "bottom heavy" two tier agreements that followed. It comes as no surprise to anyone that their impact has been decidedly negative for both senior members and those just entering the workforce. Where is solidarity when we watch unionism create the context for our diminished quality of life? Does it need to get any more obvious for you that unions have morphed into a dues collection business?
If the answer to that question is yes then please look at the collective agreement the RWU signed with Baker/EV Logistics, the newly built facility that is slated to take over our work. This collective agreement specifically states that there will never be more than 35% of the workforce as full time. It states that the other 65% will have no benefits or sick time. (Article 11.10 on page 30) The wage structure is three tiered creating further divisions between the workers. For those who begin employment after 1999, the starting wage is $10/hr. In 2009, the last year of the agreement, the starting wage is still $10/hr. There are some huge assumptions about inflation built in there. No matter how many hours a part time employee puts in, the most he or she can ever make is $13.50/hr. Will this provide for the healthy ideals your organization espouses, the "... foundation upon which working people achieve a better life for themselves and their families"?
Article 24-Duration, reads as follows: "24.01 This Agreement shall be effective from May 5, 1999 to and including November 30, 2009 and thereafter from year to year unless notice in writing is given, by either party, of the desire to cancel, change or amend any of the provisions contained herein, within four (4) months immediately preceding the date of expiry of the Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should the major customer terminate its "open book" contract with the employer after November 30, 2000 this Agreement will be open for full negotiation."
Those of us that have been a part of unionism for many years are dismayed by such language. It runs directly counter to the purpose of unionism and certainly the CLC ideals quoted above. How can a party that is enjoying all the labour relations benefits of being considered a "customer" have more power over a Collective Agreement than the employer and its workers? The "customer" gets to cancel at any time but the employer and the workers have to wait until 2009??? A $10/hr start rate that does not change for 10 years???
So you are correct in pointing out that "... so too labour's political activism never rested on the belief that its status quo was fully adequate." Is it not then intrinsic to political activism that this statement also applies to the union movement itself? Is political activism within the union membership accorded the same dignity or is it radical trouble makers? When the kind of shift I describe above becomes endemic to unionism and threatens the very "unity of the working people" and the "foundation" of good collective agreements, is it not reasonable to expect some comment and direction from the CLC regarding this dynamic?
From "Profit Over People" by Noam Chomsky, comes this paragraph. It is as applicable to government politics as it is to union politics: "That people must submit is taken for granted pretty much across the spectrum. In a democracy, the governed have the right to consent, but nothing more than that. In the terminology of modern progressive thought, the population may be "spectators," but not "participants," apart from occasional choices among leaders representing authentic power. That is the political arena. The general population must be excluded entirely from the economic arena, where what happens in the society is largely determined."
Conventions, speeches, and glad-handing are fine if there is substance to the aims they claim to support. This dispute and the context in which it is occurring should be of great concern to the CLC for the singular reason that they exhibit a pathetic disregard for the "first duty" you describe. I am not suggesting that you intervene in any way not mandated by your position, only that it may bear some study for the reasons stated herein. When the race to the bottom mentality becomes the union mentality when will the CLC step in?
The 777 collective agreement created a flood of concessionary collective agreements under dubious circumstances. Little was heard from the big wigs of unionism although the consequences were and have been predictable. Overwaitea Food Group immediately abandoned its "investment in human capital" strategy in favour of this "race to the bottom" agenda. The distribution center, one of the most efficient in North America was broken up. In the summer of '97 the Overwaitea Food Group and UFCW Local 1518 signed a concessionary agreement reflecting the 777 supposed advantages. This furthered the divisions within the UFCW and solidarity suffered predictably. Now the warehouse is slated for closure under circumstances that are highly questionable. Those members have been all but abandoned by their union. In the spring of next year OFG retail faces further assaults on its senior members by virtue of the voting blocks that favour junior members interests, a most predictable consequence.
The RWU Collective Agreement has taken this union versus union race to the bottom mentality to a new level. Will the CLC wait until all union members in Canada are low-wage part-time working poor before it takes a stand on the ideals it claims to hold dear?
In Solidarity
Darryl Gehlen
Please feel free to contact me at my home address.
E-mail dag@dowco.com