Are Union Members Apathetic?
Or are Union Leaders Crapathetic?
Proponents of mainstream unionism seem increasingly inclined to suggest that union members have themselves to thank for the sad state of affairs in which they find themselves. Their standard of living continues to plummet as employers slash and burn and de-structure. Nobody's suggesting that that's the workers' fault but as their unions begin to come under scrutiny - from members and the public alike - for bargaining concessions with profitable employers who hardly need a break, talk of "apathetic" members is beginning to permeate the air.
"Don't blame us man", devote mainstreamers say. "It's the members who agreed to those concessions. It's the members who voted for concessions. They're only getting what they wanted". The fact that it's the leaders who negotiated those concessions and, in many cases, encouraged the members to vote "yes" under conditions that would make it very tempting for the members to do so, isn't mentioned. The leaders' efforts, in fact, are hailed as heroic - great feats of bargaining for which the members should express their gratitude at the ballot box.
Low voter turnout at ratification votes is often advanced as an indicator that the vast majority of members are happy with the fruits of their leaders' efforts at the bargaining table or, alternatively, that the vast majority of members just really don't give a shit about their union, don't care enough to get involved and so deserve what they get. Is there merit to this or is it just more mainstream union purple haze (illusion)?
Consider the case of Community Health Sub Sector Bargaining Association and the Health Employer's Association of BC.
The Community Health Sub Sector Bargaining Association (a group of nine unions that represent workers in BC's health services sector) reached a tentative agreement with the Health Employers' Association of B.C. for a two-year deal that provides enhanced employment security in exchange for monetary roll backs and an extension of the current collective agreement until March 31, 2006.
The agreement was passed by members with a yes vote of just over 78%. Only 6,213 ballots were cast out of a possible 13,000.
Over 50 per cent of bargaining unit members chose not to vote in the ratification process. Why did members not chose to vote on a contract that affected their livelihoods and their lives in such significant ways? The deal contains rollbacks to almost every monetary provision of the collective agreement.
This General Strike News report high lights the low lights of the new agreement:
- All employees will receive a 1.6% reduction in pay. NO WAGE INCREASE for most people for 3-6 years. · NEW LOWER WAGE SCALE for new employees. They will receive 3-4 dollar an hour decrease (for most new employees) and will climb, over a three year period, to stop at a reduced rate lower than others in this field. (EXAMPLE: RCW/Child Care Counsellor - Start: $13.87hr., Finish after three years at $16.32hr.). · Casual Employees reduced to the new, lower wage scale. You drop to the lower wage scale when acquiring a new position or promotion.
- Sick pay reduced to 80% of earnings.
- Sick days will be earned at 1 day a month; maximum 156 days (It would take a new employee approx. 10 years to earn enough to cover the new waiting period for LTD, approx. 6 years for the rest of us.)
- LTD waiting period increased from 5 to 6 months.
- In most of the important areas "Superior Benefits and Language" are gone.
- We did receive some job security language that is so full of holes that the employers and government can easily side step it with their new tendering process (R.F.P.'s).
- Inferior Layoff and Recall language (a reduction of 5 hours is not a layoff. Only a few issues will be dealt with at local bargaining.
- Flex-time to be averaged over a one month period (two pay periods).
The "enhanced job security provisions" are - well it's really hard to say what exactly they are because it's hard to find any in the new agreement. Rather than restricting the employers' rights to rid themselves of workers through contracting out, the deal actually reinforces that right.
Nothing in this Memorandum of Agreement shall in any way restrict the right of employers to contract out as provided for under the Health and Social Services Delivery and Improvement Act.
That's taken right from the Memorandum of Agreement that the Sub Sector unions inked with the employers. Simple translation: Whatever has been negotiated in this agreement must be consistent with the BC government's contracting out agenda. But here's the good news: Workers who are tossed out on the street as a result of that agenda get priority consideration for their previous jobs. If they don't get more than a cursory glance, what can they do about it? That's not really addressed anywhere because the answer, we're quite sure, is "not a whole hell of a lot". Those are the "enhanced employment security provisions" that were negotiated for 13,000 workers by nine - count 'em - nine unions that include the heavies of the Canadian mainstream labour movement: The British Columbia Government Employees Union (BCGEU), the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the Hospital Employees' Union (HEU-CUPE), the Health Sciences Association (HSA), the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada (IWA - Canada), the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW), the Professional Employees' Association (PEA), and the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC).
Of the nine, only three unions - the CAW, CUPE and its affiliate HEU - voted against acceptance of the deal and recommended that their members give it the thumbs down. All of the others said the equivalent of, "Thank you sir, may we have another?" and urged their members to do likewise. This bulletin on the Professional Employees Association tells the story and speaks of the dire consequences should their members choose not to assume the position.
Was it the members' fault? For those who really want to believe that it just must have been, here are a few points to ponder:
The group of nine unions was brought together by the BC government through legislation that mandated sectoral bargaining and codified the right of employers to contract out work. The combination of unions thrown into the Community Health Sub Sector Bargaining Association was dominated by business unions and unions that are heavily influenced by business unions.
- Despite CUPE, HEU, and CAW voting against the deal, these unions really had very little voice in the decision. Between BCGEU and UFCW these two unions accounted for close to 78% of the total votes cast and were responsible for 71% of the 78% vote that accepted the concessionary deal.
- The BC government has made it clear that whatever its employer-partners can't achieve at the bargaining table it is quite prepared to legislate for them.
- Of the nine unions involved in the negotiations, six urged their members to accept the deal or face the consequences.
- Neither the business unions involved in these negotiations or the labour umbrella organizations that they control (like the Canadian Labour Congress or the BC Federation of Labour) have taken any meaningful steps (beyond the standards bursts of tired rhetoric) to oppose the BC government's business-friendly agenda.
So where were the members when their voices was needed most? Were they really OK with the deal? Were they just too apathetic to care? Or were they just too disillusioned by their bargaining representatives bending over for the BC government to think that a trek to the ratification meeting would change anything? Was their leaders' pushing of the dreadful concessionary deal and its "enhanced employment security provisions" an insult to their intelligence? Did they think the deal was already done no matter how they voted? If they did, they're probably a lot more intelligent than their leaders think they are.
So who is responsible for this "apathy"? The BC Liberal government, the status quo unions and or the members themselves?
In our view, the members can't completely shirk responsibility for the outcome. However unlikely it might have been, if a majority of the 13,000 came out and voted "no", the deal would not have been ratified. The possibility that the unions might simply have come back with a more aggressive "vote yes" campaign or that the BC government might simply have wielded its legislative axe (again) and imposed the concessions on them directly (rather than through its tools on the Sub Sector Bargaining Association) can't be ignored. But certainly people must take some responsibility for, in the least, failing to come out exercising what little opportunity they have to reject something that is going to hurt them, their families and their communities for years to come. Lying down and taking it simply reinforces conceptions of workers as lazy, apathetic and deserving of what little their employers are willing to give them. - not to mention encouraging more of the same.
That said, however, the reality can't be ignored that the BC government is having its way with union members in because their unions really have no effective strategy to deal with the BC government's agenda. With a majority in the legislature, Premier Campbell is free to rule by decree on behalf of his business buddies. The leaders of organized labour, the guys who claim to be the voice of hundreds of thousands of voters who are getting screwed, can't seem to get their thumbs out of their bums and their heads around the enormous political clout that the people could have, if the leaders appeared to give a crap about their interests.
That may seem harsh but it's really hard to understand how the leaders care about their members' interests when they agree to and promote deals that run contrary to those interests. Promoting fanciful notions that the next provincial election is going to turn things around (something the BCGEU has done) is like telling the occupants of a burning building to pray for rain. As one concerned citizen put it:
Too bad that BCGEU, as per their mailings to their members, are under the assumption that the next election is going to just turn everything around! They are badly mistaken I think! No government in their right mind, regardless of who gets into power, will be able to undo all that has been done to everyone in this province in a short time frame. It will take years and years!
The damage done to all workers by the labour leaders' acceptance of this concessionary deal will have devastating effects for many years to come.
Acceptance of such deals by so-called labour leaders, who then actively promote them to their members, not only tells neo conservatives that members can and will be led around by the nose but it also shows these neo-cons that the CLC and its affiliates are not supporting any serious revolt in British Columbia. There will be no serious challenge to the neo-con agenda, no general strike or other action that could get in the way of profit maximization, no disruption of the economy that might shake the BC Liberals' smugness about ruling by decree.
The union members who did not come out to vote for or against the concessionary deal can be forgiven their lack of enthusiasm for their leaders' fine works. They can be forgiven for their lack of faith in their unions and their lack of interest in whatever their leaders cook up for them. The members know the score: As long as their leaders continue to play by the rules that are made for them by people who want to lead them around by their noses, they will achieve nothing except getting led around by their noses. There isn't a lot of point in playing along.
However, union members - and working people all over the map - need to take responsibility for their own destiny. Only then will there be any true and empowering rebellion that serves workers' interests. Union members have tuned out the self-serving political rhetoric of their status quo oriented dues-collecting unions. That's why they don't come out for ratification votes. They've tuned out the self-serving political rhetoric of their status quo oriented political parties. That's why they don't vote in provincial and federal elections. Now they need to tune in to themselves, their interests, their hopes, their desires, without concerning themselves whether any of that might be acceptable to the bosses or the politicians or the so-called labour leaders.
"How much should we give up?" is the wrong question. "What kind of workplaces do we want?" should be the question that we ask ourselves. "How can we achieve this?" should be the next question. There is no need for the workplace to be the way it is today.
Perhaps the first step to recovery for workers who have lost faith in their unions might be to insist that their union send their CLC dues to a charitable organization or a community activist group or to whatever organization they think will work for and empower someone - anyone - because the CLC and it the various provincial labour "feds" are empowering no one.
It is any wonder that union members decline to stand up for themselves? Perhaps they feel that in doing so, they are just standing up for labour leaders with self serving interests? Maybe they don't see their leaders standing with them? Whatever the reason, it's time for working people to tell the leaders where to stick their subservience to the neo-cons and carve out their own path.