What WE can do to help Local 1977
It's time we got back to this situation everybody. What I'm thinking is that those of us who visit this site all have our own experiences in taking on bureaucracy (whether it's bureacratic unions, government, our employers, whatever). We all have ideas and suggestions that we could share with the Local 1977 activists. So let's make a list.
Understand that I'm not suggesting that we should TELL anyone what to do but simply offer up ideas that might help bring political pressure to bear on the Local 1977 executive and the UFCW national office to rollback the big increases. At this point, political pressure, i.e., things that will embarrass the brass can be an effective option.
So come on activists, rebels, shitdisturbers and trench warriors, let's hear what you have to say. I will start the list:
Local 1977 activists could:
1. Contact the District Labour Council as well as other locals of the UFCW and locals of other unions in the K-W area and ask for their support on this issue (ask them to communicate their disgust with the salary increases to the UFCW Local, National and/or International offices, make their views known to the media, things of that nature). Canadian UFCW leaders are not exactly popular with many other unions and their expedition to the trough may well hit a chord with many other local and rank and file members.
2. Take this issue to the CLC and drop it right on their doorstep. Ask the CLC to intervene and talk some sense to the leaders of your union. These are the people who are always talking about the terrible plight of service industry workers. If they really care - now's their chance to prove it.
(Connie & friends: If you're reading this and want some practical advice on communications, letter writing, dealing with the media or just how to get through this, get my email from MFD and contact me. A big fan (and working woman) in the GTA.
[This message has been edited by remote viewer (edited 04-06-2001).]
What about legal action?
Although it appears that the constitution has all the bases covered, is it not an issue of "misrepresentation" in the first degree?
mis·rep·re·sen·ta·tion (mis-'re-pri-'zen-`tā-shən, -zən-)
n.
An intentionally or sometimes negligently false representation made verbally, by conduct, or sometimes by nondisclosure or concealment and often for the purpose of deceiving, defrauding, or causing another to rely on it detrimentally; also An act or instance of making such a representation
In UFCW leaders' minds, it's entitlement. They look at what Cliff and Mike are raking in and they demand their piece of the action too. The BAs see what the Brass get and demand their piece of the action. The office staff see what the BAs get and demand their piece of the action. Because Cliff gets what he does and Mike gets what he does, the rest of them truly think they are entitled to the riches they bestow on themselves.
They are all spending so much time looking upwards to ensure they get their fair share of the booty that they forget to look to where the money comes from and the plight of those who supply the money.
I was talking to a management guy the other day and he was lamenting how poor old Brian Williamson was treated. "He is one of the nicest guys" it was unfair that he got all that bad press, the guy said. Then he went on to say, when is all this shit going to stop. He said Kukovica's retirement gift is a real big secret. This is coming from a management person!
Siggy: the problem with legal action is that it's costly and that you may get nowhere. If the funds are there, it's an avenue worth exploring - I for one would love to see the Supreme Court sink its teeth into the denial of common law rights to union members. The downside is that, even if the members proceed with a claim of one kind or another this tends to put the issue on ice for a long time. In some ways, the UFCW would prefer it if the members went this route. Then they could say "Well, we can't say anything. It's before the courts."
Here's something really radical that Richard made me think of when he commented that an employer rep asked "when is this shit going to end".
Another place where members can apply political pressure is with the employer. Employers really hate it when internal union problems creep into their business. It means that the workers are preoccuppied with union stuff and not devoting their full attention to the needs of the company.
Each member could write to the employer asking that their dues be held in trust (deducted but not remitted) until this matter is resolved. Of course the employer will take the position that it is required to deduct union dues under the collective agreement and the OLRA but, hey they still have to respond to 1400(?) requests. Anything to do with union dues will also rattle the exec big time (this is kind of hitting 'em where they'll feel it).
Employer officials do not like having their time wasted with union issues. Your objective is to compel Brian and Scott's management admirers to lean on them to "get this mess resolved - because it's wasting management's time.
BTW, what the members should do - whatever course of action they decide on - is to notify the national or international offices IN WRITING that they are not prepared to accept Don Franks' findings which are neither independent nor does there appear to have been anything resembling a proper investigation and please respond to our petition. This seems like a small thing, but in the land of bureaucracy the war isn't on until the paperwork comes in.
[This message has been edited by remote viewer (edited 04-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by remote viewer (edited 04-07-2001).]
How would this pressure the employer? Why would the employer mess with an "employer friendly" union?
A form letter from the employer to the members expressing their condolences and their legal obligations as to why they can't withhold dues (drafted up, no doubt, by the union) and the employer can simply wash its hands.
Unless, of course, the employer has some obligation to represent the members?
What would a petition of 1400 to the CLC asking to join a different union do?
This is simply an example of creative shitdisturbing (I mean, politicking) - something that might be undertaken to surprise, inconvenience, embarrass or generally rattle your opposition. (And something that would be done in conjunction with other activities and not on its own.) It's also the kind of step that could draw media attention to the issue because it's sort of bold and unusual. You're not doing it with the expectation that anybody is going to withhold union dues (although some employers might just for the hell of it). You're softening up your opponent by confusing them and giving them multiple fires to fight. At the same time you're drawing attention to your issue. It's trench warfare.
My bet is that while the employer would not demand that the exec's take a pay cut, it would certainly inform the union that it had better get its house in order. The relationship between an employer and an employer-friendly union is not one where good will and caring flow both ways. The employer is pleased that it has a friendly union to deal with but at the same time, it does not feel that it owes the union anything in particular. It doesn't respect the union. If it could operate without a union it would get rid of the union. It takes the union's friendliness as a weakness. The employer perceives that the union's role is to play ball at negotiations and to keep its workforce in line. So when the union appears to have lost control of the workers, the employer becomes antsy and demanding. The employer doesn't care how much the union pays its officials but it also doesn't like to be put to any bother because of the union's inability to control its members. Responding to members' requests by form letter or whatever is a cost that the employer will resent having to pay.
The idea of approaching other unions is one that has really great potential I think. The bureaucreatic levels would squirm and resist involvement but at the local level I think there may be a more positive reaction. The Kitchener Waterloo area is home to thousands of union members. The CAW, USWA and CUPE have a strong presence and locals tend to think for themselves. Approaching them and saying, "Hey, this is what's happening to us and it's outrageous. We'd like your support" doesn't cost much and the reaction may surprise you.
Another option is to reach out to members of other UFCW locals like 1000a or 206. This would terrify the national office. There is a lot of discontent within these locals. If somebody lights a fire they might get militant too? Then what will happen?
Sorry if I'm running on. I can really get into this kind of stuff - you'd be surprised what can be accomplished.
[This message has been edited by remote viewer (edited 04-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by remote viewer (edited 04-07-2001).]
I think an information picket line outside the union hall would send a message. And not just 1977, but everyone in the country. "Solidarity" and 1518 members should write the same letters about their dues until the court case regarding our elections is settled.
Would a form letter to our employers posted on this site that everyone can sign and send in help?
