quote:
and use our own strengths to affect change?
Isn't that the way this whole damn thing started and why the courts ignore some really serious issues?
There oughta be a law!?
I was inspired to start this discussion thread as a result of this article: Union Democracy and the law in Canada, from the new journal Just Labour recently advertised by remote viewer on the front page of this site.
Author Michael Lynk describes internal union democracy as a realm largely unregulated in Canada, as opposed to the much more stringent controls in place in countries like the U.S. and Great Britain. I know in many discussions on this site, we have talked about how we have found this de-regulated approach inadequate.
I'd like to get some impressions from people on what we should, or should not do to change things. In particular, I think it would be interesting to hear from the people on this site who have tried to use the limited legal protections currently available to union members. For example, anyone who has filed a DFR complaint against their union. Or, if some of the founding MFDers would be willing to discuss their ill-fated lawsuit against UFCW local 1518 over the last union election.
What I'm interested in, first of all, is whether people have ideas about how to make government regulation of union democracy better. Do we need new laws? What kind? And who should administer them: courts, the LRBs, or someone else?
Second, given the high cost of litigation, how much would better laws really help? Can we come up with alternative, more direct routes to building union democracy that cut out middle-men like labour relations arbitrators or the courts? In short, since the power source will inevitably have less money than the union bureaucrats (with their near-unlimited access to the union treasury), can we come up with a way to avoid lawyers altogether, and use our own strengths to affect change?
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]
quote:
Isn't that the way this whole damn thing started and why the courts ignore some really serious issues?
Well yeah, that's why we're here.
So, are you saying we've already done this topic to death? 
Or is it just that everyone's busy following the action in the other forums right now?
If we do think that there's nothing more to be said on the topic above, then here's another question: how is it that Michael Lynk missed out entirely on our experience when he wrote his article?
quote:
While instances of corrupt unionism have occasionally appeared in Canada, unions that encouraged or tolerated corruption or violence in Canada were generally outside the mainstream labour congresses, or were expelled once the leadership was satisfied that the patterns were endemic.
Maybe he ought to point his web browser over here?
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]
quote:
So, are you saying we've already done this topic to death
Actually I was referring to the reason we are all here is because one of the concepts of union, and I believe it is embedded in most union constitutions that problems will be internally dealt with. It occurs to me that one of the founding arguments would have been use our own strengths to affect change.
So I am not sure we should go there. 
OK, maybe I wasn't too clear on what I was actually thinking. What I had in mind was something more like a brainstorming session.
We all know what hasn't been working. You run in a union election, and they steal it. You appeal through the internal processes, but they're rigged. You sue them, but they stall until you run out of money (and in the ultimate of bitter ironies, they pay their lawyers with your dues money!)
So finally, you decide to set up a website in the hope of shaming the union straight (or encouraging mass defection of their membership to other unions). Then they sue you for defamation (again spending your own damn money against you)!
I think Remote Viewer had a very good point about the Gammert suit, that the UFCW is just aiming for favorable precedent against an easy target. We all know that if they win this one, we're next. And after that, REAP, and any other upstart who puts up a critical website in the future. This is Maddaloni's dream! Remember "I think the use of a public web is bad for organized labor, I really do.I think it should be censored in some way shape or form" from this thread? Hey, would you like a SLAPP suit with your cocktail?
Anyway, I've always been really, really skeptical about getting the government involved. But when I look at the situation now, I begin to think a union members' bill of rights is not so bad an idea. Or, if we want to try a more direct approach, I believe rebelwithoutapause once suggested that we picket the union office. Also, these two ideas aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Its just one involves lawyers, or at the very least, lobbying. The other "uses our own strengths to affect change."
So this was all going through my head when I read the article. That, and I was really struck by Lynk's naivety regarding what goes on in unions today.Don't get me wrong, he says a lot of good things, too. Its just he starts from a presumption of union honesty that I don't think our experience bears out. Maybe to combat this common misconception, there's something more we could be doing.
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]
I'm up to my ears, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I've read a bit and it warrants some discussion. Thanks for flagging it GT. I know I'll have a comment or two when I get a chance.
However, before I go, I think an ombudsperson funded by parties to Collective Agreements. I also think that there should be legislation giving workers a bill of rights. An ombudsperson working with through the labour board could investigate and ensure compliance in a quick and effective way.
It'll take legislation.
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]
quote:
I was really struck by Lynk's naivety regarding what goes on in unions
Me too! Read like he only used one source and it wasn't members.
edit: Oops! wrong topic! 
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]
quote:
Would a wide spread petition bring some pressure?
It might. We'd have to decide what we're petitioning for, too. And whether we thought people would sign it. I also have to go right now, but I'll check in again tomorrow.
edit: Siggy, you deleted your other quote! 
You're right, though, petitioning Lynk wouldn't help much.
But it might be a good way of getting a members bill of rights, or an ombudsman.
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]
quote:
edit: Siggy, you deleted your other quote
Sorry glob, I was talking about a petition for Will. I think the members will be a bit perturbed to know that right after UFCW asked for a dues assessment to get us through a tough set of negotiations, they come out and file a suit to stymie free speech against one lone part-time clerk.
quote:
You're right, though, petitioning Lynk wouldn't help much.
Might clue him in!
quote:
But it might be a good way of getting a members bill of rights, or an ombudsman
Where would a petition like this be aimed?
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]
There's one big problem with a petition--Lynk is not alone in his 1920's view of what unions are about. Lynk is obviously trained in critical thinking, and he can't see many unions for what they are. He is not alone in his belief that supposedly "good" unions shun "bad" unions, so the system is self correcting. He believes that most union leaders are volunteers. He gets that from a warped view of who really calls the shots.
Those sorts of views were quite valid in the '20s, but as unions got more sophisticated, business-like and much larger the drive for power to fight the "boss" degenerated into power to control the "members." The degeneration was blown off with the argument that, "all that we do we do for you and control of the membership is a powerful weapon to use against the 'boss'."
GT's previous points graphically set out how that concept has been perverted to what we see all too often today.
Government control isn't "all that" if you look at the American model. Look at Coia, Hanley and others. Coia buys Ferraris, one of which was worth over one million dollars. He gets caught evading taxes on them. No one even questions how the hell he can afford a one-million-dollar car alone, never mind a flock of cars, some worth 10 or 12 years pay for any of his members. One car is worth three years (gross) of his own pay.
What happens? Ah, Mr. Union President, can you maybe arrange for income for life from your union that's worth more than if you were working, and then--ah--could you maybe step down and sort of retire. Same deal for Hanley. The worst that seems to happen to these guys is that they get to quit with a huge income paid for life.
That being said, I still believe that some sort of legislation is the answer. I don't mean legislation that allows government to run the union, but legislation that allows union members to know all that there is to know about their union. And power to change it.
The courts and guys like Lynk think that having access to the Courts is a panacea. Think about it. The MFD could have nailed the UFCW to the courthouse wall. However, they were looking at $30,000 just for incidentals. The union had the money to stall and to fight, the MFD didn't.
What they want to do to William is to get him shut down until the "trial". That may sound okay to some, but when you realize that the UFCW controls when you go to trial, anyone with half a brain knows that there will be no trial. The site would be shut and then the union would back off. The dissent would be silenced forever.
GT is on track with thoughts about being wary of the courts and government, but I think if the legislation is aimed at protecting the "Power Source" rather than at actually running the union it might be okay.
However, you have to look at who pumps money into government--Machine Heads and Corporate Heads. Most government people think that if the money came from the Machine Head, the Power Source blessed it. When it comes time for the old, "and what can I do in return my son," the government flack gets a Machine Head wish list, not a Power Source bill of rights.
And when the government talks to Corporate Heads, it hears that "partnering agreements" are the wave of the future. They are grand for business and the Machine prospers and if machine prospers, Machine Heads can contribute more for the next election. And don't for one second think that the Machine Heads restrict their contributions to only the NDP. Check out the contribution lists for all parties. See how union business and other union entities are the ones that kick the bucks to the other parties. They use the "funds" etc. that aren't considered "unions", so the Power Source has no access and the funds have little if any accountability.
[ 02-10-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]
I agree with weiser. I think that the academic community in large measure misunderstands the extent to which corruption of various kinds has been a problem within unions in Canada and also misunderstands the complete absence of any real protections afforded to union members who are being exploited or mistreated by their unions. There is this belief that DFR legislation is all the protection members need but in fact, the legislation is so toothless and is so liberally applied in favour of unions, that it is all but meaningless.
I am skeptical about looking to government agencies or even to politicians for help in this area. None have shown any interest in these issues. I am more in favour of having workers themselves reach out to various communities and telling of their experiences and asking for support.
The "Just Labour" publication seems to be something that might allow for this to happen. I gather that the publication is looking for submissions that have an academic orientation but I'm hoping that they will not dismiss or discard submissions that shed light on the realities of union membership for many thousands of workers.
quote:
JUST LABOUR brings the work of leading academics and trade union researchers to a broad readership in popular, accessible language.
Would this includes submissions from plain old ordinary trade unionists, or just the elite "research staff" of the unions, and the university academics who get union funding?
I am also not sure how wide of a readership Just Labour will get. Still, I think starting some buzz in the academic community regarding union corruption could be pretty helpful.
Also, I wouldn't totally give up on the petition option, yet, either for Bill Gammert or for new labour laws. A petition for Bill might attract some media attention you are otherwise finding hard to get.
As far as petitioning the government, don't you have some pretty liberal referendum laws in B.C.? Is there a way you could take advantage of this without having your agenda hijacked by either the biz-unions, or the Fraser Institute antiunion lobby?
[ 02-10-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]
This kind of ties in with my conversation with Frodo [I finally seen lord of the rings and get that name, duh] We need politicains to "need" our votes. Until that happens I don't see legislation benefiting working people.
In Canada we don't even have advertising laws prohibiting the governing party from using public funds to campaign. They have a board in England that determins what the government adds can and cannot say. They can talk about new laws, but they cannot talk about "so and so" and how they made it happen etc. So to expect the same sort of thing in unions to prevent encumbents from using union funds to campaign is far fetched. Without election reform the power source cannot regain control of their unions.
What we need is an aggressive new union. One that will put the liberation of all members of biz unions at the top of it's priority list. When massive defection starts to happen CLC member "unions" will have no choice but to "change or get out of the way". Until then it's just empty words and promises.
Even with legislation you can't fight them in court and they use your money to beat you. I am very angry about what's happening to Will. However, I hope he's thinking long term. If the UFCW gets him to court and somehow gets some case law, they will use it to try and shut down other sites. Easier said than done but a risk non the less.
This cannot happen and if need be I hope he's willing to do the right thing. To win the war sometimes a general has to retreat from the field of battle or risk total failure for the cause. It's a step back for freedom of speach and for the reform movement, but Winston Churchil once said "the farther I back up the farther ahead I see". If the UFCW can't get the case law they are looking for they can't stamp out the voice of opposition on the internet.
The corruption within thier union will continue to be exposed and members will become more and more educated. That's the big picture, that's most important. My heart is with you William, I wish there was something more I could do. But if you can't shame them into backing off I hope you'll do whats right for the movement. Maybe slek could give you some space here. [have to talk to him] A game of chess is played 4-6 moves ahead. While UFCW officials may be twits, their lawyers seldom are. They have a game plan, we need to find out what it is and use it against them. That unfortunately is the true reality of life in todays unions.
The CAW maplegrove meetings provided the CAW
constitution.If one of you smart guys could
check it out I think you could find the absolute best solution to corrupt union practices!The CAW const.adopted in Vancouver
1997.Page 122 CAW-CANADA ETHICAL PRACTICES
CODE This constitution makes sure members have FULL democratic rights including rights
of appeal furthermore each member is entitled to share in governing the union.Each member
has full freedom of speech and the right to
participate in the democratic decisions of the union! p.s. that p/t groc. clerk needs
our collective help maybe we should e-mail
buzz on his opinion on how best to tackle the above issues.
Have any other labour ldrs. written any books?
Y'know, there's a National Film Board video called "Canada's Sweetheart" it's the Hal Banks story. Banks was sent to Canada by the Seamens' International Union to rout the commies. I watch that video and shake my head. It's like watchin' the machine heads I see today dressed up in 1960's suits and driving '60's cars.
The government created the Norris Commission to investigate union corruption and that commission came up with damning evidence. It showed how having "negatives" of high-ranking government officials in compromising poses with prostitutes goes a long way to having things go in favour of the machine heads.
The methods have changed, but the outcome is pretty much the same. If you ever get the chance to watch that video--do it. It will thouroughly depress you, but it will also let you know why the system set up to protect you works so much against you.
If you understand the system, you can change it.