Union Reform
On another thread About Unions said this:
quote:
For many of us we have no idea how much the wages are of the "corporate union officials" within corporate north america. Check out on the below link the wages of just some of the union officials in Ontario who have been forced to disclose their wages to the goverment in Ontario, Canada.
http://www.gov.on.ca/lab/ann/sale.pdf
So too are the unions officials legislated to disclose their wages to a member of a local or national when so requested.
We alone were never successful in obtaining how much they made by merely asking our own union. It took an anti union government to make such disclosure happen.
In fact my union, the largest in Canada appears to only have a few in the $100,00.00 DOLLAR range. Where the hell are all the other "Corporate wage earning executive union leaders" wages hidden. Other unions like CAW and others have a long list of members being paid over $100,000.00 DOLLARS. Did Cupe hide them and if so why?
To me, it is a tell tale sign when anti union goverments disclose how much unions officials are really making considering not only can we as members not obtain discosure to their wages but to financial statement of the union.
Unions fear the back lash of members really knowing what is going on and consequently act no different than any govermnemt in power in protecting that power.
How much are your union officials making off the hard earned sweat of members across North America.
Just how are larger union local presidents making over $100,000.00 DOLLARS? How many local unions do UFCW have anyway that warrant paying that type of wage salary with benefits.
Lets remember for a moment that most if not all these union officials once worked side by side with us somewhere. Once in the "corporate seat" they tend to disassociate themselves with us. There has developed a real and recognizable rift between working members and our "corporate" union leaders.
As a citizen of this great country, I believe in peaceful solutions to situations of disagreement.
From my position of vice president in a past Cupe local I soon began to learn that civil negotiations was a means that was expected of everyone, but not followed through by Cupe officials so as to effect change. In my province union officials gave you the cold shoulder treatment by not returning e-mail, phone calls or even letters. Letters sent to our President Sister Judy Darcy did not even make any difference.
To me these type of actions only serve to solidify the growing rift between working members and highly paid union officials. If it happens In Cupe, I am dam sure that it happens in lots of locals and lot of other unions as well.
I have come to the conclusion that such acts on the part of "the union" are perpetrated on purpose to stifle members opposition. Knowing very well from history of the world, that when people become frustrated enough they that members either go away or resort to tactics that will get attention. Then, the "union" says look at all the bad apples making a bad name for us. "Corporate unions play it anyway that benefits them.
Then there are all the bleeding heart sympathizers that can not or will not see what the union is doing at the local or national level. I have seen it happen time and time again how local leadership and upper union officials manipulate this type of personality for their benefit. Most are nice people, they just do not realize that they are being taken advanntage of.
There is no doubt about it that our unions need to be woken up. It will not be done at national union conventions. Those attending the convention are already cult converted followers and little if anything will result that much I can see.
Some unions like the PPWC listed by slek in another thread are trying other new ideas to best represent the interests of the members. I hope they succeed without ever having to use extreme avenues to achieve their goals.
Just looking into history tells us that most change is implemented by radical movements. It takes that type of action to force change. I would prefer to see change come about without it but I have come to believe from my union experiences that I am foolisly credulous to even consider that option as viable.
I am a peaceful man living a modest life. I have no criminal record and have no outstanding parking tickets and I pay my taxes. However what our union officials are doing to us is unacceptable to my principles. I have told union official in my union that they appear to be running a cult, those who believe are rewarded and those who do not are cast in sin as dangerous to the union movement. I think we too often make a very simle issue very philosophicalally complicated. Unions have lost their member focus and have to be changed. I am tired of hearing all the retoric by unions how the members are the most important thing a union has and yet in reality it is just "corporate propoganda".
Members across this country are being screwed by their very own unions that pay their fat cat wages. Members have to go to great length to seek duty of represetation infringments, a great advangage for unions.
We need change now, for the benefit of all members across this great land. Unions are like Exon, hide bury and do not disclose and hope the hell no one turns out to be a whistle blower.
I beleive that we all should be focusing on the only relevant question: How are we going to implement the that change.
ABOUT UNIONS
(my emphasis added.)
I'd like to address the question of how we are going to implement change.
IWW co-founder Eugene Debs once said:
quote:
You could just as easily clean up a garbage pile by spraying it with attar of roses, as reform the AFL.
Do these words still hold true today for the AFL-CIO/CLC? On this site we have proposed a new model of unionism – the Networked union – an idea potentially as revolutionary as was the industrial union concept a century ago. Is our new model of unionism intended to reform the current labour movement's structure, or is it intended to replace it?
We face some problems if we try to follow the IWW's footsteps and build an alternative labour movement. First, right now we have a lot of ideas but very little on the ground. Do we have the will and the people to make our ideas happen? Second, we should not forget, the turn-of-the century IWW was largely a failure. The bosses and the craft unions conspired to smash them. There's no reason to believe the bosses and the biz-unions won't do the same today.
Bill has raised the concern that this MFD movement may be founded too heavily on anger, and that it runs the risk of fizzling out. Or worse, it could succeed in tearing down the UFCW but find itself incapable of putting something in its place. I think these are realistic issues to consider. But what should we do about it?
Is there a middle path to follow? Can we to engage in 'dialogue' with the dominant labour organizations without trying to overthrow them? Can we do this while still asking the necessary questions about corruption and mismanagement? These questions have to be dealt with. But they are extremely uncomfortable for the union leadership to face, particularly when the corruption runs deep into their own organizations. Are they going to be willing to talk with us as long as the corruption issue is still on the table?
I think that there are multiple strategies that can and maybe ought to be employed. I think the corruption issue has to be on the table. To ignore it simply perpetuates the conditions under which corruption can thrive. It also tells the millions of workers out there who are aware of it or at least suspect that it exists that we are prepared to tolerate it.
Refusing to drop the subject will eventaully force the mainstream leaders deal with it. As more and more dirty laundry gets hung out for public viewing, they will need to take a position - even if that upsets some of the members of the club. One's own survival is a powerful motivator.
But there are other stategies that may work well on their own or in a complementary way. One that occurs to me a lot these days is reaching out directly to workers. If enough of them want change, change will happen. We've not had the ability to do this on a large scale before (before the internet). We need to draw them into the discussion about how it should be and how to get to how it should be. I think that there are a lot of people out there who would be willing, maybe even eager to participate in this kind of dialogue. We need to find a way to connect with them.
The important thing for us to keep in mind is that we do not necessarily need a carved-in-stone plan for making change happen. What is important is that we create the conditions under which it is most likely to happen. I think in another thread you had said something about providing people with the tools to make things happen. That is something very important.
What do they need? How can we get it to them?
Remote:
I agree that the corruption issue needs to stay on the table. I just also see how it is such a hot potato that many other people on the left are afraid to touch it. It's really too bad.
I think we also ought to make sure we talk about more than just corruption. (Indeed, we do do this on this site, I just want to emphasize the point.) I think Bill Pearson is right when he suggests that if all anyone ever hears is negativity about the union, it hardly gives them an incentive to get active and try to change things. I think we need to balance the important task of exposing trouble with the equally important task of offering hope that it can be overcome - that we can win our battles not just in our unions but against our employers as well.
This is one of the reasons that I have such an interest in the Wobblies. Despite being kicked around for the better part of the last century, they're still here, they're still fighting, and the feisty little union is still winning many battles, too! By no means do I think they're the exclusive template for a new model of unionism, but I certainly think they're an interesting and valuable example. I think what UFCW Local 789 is doing in Minnesota is also very promising.
I think we should pay attention to these examples and make sure their stories show up on the front page of this site too, as a "good news" counterpoint to the bad news like lawsuits and dirty deals.
I think we as workers also ought to try and learn from these successes where they come up, and draw some of the strategies and tools we need from there.
EDIT: I changed the title of this thread to make it less dichotomistic. I was wrong in my earlier post. It's not necessarily an either/or choice.
