That's an awesome lesson in Canadian labor law Remote Viewer. I hate to admit it but i knew none of it. Most of the laws are far superior to ours in the US. The two glaring weaknesses appear to be the inability for workers to speak out against their union freely and you don't have some of the safeguards provided under ERISA.
I am curious, can each province pass legislation that could undermine the IRDIA? It almost sounds like you could get to the same point where states were able to pass right to work laws. Do you see significant shifts in any of the provinces to less worker friendly agendas?
Given there are good points on either side of the border (more on yours), Maybe we should have some fun one of these days and create an on-line model bill of rights for union workers taking the best of both countries. Who knows, perhaps even some progressive union on both sides of the border could carry it forward. Of course that means they would have to give up a little of their control, but my guess is they would find it a refreshing change. 
.
Canada or US - whose legislation is better?
In this thread Bill suggested that we compare Canadian and US labour (or labor, as they say) laws to see what's the same, better or worse. I thought I'd start this thread off with a general overview of the Canadian legislation and some comparisons.
The legislative framework that governs labour relations in Canada was first introduced in the 1940's. It was called the Industrial Relations Disputes Investigation Act (IRDIA) and was patterned after the Wagner Act, passed in 1935 in the US. IRDIA gave unions the right to recognition where they had the support of a majority of workers in a workplace, required employers and unions to bargain in good faith, prohibited strikes and lockouts during the term of a collective agreement and allowed strikes only after negotiations reached an impasse and concilliation (provided by the government) had taken place. The IRDIA also made it mandatory for disputes arising during the term of a collective agreement (grievances) to be resolved through binding arbitration.
IRDIA was federal legislation. By the early 1950's, however, the feds spun off responsibility for labour relations to the provinces in the case of all but a few industries. Businesses in certain industries remained under federal jurisdiction (banking, shipping, inter-provincial trucking, telecommunications, postal service, airlines and a few others), but most employers would be governed by the labour relations Acts or Codes of their provinces. The provinces all adopted legislation that was similar to IRDIA in that it contained its core principles. Differences in the various Acts did develop, however, (especially more recently) and there are some differences in the administration of the legislation from province to province as well. As an example, some provinces still provide for automatic certification (where a union is able to show that it has signed a majority of workers in a workplace), while other provinces require a representation vote regardless of the percentage of the workforce that has signed membership cards.
It is widely believed that Canadian legislation is superior to that in the US. There do appear to be some advantage for unions on the Canadian side of the border. To begin with, most if not all provinces long ago adopted what we call the Rand Formula - a requirement that workers, while they can't be forced to join a union, can be required to pay union dues if they are working in a workplace where a union has been certified. The Rand Formula comes from an arbitration award in the 1940's by a judge named Ivan Rand. The Rand Formula helped unions build a degree of financial security and has minimized, to some extent, conflict between pro and anti-union factions in Canadian workplaces. It is also the reason that there are no "right to work states" in Canada. Essentially, once you're certified, everybody pays dues.
At one time, the majority of Canadian provinces had automatic certification provisions in their Labour Relations Acts. This gave them certification if they had a majority of workers signed up. Unions with the minimum level of support (the percentages varied among the provinces) did not have to go through representation votes and the usual employer counter-organizing campaigns that go with them. This is changing though as neo-cons implement their anti-union agendas. Mandatory representation votes have been introduced in a number of provinces, including Ontario. The automatic cert is, however, another factor that is widely believed to have helped unions become cerrtified more easily in Canada.
Another factor that is believed to make Canada a more union-friendly is that labour legislation, although a patchwork of different Acts among 10 provinces and 3 territories, is more vigourously enforced than in the US. There is a study on this and I'll try to dig it up, but if I remember correctly, the study found that an unfair labour practice complaint takes maybe a couple of months to adjudicate in Canada whereas a similar complaint may take up to 2 years in the US.
Penalties for employers who have violated the legislation are also believed to be stiffer on this side of the border. Reinstatement to employment is the most common remedy for workers who have been fired or otherwise penalized for union activity. It happens more quickly than in the US, so workers are able to see that those who stand up for their rights have some measure of protection.
Also most provinces require that workers who have been out on strike be reinstated to their jobs once the strike is over (I believe in the US, they can be terminated and unions have to negotiate their reinstatement along with the collective agreement).
Imposed first agreement legislation exists in some provinces although access to it is restricted (as in Ontario). Essentially the legislation allows the Labour Relations Board or a board of arbitration to decide what will be in a first collective agreement. This limits the effectiveness of the stall and delay tactics sometimes used by employers who have just been organized.
Other factors that are sometimes cited as contributing to the greater labour-friendliness north of the border are the existence of a labour oriented political party - the now mostly-forgotten NDP, and the social unionist orientation of some of our national unions (the CAW and CUPE are examples of this).
While the founding principles of the legislation on both sides of the border are similar, the Canadian legislation has no equivalent of the LMRDA. There is no protection for union members in the exercise of free speech within their unions, no obligation for unions to operate democratically and no investigative mechanism in cases of corruption on the part of union officials. Union members in Canada who are being persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression (a Constitution right) have no recourse other than through the courts. Members who are concerned about corruption in their unions have no recourse other than through law enforcement agencies which are notoriously lax when it comes to pursuing allegations of corruption on the part of union officials.
The various Acts and Codes all have provisions of some kind for Duty of Fair Representation but the way the legislation is applied makes this a joke. Few workers ever win DFR complaints which are restricted mostly to issues involving a union's refusal to file or advance individual members' grievances. Canadian DFR legislation can't be used to address corruption or undemocratic internal practices. Some Acts require members to be provided with a copy of the union's constitution and an audited financial statement while some don't. I'm not even sure of what the penalties are for unions that refuse to honour requests for this kind of basic information. The only LRB cases that I'm aware of on this subject simply result in direction being given to the union to make the requested information available. Union members are really SOL up here.
Currently about 29% of the Canadian workforce is unionized, although about 70% of that are public sector workers. This percentage has dipped slightly from about 35% two decades ago, but it hasn't crashed like union membership in the US (12% now?). Nonetheless, even with certain advantages, unions have had a lot of difficulty organizing in the service sector and other non-traditional industries. At the present time only about 8% of service industry workers are organized. It makes you wonder - what's getting in the way?
Some interesting stats/stuff I found...
Strikes, lock-outs and days lost per country c/o Statscan
ILO report on International union membership
The gender of trade union membership McMaster-Guelph sociology course.
Aussie article: Its time to stop the bosses from rolling back a century of gains has a table half way down for percentage of workers that are union from 1976-1996...I think thats about the same for Canada.
The federal legislation (IRDIA - now called the Canada Labour Code) is separate and distinct from provincial labour legislation, so the provinces can and do enact legislation that differs from it.
If one of the provinces wanted to introduce "right to work" legislation the feds could not stop them. The idea of "right to work" (I hate that expression) has been kicked around in Canadian neo-con circles for a long time now and, whenever a right-leaning administration is elected it seems that there is talk about the tabling of this kind of draconian change to the law. No one has tried in any serious way to pull it off so far though. The more astute politicians believe it would be too hot to handle. It might finally get the unions and their members to protest in a way that will win public support and cause the government embarassment and force it to back pedal. I've heard it said also that some of the large unionized employers in Ontario (where the idea has been kicked around a couple of times in recent history) quietly oppose it, believing that it would not cause their workers to desert their unions in droves anyway and would just put additional strain on already strained relationships with unions.
Nonetheless, the neo-cons have chipped away at existing rights and protections where they can. Sometimes this has been done through the passage of big far-reaching bills (like Ontario's Bill 7 which repealed a whole bunch of labour rights in 1995) or individual amendments like the repeal, a couple of years ago, of a provision in the OLRA that allowed for automatic certification of a union where an employer was found to have engaged in unfair labour practices during an organizing drive.
This was an unfortunate thing. While employers in Canada are permitted to communicate with workers during organizing drives and to express their opinions, they are required to be much more cautious than their US counterparts in terms of what they communicate. Telling a group of workers that you'll close the plant if they bring in a union, or move the plant, or layoff a bunch of them, or other statements along these lines is an unfair labour practice and has been enough in the past, to get a union automatically certified regardless of the outcome of a representation vote. Now, the LRB can still find these employers who engage in these activities guilty of breaching the LRA but it is limited in terms of the remedy it can impose. If the workers voted
In Ontario, much of this hacking away at workers' rights has been done under the banner of "workplace democracy". A provision introduced in 2000 now requires employers to give to each employee who is a union member, a government-approved bulletin advising them of the procedure for decertifying their union. Employers are required to do this annually and to keep the dreaded bulletin posted in conspicuous locations throughout the workplace.
BC is in the process of a major carve-up of its LRA - one that might make Ontario's look like tinkering by comparison.
I like your idea of developing an on-line Bill of Rights. Let's give that a shot. Maybe getting workers involved in developing something like this will raise awareness of the importance of legislative protections and may actually see some passed one day.
The info Blackcat posted gives an idea of the similarities and divergence in labour activity in Canada and the US.
Remote Viewer, outstanding lesson! Thank you very much! I have placed that post into my files for reference. I definately learned a great deal about the structure of labor in Canada. Looks like the male labor has maintained a very stable line through the years with the female members really showing a large increase! Do you have room up there for a southern boy??
I too like the idea of drawing up a bill of rights incorporating the best of both sides of the border. RV, what would you like to see changed or added, either in Canadian legislation or in the provinces themselves? I think we could basically use the Canadian structure for a base and just tweek it a little. It seems much more labor friendly than here in the U.S.!!
I'm really impressed by the interest, logic, and overall intelligence of the members here at MFD. I know we can't agree on everything, but voicing our opinions openly and civily in this type of forum creates a 'Think Tank' of sorts and I can see nothing but good things coming out of the effort. 
This really is some good stuff. The only bad thing is my head hurts from trying to think too much. Let me give you an example why. If we talk about legislation, we cover lots of potential bases. I'm not sure all of the things that would be important to workers as union members would be appropriate in that form. However, the arguement could be made that any real labor law reform would have to include not only guarentees for unions, but more importantly for the members.
Rather than talk in the abstract, let me be more specific. I got a call from a group of teachers from So. St. Paul high school a month ago. They needed a large hall to previev a contract they were going to vote over the weekend. I offered to let them use our building. About 100 of them came in and spent 2+ hours talking about the offer they were going to vote on. At the end, i went over and told them how impressed i was they would take this kind of time to educate members before the vote. They said thanks for the compliment, but their constitution had a mandate that 48 hours prior to any vote they had to do this.
I know this is more approprrately a matter for a unions constitution. The ability to ever pass meaningful legislation, should include obligations on unions that would make it more palitable for politicians to accept when it includes good things for the members. It also removes the descretionary ability for unions to refuse to do the right thing in their constitution. IMHO, that becomes a very powerful tool for lots of reasons.
I love the idea this becomes an on-line think tank, but sometimes all that thinking stuff is overated 
. I also hope that some of the visitors coming to this site join in. I don't think we want to exclude anyone from this process. Dissenting opinions are certainly welcomed.
It's almost 9:30 at nite and i can't stop thinking about this. A guy should be able to sit and watch professional wrestling or something at this time of night. Here's what makes this idea at least passingly possible. In the US, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was passed to take care of workers: not the union, or the employer. All proposed labor law reform ultimately comes from unions, or reductions in protections from employers.
So, at least in theory, what we could build would actually fit the purpose the act was passed for. Does that premise work under the IRDIA?
I'm not very familiar with the IRDIA, but I thought this act prohibits direct action and under this act agreements can be opened mid_term, both of which benefits employers not than members. Doesn't this act work to limit disruption in business? 
Why don't we start with a clean slate? Let's forget about what's out there right now and just make a list of all the elements of a really good bill of rights for workers. Then we can see which ones are captured in our existing legislation and which ones aren't.
I'll tell you more about the fundamental principles behind the Canadian legislation (siggy has pretty much hit the nail on the head) tomorrow.
Licatsplit: we all have a lot more in common than our respective elites would like us to believe. Lots of room up here for southerners. Bring some decent weather with you - we need it this spring. 
Sleepy in Toronto.
quote:
Why don't we start with a clean slate? Let's forget about what's out there right now and just make a list of all the elements of a really good bill of rights for workers.
Listing the elements of a bill of rights and incorporating them into a new constitution would be a great starting point. A constitution and by-laws which are totaly member friendly should come first and then we could walk our way farther into the legislative aspects. Crawl before you walk they say!
RV, I wish I could send some of this 95 degree heat up your way. I'd be more than happy to share!
quote:
In the US, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was passed to take care of workers:
Here is an important distinction between the origins of the Canadian and US legislation: The Canadian legislation was not passed to help workers. Its main objective was to control workers and to maintain order in the workplace so that disruption to the economy could be kept to a minimum (keep the number of strikes to as few as possible).
People who are fans of the current labour relations system don't recognize this and neither do many union members. They believe it was implemented with fairness and justice and all those good things in mind but really it wasn't. The government of the day was very business-friendly. The Prime Minister, MacKenzie-King, who had been in power since 1935 had steadfastly resisted the kinds of reforms that he eventually put in place in 1948.
The reason that he finally capitulated was two-fold: (1) Canadian economic policy after the Second World War was dependent on a strong resource and manufacturing sector. Strikes and labour unrest in general stood to interfere with that objective, so labour unrest had to be kept to a minimum. (2) Labour unrest was spinning out of control in the late 1940's.
The 1930's were a terrible time in Canada and labour militancy was on the rise. Unlike the US, there was no New Deal up here. The Canadian government largely ignored the dreadful plight of its citizens, choosing instead to herd large numbers of unemployed workers into forced labour camps (yes, it really happened here folks), as a means of keeping them from rioting and stifling their militancy. There was a good deal of "red" paranoia during this period as well. The war interrupted this and rescued the economy but it was clear that the militancy wasn't going away.
King enacted a forerunner of the IRDIA during the war years to prevent strikes that would interfere with wartime production. The trade off for the prohibition on strikes was recognition of unions and the obligation to bargain. This was a temporary measure that ended with the end of the war. King did not want to continue it but found himself in a crisis.
When Canadian soldiers returned from the war and went back to work (which was abundant by then), they became pretty demanding about their rights. 1947 and 48 were record years for strikes in Canada. This presented quite a dilemma for King -these guys had just done their patriotic duty so it just wouldn't do to beat them or shoot at them in the streets anymore. Plus, their labour was needed to support the country's new economic plan.
So King finally relented - somewhat - and struck the bargain that brought us the IRDIA and the current labour relations system. Unions would have recognition rights and employers would be required to negotiate with them but, in turn, they gave up the right to strike except during prescribed periods (after bargaining reached an impasse and mandatory conciliation had taken place). Disputes during the term of an agreement would proceed to binding arbitration - no more putting down the tools and hitting the pavement, ever.
While the IRDIA resembles the Wagner Act and was passed little more than a decade after Wagner, the intentions behind it were quite different. The need to control workers is evident in the stringent prohibitions against mid-term strikes and the absence of any real protections for union members themselves.
Ironically, the Canadian legislative environment turned out to be more labour-friendly (up until recently) than that of the US. I'll blabber about those at some later date.
More...
The more that I think about it the more convinced I am that if we are to make things change, we will have to do this on our own without waiting for the legislators to pass laws that help us.
All along we've been buying into the conventional wisdom that legislation changes circumstances: If we want something to change, we must change the laws. Things will then get better for us because people will have to treat us differently. Well, it would be nice but it's not happening and, despite the millions of dollars that have been spent and the efforts that have been expended on lobbying politicians and supporting political parties that appear to be at least somewhat sympathetic to our concerns, things appear to be regressing rather than progressing.
There is another school of thought that suggests the opposite of the conventional wisdom is true: That circumstances change the law - first we change our circumstances and the laws change in response to that. The laws change because, at that point, they have become redundant or irrelevant or no longer useful. This is a view that has been articulated by various futurists (I think Toffler was one) and it's worth thinking about in the context of the discussion we're having.
Just to give you an example of what I'm talking about, consider this:
One of the biggest obstacles to organizing in the service sector is the current state of the legislation. In Canada, bargaining units are certified provincially. You could organize a big chain operation like Wal-Mart or McDonald's from coast to coast and never get one big bargaining unit certified by an LRB, because no LRB can grant certification outside of its provincial boundaries. Even within a province, it may be difficult to get a province-wide bargaining unit unless you organize the entire chain at the same time. If some stores are organized this year and others in subsequent years, they will need to be certified separately. To compound the problem there is the issue of 'franchised' operations which may be treated as separate employers, full and part time workers which can be split into separate bargaining units and a lot of other technicalities that make the present system hum and keep workers poor and unrepresented.
Now, imagine that an empowered group of workers was successful in organizing this large chain operation, from coast to coast (you'll have to suspend your disbelief for a moment - with advances in technology, I think it can and will eventually happen). They decide that they want a nationwide bargaining unit, which makes sense since that will give them the greatest leverage with the employer. But the legal framework won't give them that - it will only, at best, give them province-wide certification in 10 provinces. That's not good enough, the workers say. We're going to demand that the company give us nation wide recognition and we'll strike - en masse - to get it. 'You can't do that!', I can hear all the fans of the current framework howling from far and wide. They don't have the right to strike over recognition and especially not over nation wide recognition. Well, we know that. But what if they did it anyway? What would a company for which the bottom line is everything and every minute that even one of their businesses is closed is money off the bottom line, do in a case like this? I don't know exactly but I think that caving in might be an option. At any rate, with the rapid advances in technology and forward-thinking reformers setting brush fires in people's minds, I think we may live to see such a thing.
If it happens once, it will happen again and again, and then you'll see the tired old system will be abandoned and replaced with something more relevant, something that reflects the circumstances - which have changed because workers themselves changed them.
RV; I never held out any real optimism that a group of politicians would be our salvation. However, by building what we think is a model code (bill of rights) for union workers does force us to start thinking collectively across borders (sorry jd), across unions and most importantly across the net. I know you guys have been doing this a lot longer than i, but i do believe i am seeing a transformation of sorts. Reformers have been out there for years. It's always been a question of reach. I don't mean how far, i mean how wide. The topics on the site have been nothing short of exceptional, the past several months. Here's where it really gets cool, it's just the tip of the iceberg(npi...you figure it out).
Legitimacy is crucial for growth. Please don't think i'm suggesting any of you were illegitimate. I have seen a remarkable amount of growth and maturity from both articles and posts recently. It makes it far easier for me to do some of the things we are starting to put into play. My intent is not to offend anyone, but rather than be complimentary. If you are offended, tough sh*t. Sorry i couldn't resist reverting back to those earlier headbanging days.
I do think there is a value in building an ideology of what workers should expect from thir unions and their employers. At least with the first, we have a better chance of making the second happen.
Posted by Bill:
quote:
However, by building what we think is a model code (bill of rights) for union workers...
Isn't this what the ICFTU and the ILO have already done? I think its just that no one pays attention...the (business) press that is...so workers don't hear about it...
Posted by remote viewer:
quote:
Here is an important distinction between the origins of the Canadian and US legislation: The Canadian legislation was not passed to help workers. Its main objective was to control workers and to maintain order in the workplace so that disruption to the economy could be kept to a minimum (keep the number of strikes to as few as possible).
People who are fans of the current labour relations system don't recognize this and neither do many union members. They believe it was implemented with fairness and justice and all those good things in mind but really it wasn't. The government of the day was very business-friendly.
You can actually see this in action via the CBC's site on the Winnipeg General Strike 1919 that the One Big Union had organized (although the article ends with three myths...one, a General Strike causes "class warfare" and not the social system, two was that collective bargaining was "traditional" and three that general strikes do not work in creating social change).
So let's get to this Bill of Rights. What should be in it? Feel free to start a new thread if you think it's a good idea.
I'll start - in case the rest of you are shy.
It seems to me that an important right would be the right of all workers to join a union of their choice.
The right of all workers to change unions of their choice on majority vote of total members in unit.
These are the LMRDA provisions that deal with Equality and Freedom of Speech and Assembly:
quote:
SEC. 101. (a)(1) EQUAL RIGHTS.-- Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws.
(2) FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.-- Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.
Here is something you may find interesting on the subject of how unions should treat their members. It's from the original MFD Platform. (Courtesy of the Wayback Machine, October 2000)
Okay, how about this one?
All officers of the rank and file shall be elected by a direct membership vote and any officer can be instantly recalled by their constituency.
I wanted to get back to this project before we lose sight of it. Does anyone have any further suggestions as to what could/should be included in a union members' bill of rights?
- Financial statements of the local, and the union to be distributed by mail to every member each and every month of the year.
- Elected officials will hold office for a maximum of two consecutive terms, each term to be two years in duration.
- Elected officials will face re-election every year.
- No by-laws of a local or its union may contervene any government legislation
- Trial procedures to removed from all constitutions.
- Election ballots to be sent out by mail to every member every election
My mind is numb from looking at websites and laws to post on our osu project. God, theres a lot of good stuff on the net. I've got to rethink my position on US vs Canadian legislation. Just a thought as i read some of the ideas on what to put in a workers bill of rights. Let me make my point this way:
quote:
The right of all workers to change unions of their choice on majority vote of total members in unit.
quote:
Financial statements of the local, and the union to be distributed by mail to every member each and every month of the year.
quote:
Elected officials will face re-election every year
quote:
Trial procedures to removed from all constitutions
Don't mean to pick on you lekenny, but sometimes in our zeal to fix whats broken, we become extreme. Local union elections are expensive, changing unions disruptive, mailing financials every month to all members overkill. Every change comes at a cost. I'm not saying these things are wrong, only that when considering a "new" structure you don't over act and create something thats more cumbersome and less efficient than need be.
Rotating union officials and execs
quote:
Don't mean to pick on you lekenny, but sometimes in our zeal to fix whats broken, we become extreme. Local union elections are expensive, changing unions disruptive, mailing financials every month to all members overkill. Every change comes at a cost. I'm not saying these things are wrong, only that when considering a "new" structure you don't over act and create something thats more cumbersome and less efficient than need be.
Then don't. Just mail out your financial statements to all your members. You just got $50,000 US to make more money. That would pay for a hell of a lot of stamps. Besides in this day and age, a real union organization could allow member access to all the up to date books over the internet.
I most certainly do not see my suggestions as over re-acting or extreme, but rather a reality that needs to be fulfilled and implemented. That fear of the members having knowledge and using that knowledge as power, always scares the status quo.
quote:
That fear of the members having knowledge and using that knowledge as power, always scares the status quo.
The interesting aspect of this discussion is, you can just say it, i have to make these decisions every day. Wish it were as easy as just snapping your fingers and poooooof, it happens. A mailing to 7500 members is not only a cost of materials, there's a substantial time allocation. The point wasn't to say it was wrong, it was to say that every suggestion has implications. All too often, implications that people don't think about. Here's that old business union thing in me coming out, it's all just return on investment. If we put 5 hours of labor into a project, $300 postage and $400 in paper and copying cost, are we sending out something someone reads or cares about? I put financials out for my e-board every month and they only get a cursory look.
As far as union elections evey year, you are adding enormous costs plus the energy directed to an election, that should be going towards representing the members. Again, all i'm trying to do is get posters to understand the difference between reality and just saying it.
As far as the fear of the members having knowledge, we may have a real difference of opinion here. Well, that's not quite a true statement.I have no fear of them knowing whats going on. Where we may disagree, i don't think i should have to spoon feed it to them. I think members need to be actively involved in their union. That doesn't mean they have to come to a union meeting, though it would be nice. It means they have to vote on their contract. They have to participate at a level that works for them, there has to be something. I'll give you an example. We produce as good a local union magazine as there is in North America. It isn't just PR, there's actual stuff of value. We are critical, outspoken and in some cases in your face. It's all color and produced and mailed to members homes every two months. When there is a dues increase, we publish thoes proposed increases so members know and can vote for or against them. Inevitably, members will stop us and say," when did the dues go up?" We say it was in the paper, did you read it? No! In a purely unscientific wag (wild ass guess), a little more than 50% of our members pay any attention to the paper, Unit costs are .54 each, plus about a thousand dollars postage, plus a substantial number of hours to produce it (it goes to the printer camera ready on cd). Is it worth it to send? Of course. The numbers that do look at it are enough to justify the costs.
As i think about this exercise, maybe what we should do is make it mandatory members have to read everything the union sends . Then the value of sending stuff goes up dramatically. I just don't buy the argument that the lack of energy is all the leaders fault. There's a lot of members who could give two shits less about what goes on around them. If you understand human nature at all, you just have to accept the premise there are those who will never participate or care. The key is to reach out and inspire those that do.
quote:
As i think about this exercise, maybe what we should do is make it mandatory members have to read everything the union sends
This is a fabulous idea. It costs you $5 off your cheque and 2 hrs community work if you can't identify your prez and MRs, how's that?
quote:
Then the value of sending stuff goes up dramatically.
I am sure there is value in sending some stuff, however the stuff I get is for the most part valueless.
2 uneccessary magazines filled with machine promotion.
1 uneccessary memo telling me the MR will be in the store for an hour on whatever day. (could have posted on the board and visited twice, three times for the same price)
1 uneccessary letter notifying me I'm getting another letter. (proposal pkg.)
quote:
I just don't buy the argument that the lack of energy is all the leaders fault. There's a lot of members who could give two shits less about what goes on around them.
After yesterday I couldn't agree more about the Power Source, but I still think the machines aren't as interested as you to address this issue. I also believe it's a powerful reason to rethink the current programs and maybe redirect the funds spent on useless mailing. The money it cost to mail to 30,000 members 3, 4, or 5 times a month would easily cover off more MR visits and the cost of holding gm's in the general area of where the members are actually able to attend.
quote:
If you understand human nature at all, you just have to accept the premise there are those who will never participate or care.
A few mandatory (incentive meetings?) close to home, you got yourself a more informed group
quote:
The key is to reach out and inspire those that do.
Eliminating and redirecting the costs of useless mailings would go along way in this regard in most locals I know.
quote:
This is a fabulous idea. It costs you $5 off your cheque and 2 hrs community work if you can't identify your prez and MRs, how's that?
Actually, i think a two week suspesnsion may be more appropriate. . Or was that a different thread?
quote:
After yesterday I couldn't agree more about the Power Source, but I still think the machines aren't as interested as you to address this issue
So what did i miss? What happened yesterday?
Just a little tidbit of info. It was in the Industrial Worker newspaper so I don't have an online link...
quote:
NLRB elections decline (U.S.A.)
The National Labor Relations Board conducted 349 fewer representation elections in the latest six-month period for which information is available; unions won 169 fewer elections in the period. 2002 is likely to see the fewest NLRB elections since the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935.
also U.S.A. related...
quote:
Anti-union groups are seeking legislation to bar employers from voluntary recognizing unions, claiming that workers need to be protected from union coercion.
quote:
Anti-union groups are seeking legislation to bar employers from voluntary recognizing unions, claiming that workers need to be protected from union coercion.
Who'd o' thought we could agree with an anti-union group?
Well considering this thread is plumetting anyway and sleK has not been seen for days ...
quote:
So what did i miss? What happened yesterday?
Nothing happened yesterday and that's the problem.
Firstly I would like to apologize to the ofg/loman warehouse workers for the lack of initiative by members in my store. Then I would like to apologize to them for the negligence of the machine. I mostly want to apologize to them for my negligence in not working harder to insure we had responsible knowledgeable representation in place.
That said, yesterday was an appalling exhibition of non-unity. Customers and workers alike were confused, while 1518 workers worked away on the inside completely oblivious to why the union brothers were leafletting on the outside. While the union brothers asked customers to take their shopping dollars elsewhere, union members mindlessly carried their personal purchases past them.
Not one representative, not one directive, not one memo from the machine has been seen. Not one single effort by the machine to seize a moment of solidarity.
That's what happened Bill. NOTHING !!!!
I have to concur with Bill on the issue of elections every year. As it stands now, one year is about what it takes for most new elected officials to figure out what they are doing and when they are supposed to be doing it. In our case, that gives the elected officials two more years to make a difference in the local's direction. It will remain this way until there is some form of education made available for all members covering at least the basics of how business is conducted at the local and national levels. Our terms run for three years and there are no limitations on the number of terms. Although I would like to see it limited to no more than two terms. I don't see why financial statements couldn't be made available via the internet at least quarterly. I do know mailings are definately expensive and Bill is right about the percentage of the members actually reading the material. At least it would be much cheaper electronically and whoever was interested could view it without any extra costs. Our newsletter comes out monthly, but the news which is in it, (after it goes through an editing process by the lawyers), is over a month old by the time it reaches our mailboxes! I would love to see more up to date material via the internet by our local.
Edit: I see what didn't happen yesterday Siggy!
I agree that most BMs and Presidents aren't as interested as BP!
Great ideas Lic, the 3 yr term makes sense. I like the 2 term max as well. And what are the pitfalls of posting the finacial statements quarterly or even twice a yr?
MBR's should include random access for members to attend committee meetings which directly affect the Power Source, like pension fund meetings etc. (could even have a requirement for two randomly selected members to be in attendance at all meetings that affect the dues, pensions, education, health & welfare etc.)
quote:
I agree that most BMs and Presidents aren't as interested as BP
For the record, a BM is a business manager as opposed to................well, you know.
quote:
That's what happened Bill. NOTHING !!!!
A little more somber discussion than the one above. Been there, more than once. As long as i stay in the job, i'll end up there again. With each passing day, i realize the frustration of movement where solidarity is a memory. As the percentage of unionized workers diminishes, we find more and more young workers having no knowledge of what the labor movement was or could be. With the way we've been negotiating contracts for the past years, it's little wonder. We've all been busy taking care of the seniored members, often at the detriment of the new worker. In retail, new hires seldom stay around long enough to see the value. The ones that do, don't feel the allegence to an organization that paid them little heed in their early years.
We all want the big kill, the fast fix the easy way out. There's no such thing. Everything in life comes at a price. It's always about hard work; about doing the right thing. The struggle to change will never happen fast enough. Some of us will fall by the wayside. Some days it all seems hopeless.Then it dawns on you, if you quit, then it is hopeless. There's only a handfull of zealots. I could easily make the case it's a pathetic way to live. Those that are critical, usually have a better handle on balance in their lives. It's all just a matter of personal choice. You know that question we all keep asking ourselves, what do i want to be when i grow up? The next thing you know is you retire, and you still haven't answered the question. That's okay, while i age, i don't ever want to get old. I don't ever want to stop feeling things, rather than just knowing things. Some people want piles of money, some want power, some fame, then there's that bunch of idealists who just want the right thing. Fairness, justice, pride, dignity, to believe that through it all, we can care about one another. Here's the dilemna, you can't just say you care. You can't just stand in a room and sing solidarity forever. The labor movement, if it is to survive has to be about action not words.
I've refused to be openly critical to any other local union or leaders (except where there is criminal conduct). I'll continue that policy, with an explanation of what we do. In the past grocery and meat negotiations, all the large contracts were done. One small employer wanted some bullshit langauge in his agreement. We made it very simple for him. Even though everyone else was ratified, he was told his building would be surrounded by ufcw members from every employer and they would stay there untill he signed or was gone. You figure out how fast we got done.
We can argue over a lot of things, disagree even openly be hostile over issues. Here's the one tenent we can't forget: An injury to one is an injury to all. When we forget that, maybe then there is no hope.
quote:
With each passing day, i realize the frustration of movement where solidarity is a memory. As the percentage of unionized workers diminishes, we find more and more young workers having no knowledge of what the labor movement was or could be. With the way we've been negotiating contracts for the past years, it's little wonder. We've all been busy taking care of the seniored members, often at the detriment of the new worker. In retail, new hires seldom stay around long enough to see the value. The ones that do, don't feel the allegence to an organization that paid them little heed in their early years.
No no no, I will not accept any excuse on this sad example of unionism except the machineheads negligence, I'd even venture to say vengeance.
They failed on every count to inform an eager and awaiting membership. And they failed on every count to bolster the support for 250 long term members. This machine group is writing the book on *Building Apathy 101*
Wow Bill, for a moment I thought, what a profound guy. Look how down to earth this guy is. Then I remembered a lesson my union leaders taught me. When thinks get bad for leaders they resort to pleading with your sympathetic side, trying to win your thoughts over.
The problem for me is, Bill Pearson may very well have spoken from the heart, but being burnt one too many times by bullsheep crap I tend not to want to believe anything that a union leader tells me wheter it is business or personal. I have a great distrust for the integrity of union leaders. If union leaders were honest and had intergity I would not have to have gone through the ordeal that I did with fighting against the union status quo. In fact our attempts to get rid of, in my political opinion a pathetic national representative, was met with a very similar statement by another national rep of CUPE.
quote:
An injury to one is an injury to all.
Well this rep changed the wording a little:
quote:
An attack against one of us is an attack against all of us
This very rep sat in on my CUPE trial proceedings and just glared at people if they challenged anything to do with CUPE or our constitution. If this bullsheep happens in a small province like Manitoba who has almost been overtaken in numbers by UFCW832, one has to ask oneself, is Cupe any better than all the rest of the unions that protect the status quo. Is CUPE any more interested in changing constitutions or respecting government lesgislation that gives freedom to members no matter how feeble the legislative attempt.
Now the President of Cupe Manitoba and a vice president of Cupe National wants to run for provincial politics. What's up with this, the status quo is secure for another decade?
quote:
CUPE CHARGED ME UNDER OUR OWN CONSTITUTION TO SILENCE ME
MY CRIME WAS BEING AN ACTIVE REFORMER.
I wrestled with whether to respond or not to this post. I thought the only thing that would make any sense was to try a little logic, seeing as i couldn't sway you with the old sympathetic bullsheep. Initially i used some of your comments, but even that seemed senseless.
So lets use your signature as a starting and ending point. In that in your eyes i'm one of those integrityless union leaders, is it reasonable to assume, that i fall into that category of union leaders who should hate active reformers? The logic works right. Everything is less challenging when it's either just black or just white. It is so much easier when we can be this simplistic: union leaders devious and bad, reformers rightous and good. Sorry lekenny, it's never worked that way for me. I always hope i can be more tolerant of others, to the point i make judgements about individuals based on what they do, not their title or status in life.
If you check the original thread that brought me here, i was pretty clear. I didn't come to this site looking to make friends. I like discussion and the debate. I think there is an opportunity to open doors for reformers and traditionalists to find common ground. I think we can learn from each other. Barring any of those things happening, its good to see, at least i've upheld the original point about finding those friends. But then with the title of president (small p intended), i can see why you would distrust me so.
BP must be limping by now, what with all the target practise. I'm here to defend him. 
quote:
to the point i make judgements about individuals based on what they do, not their title or status in life
BP's right (gave you a capital P, see?) and has proven his commitment to improving the rights of working people on more than one occasion. I don't always agree and won't deny that sometimes he sounds like a Prez, but I do value his contribution. (I am helping, aren't I? )
I think that, at the end of the day, what counts is that we all bring something to the party. Some of us will not be as harshly critical of the mainstream as others. That's OK. There are a lot of different ways to contribute to the cause.