You know what? Maybe the law suit is a good thing!
Maybe it is time that this kind of 'machine' behavior is exposed/examined 'neath the oaken light of a courtroom.
Momentous change always seems to have a martyr.
Cliff Evans on speaking your mind in a union.
UFCW Leader's statement in Ontario Legislature indicates tolerance for dissenting voices
A Hansard document posted on MFD Forum earlier today reveals a surprising tolerance for dissent on the part of the UFCW. Addressing the Ontario Legislative Assembly in December 1993, Clifford Evans, then UFCW International Director, had this to say about how commonplace differences of opinion are
within unions and about the need to protect union members:
quote:
"If we are to protect union members from the real or perceived arbitrary or discriminatory action of their leaders -- local, national, international or provincial organizations -- the wording in the labour relations act of British Columbia is perhaps a good model. It's very short and very precise:
"Every person has a right to the application of the principles of natural justice in respect of all disputes relating
to:"(a)Matters in the constitution of the trade union;
"(b)The person's membership in a trade union; or
"(c)Discipline by a trade union."
This is a broad-brushed approach that is appealing for its inclusiveness while at the same time not dictating the affairs of individual unions. It doesn't change any constitution, but it allows an aggrieved member a legal right to challenge his or her union's action, and this is what we should be trying to achieve here in Ontario.
Certainly there has been and always will be political conflicts and differences of opinion within unions. You have to understand that union leaders operate in an adversarial system and so are conditioned to dealing with conflict. The line of work doesn't attract people who have weak convictions or who are afraid to speak their minds. When a union has crafted an organizational and governance structure over many, many years, you should tread very carefully so you don't inoculate them against a relatively small problem and in the process infect them with a much more serious disease."
Evans' comments were made in opposition to a proposed bill that would have severely curtailed the ability of international unions to trustee their Ontario locals. His comments strongly suggest that conflict is normal within unions and that differences of opinion are best dealt with through procedures contained in union constitutions, with members treated in accordance with the principles of natural justice. State intervention (such as Labour Boards and presumably the courts) in internal union disputes is not necessary we hear Evans saying.
UFCW officials currently pursuing legal action against Local 777 member William Gammert should take note.
The full text of Evans' remarkable comments can be found HERE.
[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: news ]
quote:
Momentous change always seems to have a martyr.
Completely OT but, the jackasses always have to pick on the little guys. 
Truly cowardly.
I think this news is more an effort to show the UFCW just how hypocritical they really are (hypocrites or clueless, I can't decide).
A little history lesson for the fat bastards... oops, did I type that out loud? ( 
) What I meant to say was "honorable executives". 
pfft
C'mon UFCW... is it really that difficult to practice what you preach?
That's all we ask. 
[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: slek ]
Oh, the suit is more than a good thing, but you have to realize that those fine men who are "conditioned to dealing with conflict" have probably figured that out for themselves.
That's why they will graciously receive William's Statement of Defense, and then put the whole matter on the back burner for a couple of years and then, if pressed, they will withdraw their suit.
The unfortunate thing is that he'll still have it hanging over his head during that time. The fact that there's a lawsuit pending against him will be a constant reminder to others of what will happen to you if you get involved in union reform. These things have a real insidious side to them.
I wonder what the CLC or the labour federations would say if asked to take an official position on union-initiated SLAPP suits?
Well Cliffs little speach really burns me. After everything that's happened what nerve. The UFCW's track record speaks for itself Cliff, maybe labour boards around the country want to pretend your words mean something, but I think the members coast to coast know different.
"(b) The person's membership in a trade union; or"
Tell us Cliff (we know you log on here) why is it that in any of the trade unions (ie; Electrical, welders etc) once you become a union member you stay one as long as your dues are payed up, while the UFCW throws you out the second you stop working for one of their employers???
I could be mistaken, but suggest that it's because employers can then be used to mute the voices of opposition by terminating or "threatening" their employees. What say you to that charge 'ole man?
WHERE'S THE BEEF, CLIFF!