Now isn't this very reason that we need a similar act to the LMRDA in this country? Right now, if a member of a Canadian union has a problem with his local's election, the only place he can go is to the international and protest the election. We all know just how far that would go for most of us. Yes, there is the court system but unfortunately that is very cost prohibitve for the average member. The union officials have access to a war chest that many lawyers are very willing to help them drain.
Under the Business Corporation Act in BC. there is a section that creates a level playing field for minority shareholders. It gives them access to corporation funds to fight any complaint that the courts deem 'a fair question to be asked" This has the result of problems being resolved in a timely fashion.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to lobby our governments to give members of unions a similar Act and create a level playing field within our locals? Why is that the union officials should have unlimited access to funds that the membership created in battles that, in many cases, the member is the victim.
Just throwing it out there.
Teamsters Local 174's recent election challenged in lawsuit
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that Federal prosecutors have filed suit against a local Teamsters office, local 174, claiming that an election in November 2000 was "fraught with irregularities".
quote:
U.S. Department of Labor agents, following a nine-month investigation, claim that the November 2000 election of the executive board of Teamsters Local 174 included votes from ineligible union voters and denied the votes of many who were eligible to cast ballots.
According to the article, over 3000 votes were cast in the locals' election. The "most powerful post in the union", that of the secretary-treasurer, was won by a margin of three votes. Two other positions, president and trustee, that had been decided by 33 votes or fewer, are also being scrutinized by the government.
The suit comes after Ron Hasegawa, defeated in the secretary-treasurer race, had asked the Labor Dept. to investigate.
[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: news ]
That's for sure. There should be an ombudsperson to hear and investigate member complaints. The internal union process is nothing more than a kangaroo court supported by a bunch of rubber-stamp appeal committees.
You can bet your boots the court system is expensive if you have to hire lawyers and fork over court and document filing fees.
Talk to your MP and talk to your MLA about the realities of living in a corrupt house of labour.
Already done that weiser. Given them two briefs. One had promised me a chat with minister but I'm still waiting. However the MP did tell me one thng. He said that there had been a huge increase in the number of people he had coming into his office with complaints about their unions!
In preparation for your meeting you may want to get some statistics to help hammer home your point. Your provincial LRB should be able to give you totals for the number of Duty of Fair Representation complaints received in each year. If the stats show a steady increase, that's helpful information. You may also want to ask for the total number of Unfair Labour Practice complaints (complaints filed by unions against employers). Here in Ontario, I've heard that the number of DFR's now exceeds the number of ULP's. If you've got a similar situation (or if the # of DFR's is gaining on ULP's), that highlights that there's something very wrong with this picture. You may also want to find out how many DFR complaints are dismissed by the LRB. Over here, the percentage is something like 95%. This shows that the only avenue open to union members who have complaints against their unions is not providing them with much in the way of relief. It's also worth noting that DFR legislation is interpreted in a very narrow way right across the country. A member has to prove that the union acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Stupidity, incompetence or benign neglect don't cut it with the LRB's. In addition, DFR legislation doesn't deal with many of the issues that union members encounter.
Election irregularities, false or misleading information about how their funds are spent, no information about issues that stand to have a major impact on their lives - none of these are covered by the legislation.
Most people are not very familiar with the legislation and how it operates. This includes MLA's. If you're not directly involved with it, you tend to assume that it's working just fine. You may need to explain what's really available to union members and how it operates (almost always in favour of the union), so that your MLA is aware of the extent of the problem.
It's also helpful to come to the meeting with your own ideas about what should be done. An ombudsperson is one idea, you may have others. Some government agencies employ people to act as "advisors" to members of the public who have complaints in specific areas. Our WSIB (workers' comp agency), has staff who work as "Employer Advisors" and "Worker Advisors". Their job is to provide assistance and advice to people who have problems related to workers' compensation legislation. Something similar may be helpful to workers who have issues related to their unions. Currently, workers have nowhere to turn for advice. Their only option is to retain a lawyer. Apart from the cost, here's another problem with that: most lawyers who specialize in labour law represent employers or unions. They aren't interested in representing the little guy.
Those are just some thoughts. One last thing: don't forget to remind your MLA that this is an issue that affects (at least potentially), thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands) of voters.
Good luck. Keep us posted on your discussions.
Thanks for the info. I know that most government orgs have a sad reputation for supporting the "little guy"
We have an appointment with our MP in January and we are going with a member of the Canadian Labour Congress and a former International Rep. from the Steelworkers
(they ain't all bad!) The last conversation with the MP was gravitating towards a "David and Goliath" clause.
I don't think we should just hand the ball over to Joe and wait for an answer. Wouldn't it be better to set up a group of us from different unions who share the same difficulties and concerns. We could do the research, prepair the presentation and approach it as a united reform front. I'm sure the TDU has invaluable material and insights. Right here in Vancouver are several reform groups in different unions.
I think we'd accomplish a great deal more approaching this as a group. One of the things I've noticed on this site is union leaders think it's only individual "trouble makers" who are complaining. You can see it in thier posts on the forum. The UFCW think H.J. Finnamore is behind everything. The U.A. think a guy named Rick is behind everything. So it stands to reason when and if the house of labour is approached they will resort to this very tactic and try and get politicians to drop it on the grounds that it's just a few "trouble makers". Any thoughts.
I LIKE that idea. Do we go federal or provincial? I've spoken to both. They always sound very eager but I find you really have to push them. I guess that last sentence is a bit of an understatement.
I agree too! Hammering from all sides of the country is a great idea!
Getting signatures on anything which would make the machine responsible would not be difficult! The one thing to be sure of, the only reason the Power Source has been silent this long is because there has been no-one listening! That can and will be changed!
I think we should get a sign up sheet or something going and work on getting this started. Launch a meeting that can be done via conference call and get to work. There is much work to be done.
Has anyone done anymore with this?
We've had a request in with both Federal and Provincial MPs for appointments but so far...haven't heard anything. Time to rattle a few chains. I think you need more than a squeeky wheel nowdays!
Have you tried to get an appointment with the Minister of Labour? There's a guy whose office you might want to contact. They'll try to brush you off but keep insisting. You want to raise awareness of the issues everywhere you can. These guys need to understand the extent of the problem. Until they hear from workers who are really living it, they really haven't got a clue.