In my mind, this story high lights the hypocrisy that hangs over Canadian mainstream labour leaders' house. The IWA local signed a crappy deal, there's no doubt about that, but how does that differ (as the article asks) from all the crappy deals that have been signed by unions with employers who were doing exactly what Compass Group was doing? Or is it OK to suck up to employers under certain conditions (like when you're on your own turf)?
I doubt that the CLC will amend its constitution in a way that actually prohibits these kinds of deals. The major players within the CLC would never let it happen if it meant that they might be subject to some kind of sanctions every time one of them signed a shitty contract in exchange for voluntary rec. I think Bro_Ken is just going through the motions and doing a little song and dance to appease the HEU (CUPE) contingent (which I don't think engages in the backroom boogie that much, at least not as much as the biz unions). You'll see that the issue dies a quiet death eventually. Any serious attempt to put a prohibition on backroom dealing would divide the mainstreamers faster and more deeply than a debate about union democracy.
MFD Weekend:A Breach In Union Security or Business as Usual?
Almost one year ago we brought you a shocking story about a covert attempt by a multinational hospital services company that was shopping for a union. The company was offering voluntary recognition to a union willing to sign a cheap collective agreement for its newly hired workers in health services institutions in British Columbia. Those workers would replace thousands of members of the Hospital Employees Union whose jobs had been done away with through privatization. An agent of the company, Compass Group, was caught on tape trying to line up a sweetheart deal with the British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union.
The BCGEU was not the only union that was approached by Compass. According to this article, HERE Local 40, the CAW, SEIU, USWA, RWDSU, UFCW local 1518 and even the HEU (an affiliate of CUPE) were tapped. All declined the British health services company's offer.
The leaders of those and other unions were horrified when they learned earlier this year that a local of IWA-Canada had signed a five year contract with Compass Group for housekeeping staff at Vancouver General Hospital. The agreement is a shadow of the HEU master agreement that covered workers at the hospital prior to privatization. The new five year deal contains a multitude of employer-friendly clauses and takes wages and benefits to rock bottom levels.
IWA-Canada has had a long history of working cooperatively with other unions, so Local 1-3567's deal with Compass came as a particular shock.
HEU complained to the Canadian Labour Congress President Ken Georgetti and to the B.C. Federation of Labour. Georgetti urged the IWA to reconsider its involvement in health care organizing but acknowledged that the CLC Constitution does not address situations like these.
Chris Allnutt, a spokesperson for the HEU stated that his union will work with the labour movement to strengthen the CLC Constitution so that the CLC has the necessary legal clout to deal with similar circumstances in the future.
In the mean time Allnutt stated that the HEU achieved a tentative agreement with the B.C. government that mitigates the impact of contracting out on union members and the public. That concessionary deal affects up to 46,000 front-line health care workers, however by signing on the dotted line HEU has found a sure-fire way to prevent IWA from getting any more workers health care workers into its bank account, at least for now.
Did the IWA-Canada break solidarity with the rest of the mainstream labour movement or did Local 1-3567 simply go boldly out and get recognition for a group of health care workers who would otherwise be even worse off as is suggested in this IWA bulletin?
Is there any significant difference between this Local's actions in cutting a cheap deal with an employer and all the other concessionary deals that have been done by CLC-affiliated unions in exchange for voluntary rec? If the CLC is going to take a firm position against these kinds of deals, what would it have to say about this one - arguably the mother of all sell-outs? Tell us what you think.
These "cattle drives" are getting embarrassing for unionism. At least the HEU had the balls to actually say something, to break the code of silence that appears to protect unionism's so-called "leadership".
Take the UFCW 1518 for example - they hung a bargaining unit out to dry leaving them all unemployed.That is well documented. The work went a few miles down the road to a new warehouse represented by the RWU. In that 10 year collective agreement it is clearly stated that only 35% of the members can ever be "full-time", that the remaining 65% get no benefits, the wages start at $10/hr in 1999 and stay at $10/hr even until 2009. The biggest "employer driven" clause states that the "major customer" (Overwaitea Food Group) can cancel the collective agreement at any time. Pretty good clause for a so-called "third party"!!!
What did UFCW 1518 have to say about this? Not a peep. In fact, when one of the warehouse members essentially asked the same questions about RWU that the HEU is asking about the IWA, UFCW 1518 was quick to apologize to the RWU and strongly admonished the member.
My hat goes off to the HEU for demanding some accountability for this "union vs union", "race-to-the-bottom" bullshit. 
The issue that HEU should be focusing on is "third party" status as it now stands. What if Compass arrived at a collective agreement with the HEU for five years and then, for the sake of arguemnt, the government decides they have found a "new" contractor and awards them the work. Who is the employer in this scenario? Is the HEU bargaining unit with Compass now unemployed? What happens if a facility/department closes/moves? Will the government use this as a "race-to-the-bottom" tactic to find the most employer-friendly union?
How many corporations are looking at BCLRB NO.s B391/2002 and B392/2002 decisions and thinking, "Hey this shell company bit has some great flexibility options from a human resource/labour cost viewpoint."