The IWA does not need to make anymore sweetheart deals. At least, not for a while. The IWA have announced that they will be merging with another union. Five unions have expressed an interest: CEP, machinists, steelworkers, food and service workers and autoworkers. I wonder if the IWA membership will be included in the decision-making process? I also wonder whose best interests will come first?
IWA-Canada Response to Sweetheart Ruling
IWA-Canada Response to Sweetheart Ruling is Subtle as a Sledgehammer
In September of this year, IWA-Canada was found in violation of the Canadian Labour Congress constitution. The ruling came after the Canadian Union of Public Employees filed charges with the CLC in connection with some very management-friendly deals the IWA had signed with foodservice companies in the health care sector in British Columbia.
A CLC-appointed "umpire" found the IWA guity as charged. CLC President Ken Georgetti gave IWA-Canada President Dave Haggard until October 2nd to tell him what Haggard was prepared to do to bring the IWA into compliance with the CLC constitution.
On October 21st, Haggard finally responded - with a mouthful of terse rhetoric and a shot across the CLC's bow. His letter to CLC President Georgetti began with an angry attack on CUPE's criticism of the IWA. Haggard demanded to know what the CLC President was going to do about that. Unrepentent about the partnership agreements his union signed, Haggard went on to say that the IWA was, nonetheless, prepared to abide by the CLC constitution, and would refrain from signing any more of these agreements - unless the urge to do so hit them again.
Haggard stated, "...the IWA will not sign any further agreements with private employers in the health care sector flowing from the contracting out of health care services as a result of Bill 29." But then he quickly went on to qualify that statement. "I sincerely hope that, as a result of this commitment, health care workers are not left unrepresented. If this becomes the case, IWA will not hesitate to resume our efforts to secure union representation for unorganized health care workers in British Columbia".
Haggard was subtle as a sledgehammer about what his own expectations of the CLC. "In conclusion, with our commitment to sign no further agreements with private health care employers, we consider this matter closed. Further, I would expect you and the officers of the Canadian Labour Congress to ensure that other affiliates cease attacking and maligning my union once and for all."
What will be Haggard's next move if the CLC and its affiliates refuse to abide by the secret code of union officialdom? His opening tirade against CUPE may provide some insight. Taking the CLC to task for its failure to silence CUPE's criticism of his union, Haggard asked if certain unions are exempt from the CLC's house rules. It's a troubling question for the rulers of the Canadian house of labour as the IWA are not the only CLC affiliate to sign sweetheart deals with corporate partners. Other CLC affiliates have been doing just that for many years and have escaped criticism and censure.
The ball is now in CLC President Ken Georgetti's court. What will he do? Will he take a stand against sweetheart deals? Can he?
The Secret Code of Union Officialdom: "... the chiseled-in-stone commandments that govern relations among union officials, (are) a code seldom broken that mandates loyalty, mutual support, and a live-and-let-live attitude... In its most extreme and debased form, the code prescribes that you may run your union as you see fit, even honestly, as long as I am permitted to run mine as I see fit, without public criticism." (The Rising Tide of Union Democracy, Herman Benson, 1995)
Oh isn't Dave Haggard clever? Knowing that he's in political hot water with the CLC and one of its major affiliates (CUPE), he's put the word out that he's got the urge to merge and a bunch of potential suitors (who just happen to be other big players at the CLC) have lined up to make nice. Maybe it's just a coincidence but the timing sure makes me wonder. With all those heavies salivating for the chance to acquire thousands of IWA members, he'll get a much easier ride at the CLC.
Let the bidding begin. The members will still belong to a union, but what type of good job will the honcho's get out of the deal?
If they were really concerned about the members and only the members, they'd simply give them to the union that would do the best for the members. Hey! Maybe they'd even let the members vote. 
quote:
Vancouver Sun September 18, 1990B.C. Federation of Labor president Ken Georgetti says he has never gone into a Canadian Tire store or a Real Canadian Superstore because he does not approve of their treatment of employees.
Georgetti chooses to shop only at Safeway "because I think they're a good employer" and lists a variety of items as off-limits for him, including Red Coach, California grapes, Hyundai products, South African food and liquor and Louisiana Pacific wood products.
I guess Bro_Ken will avoid going to the hospital now. 
Trying to reconcile what the CLC says and what they do, I have to ask: What does the CLC do for workers? As jobs that supported mortages and families are steadily replaced by wage slave conscription, the CLC has essentially taken no stand in opposing these sweetheart deals or the ethics that drives them.
If past practice serves as any guide to what Bro-Ken will do in response to this embarrassing race to the bottom dynamic, my money says that the same result is likely- nothing of any consequence. "Hey, there's nothing we can do".
there was an article in The post about a one day strike by the BC softwoood manufacturers, it seems they are in negotiations.The IWA was sending a message to the manufacturers.I think it was Friday
VT asks:
quote:
What does the CLC do for workers?
The answer is that it enforces sandbox rules amongst those allowed to play in the sandbox
The CLC sandbox is in the system playground, and the playground isn't made for workers. It's made for their oppressors and handlers. Sometimes it's hard to tell the oppressor from the handler.
The playground is monitored by those who profit from the games. They are invited to monitor the playground by those who play there. If a playground monitor angers the oppressors and handlers playing there, they shun the monitor and find one who doesn't upset one player or another to the point that they refuse to play anymore.
The sandbox is monitored by the CLC and they put on sand castle building classes and go out of the playground to tell observers what's happening in the playground from the sandbox player's perspective.
Amongst the observers outside the playground are the people who work for a living. Some of them work for those in the playground and of those; many pay those in the sandbox to protect their interests. In a way, it's as if they own a sports team, but the team pays little mind to what the owners want because the players think the owners are real stupid and that they are incapable of understanding what's good for them.
Once in a while a person who works for a living will try to enter the park to get to the sandbox, so that he or she can tell the monitor that a player in the sandbox has pooped his pants. In those cases, the sandbox monitor will gently and deftly escort the person who actually works for a living to a safe distance from the sandbox, and promise to ask Mr. Poopie pants to clean himself up.
Apparently most of the other players like the smell of poopie pants as long as the poop doesn't get out and touch them. If someone does poop in the sandbox. There's a rule that all the sandbox players circle around the poopie one and they try their best to do the poopie laundry in the sandbox so no one finds out. Everyone can smell it, but as long as they don't see it, everything is cool.
Once the person who works for a living is gently and deftly pushed a safe distance from the sand box, he or she can either get the hell out of the playground or ask a playground monitor for help.
The playground monitors job is to attract the person who works for a living by wearing a badge that says, "If you need help or directions, Ask Me."
If the worker does either one, she or he is given directions to the closest park exit and advised to go there quickly. If she or he stays to question why he or she can't stay in the park and play, she or he is told that it's too sophisticated and dangerous a place for a person who works for a living. And besides, even though the person who works for a living paid to have the playground built and maintained, he or she is not welcome there.
If the person who works for a living tries to stay in the playground and argue, he or she is shown the rules that say that he or she can't stay and is given an order to leave immediately. If she or he stands his or her ground, the police (called the judiciary) are called and they tell the person in no uncertain terms that the park is no place for people who work for a living, so get the hell out or go to jail.
Naive question:
Is there a bright light on the horizon in the form of someone who might run against bro_ken in 2005?
quote:
posted by Solidarity When?:
Naive question:
Is there a bright light on the horizon in the form of someone who might run against bro_ken in 2005?
Oh there's no chance of that happening and even if someone did run against Bro_Ken they wouldn't have a hope in hell of knocking him off. This is because the CLC is not a democratic organization in any meaningful way. It's a club that's run by an elite group of members - the heads of the larger affiliated unions - for the benefit of the elite. The elite make the major decisions, including who's the club's leader will be. There is an "electoral" process and an actual election that is held once every however many years, but that is a tightly controlled process that is intended to generate a certain pre-determined result: The election of the leader who the elite have already chosen (or decided should be kept around for another term).
As I understand the CLC's electoral process, there is a vote of delegates at a convention. This is how the CLC's leader is chosen and how other major decisions are either made or ratified. The number of delegates invited to the convention is quite small (about 3,000 or so) when compared to the total number of union members who belong to unions affiliated with the CLC (about 2.5 million). Delegates to the convention are chosen by their unions in a variety of different ways. The more democratic unions actually have local elections for delegates. In less democratic unions delegates are handpicked by leaders at the national and local level. Even where elections for delegates are held, the election processes can be heavily skewed in favour of delegates that the union's leaders favour. In the case of some unions, delegates consist of union officials, local executives, business agents and similar machine heads.
However the delegates are selected there is little doubt that they are told how to vote on any issues of importance by their leaders. I've heard people on this site tell me that this is how it goes at these CLC conventions. You're told how "your union" is going to vote and you'd better tow the line. Failure to do so means that you will never attend another CLC convention in your lifetime and you'll probably be pushed to the sidelines within your own union.
In this kind of landscape, it's very difficult to imagine a reform candidate taking on Bro_Ken (it's doubtful that they would even get near the convention floor since their union has a lot of control over who attends the convention) but even if they did, it's not likely that enough delegates would break ranks and vote for them.
My sense is that workers should stop looking to the CLC for leadership, inspiration or guidance. It's not a worker-oriented organization at all. I'm hardpressed to figure out what useful purpose it serves in relation to workers' lives. As an advocacy group it's completely ineffective. Employers laugh at it. Government and political leaders ignore it. It exists to regulate relations between the heads of its affiliate unions and that's about it.
I know this will be controversial but what the hell, it's Sunday: I sometimes liken the CLC to a slave traders' association. A club where people who own and trade in human beings make up rules about how they will manage their property and resolve disputes about property rights. For instance, if a bunch of my slaves run away and show up at your door you won't be tempted to take them in and benefit from their labour but will call me up so that I can come and collect them and bring them back to my shop instead.
I think that workers should tell the CLC and the related umbrella orgs to go stuff it and start talking to each other directly about strategies and tactics that they're putting to use in their workplaces to advance their interests. This, I think, will be more effective and could actually promote solidarity among workers.
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
I think that workers should tell the CLC and the related umbrella orgs to go stuff it and start talking to each other directly about strategies and tactics that they're putting to use in their workplaces to advance their interests. This, I think, will be more effective and could actually promote solidarity among workers.[/QB]
[QUOTE]posted by remote viewer:
I think that workers should tell the CLC and the related umbrella orgs to go stuff it and start talking to each other directly about strategies and tactics that they're putting to use in their workplaces to advance their interests. This, I think, will be more effective and could actually promote solidarity among workers.
Isn't that what the CLC wants -- for workers to stop 'bothering' them? Once again, I may be naive but an alternative would be to continue to demand that the CLC step up and start listening to workers.
(Sorry about the double posting - I'm new to this technology).
Dan MacLennan and Buzz Hargrove told 'em to stuff it. Buzz eventually caved, but Dan's still saving a lot of dough and the AUPE is growing like crazy. They've become the union of choice for thousands formerly bound by the old-boys' club.
quote:
Province's biggest union, AUPE, to withhold fees to national body: Accused of raiding other unions, denounced at national convention:
Rick Pedersen, Journal Staff Writer Edmonton Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: Mar 26, 2001. pg. A.6
Alberta's biggest union is retaliating against labour groups for disciplinary action taken against it.
The 45,000-strong Alberta Union of Provincial Employees will withhold fees worth $1.1 million annually to the Canadian Labour Congress and two other affiliated unions, AUPE president Dan MacLennan said Sunday in an interview.
The AUPE has been suspended from its national union and the Canadian Labour Congress amid accusations it raided another union for members.
Three hundred support staff at a hospital in Grande Prairie, who belong to the Canadian Union of Public Employees, are voting today on whether to join the provincial union.
And in Edmonton recently, more than 500 long-term care workers belonging to CUPE voted in favour of joining the provincial union.
Larry Brown, secretary-treasurer for the National Union of Public and General Employees, said last week the Alberta union appears to have violated Canadian Labour Congress rules on raiding.
MacLennan denied the accusation and said the labour congress treated AUPE unfairly by suspending the union without a fair hearing.
"Just as the Canadian Auto Workers has continued to grow after being suspended from the CLC for standing up for workers' rights, so will AUPE continue to see growth and success," MacLennan said in a Sunday letter to union members.
The Alberta Federation of Labour condemned AUPE March 15 for raiding other unions, then on Friday the conflict erupted when MacLennan was denounced at a national union convention in Medicine Hat.
Judy Darcy, CUPE's national president , called MacLennan a union "outlaw" and threatened war within the labour movement.
AFL president Audrey Cormack said Sunday her executive board will meet today to discuss the situation and declined comment, except to say the situation "could be fairly significant."
MacLennan said his decision to suspend fees will cost the AFL about one-third of the $1.1 million AUPE will withhold this year.
Roughly the same amount of money will be withheld from both the CLC and AUPE's national affiliate, the National Union of Public and General Employees, which effectively put the CLC suspension into force by itself suspending AUPE.
MacLennan said the money will initially be held in trust but if the suspensions are not reversed, AUPE will soon use the money to replace the training and other services members receive from the CLC, the AFL and the national union affiliate.
The dispute has been simmering quietly for many months, as 700 full and part-time staff at several Edmonton nursing homes considered leaving CUPE to join AUPE.
MacLennan said they voted March 14 to join AUPE of their own free will.
"We never approached these CUPE members. We only responded after numerous requests."
The Capital Care facilities involved were the Strathcona Care Centre, Lynnwood Care Centre, Grandview Care Centre and Mewburn Veterans Centre.
AUPE has added 8,000 members to its ranks since MacLennan was elected president three years ago, he said, not counting the 1,000- plus CUPE members involved in the votes on March 14 and today.
quote:
Isn't that what the CLC wants -- for workers to stop 'bothering' them? Once again, I may be naive but an alternative would be to continue to demand that the CLC step up and start listening to workers.
Yes and no. Yes, the CLC wants workers to stop bothering it. But it does not want them to take matters into their own hands either. The large heads who run the CLC are elitists and elitists have a vested interest in having the masses defer to their (supposedly) better judgement.
If workers are permitted to take things into their own hands then the elitists at the CLC will quickly become even more irrelevant than they already are. God forbid too, that workers acting on their own, might actually make some positive things happen. In addition to making the big heads at the CLC look irrelevant that would also make them look stupid.
Demanding that the CLC step up and start listening to workers is one strategy or course of action that is open to workers, however, I doubt that it will be successful. Workers have been demanding this for years and nothing's doing. This is not because the heads of the CLC are at the mercy of various forces that are making it impossible for them to step up and listen (never mind actually do something once they've listened). There is nothing that prevents the CLC from becoming a more worker-centered organization except the elitist mentality of the men who run it. The problem with elitists is that, by their very nature, they believe that they are right, that they know better than the people they represent and that they must control everything. To acknowledge the concerns of working people is to somehow accept them as equals. You just can't do that if you're an elitist.
Way out west here it is very sad but true that the IWA stands for "I Walk Alone "when it comes down to what little they do for the membership they are supposingly representing. We are very much on our own and at the mercy of the big corporations Weyerhauser, Interfor, Timber West and the rest of the FIR members.The members are in a state of shock with FIR's annoncement tuesday forcing a contract upon us because of the IWA's failure to negotiate. And we are told to carry on working even with the conncessions forced upon us in this new so-called temporary contract till the boyz decide what to do about it. We certainly have some great leadership in our sand-box, certanly more poop then sand. It is time to empty the sand-box.