Stuck In The House Of Labour
Imagine that you live in a free and democratic society. You have the right to express yourself in any way you want and on any subject. You have the right to associate with whomever you want for whatever reason you want, to join whatever organization you choose or to start your own organization - for whatever reason you want. You have the right to follow the dictates of your conscience. Elected representatives who are bound by the will of the majority decide significant issues affecting people in your society. Elections are held at regular intervals and everyone who has the right to vote. These are really important rights in the society of which you are a member; so important in fact that they are protected by the constitution of your country.
In addition to these rights, you have many other civil or statutory rights. Various laws protect you from harassment, victimization by criminals, safety and health hazards, misleading advertising, defective merchandise, dishonest merchants and many others sources of harm.
Individual autonomy and the right to choose are fundamentally important in your society. Your right to choose is restricted only to the extent that it might cause grievous harm to others. You can do pretty much whatever you want when you want and you don't need anybody's approval to do it. You can buy and sell property, work in whatever field you choose, change employers, practice birth control, bail out of personal relationships, seek out workplace representation and even to bargain collectively with your employer. It's a good thing this free and democratic society with all of the rights and protections it affords the autonomous individual. Millions have come from all over the world to live here for this reason.
Now imagine that because of a group to which you belong, some of these rights don't really apply to you. There's nothing that says you are exempt from them. All the laws clearly say that they apply to "all". In theory they apply to you but in practice they don't. The leaders of the group to which you belong, doesn't like certain of these laws and would prefer that you not exercise them. They have set up their own procedure for dealing with you and your rights, in a way that gets the results that they want. The government, the judiciary, the people who administer your rights as a citizen - allow them to do this. They haven't exactly come out and said "it's OK" but they look the other way and encourage you to listen to your leaders.
This all sounds a little bizarre so let's use an example. Let's say that you belong to a certain religious order. You didn't consciously decide to join this Order; you were born into it and brought up with its values and codes of behavior. Your Religious Order is patriarchal. It's run by a bunch of high priests who have assumed positions of power based on their family connections. They believe they know what's best for everyone in the Order and rule autocratically. Within the Order, women are treated as second-class citizens. They have few rights of their own and are expected to bow to the will of the high priests. The high priests tell them who to marry and, once married, it's forever baby.
This is not exactly in line with the laws of the country, which say that you can divorce your spouse for any reason, at any time, provided that you go through the proper legal channels. But that hasn't stopped your high priests from imposing their own rules. The high priests don't exactly say that you can't take a walk if you really want to but they've imposed a process that makes it very difficult for you to do so. If you absolutely positively must dump whoever it is that they've chosen for you, you must get the approval of a group of high priests through a process called "justification".
Nobody knows much about this "justification" process, how it works or what kind of good and compelling reasons you must bring forward in order to get the green light from the high and mighty. That's because the high and mighty don't want to encourage people like you to do things they don't agree with and there really aren't any reasons good enough for them anyway.
Your Religious Order is concerned only with the interests of its members. Your spouse is a member but you are not. Under the Religious Order's special code you are your spouse's property and by extension, property of the Order. You have no rights as an individual. Your spouse can trade you away or put you up for sale and that's all right. As if that's not bad enough, you are required to tithe a certain portion of your income to the Order each week. In exchange for your dues, the Order has told you that it will take care of you and that it's high priests will keep you in their prayers.
The government, the judiciary and the agencies that administer the divorce laws in your country think this is just fine. It's a good thing in fact. They consider you dangerous if left to your own devices and are grateful for the control that your patriarchal Order exerts over you. They've left it to the high priests in your Order to administer certain laws for you because the high priests will keep you in line. They can decide if you can exercise your constitutional and civil rights. It makes a lot of sense to everyone who wants you kept in the house.
So let's say that you find yourself in the unfortunate situation of being married to a good-for-nothing louse. When you married him, the high priests assured you that it was a match made in heaven. Your spouse would take good care of you, treat you with respect and civility and protect you from all the enemies of the Order. They told you that if it didn't work out, you could leave but didn't mention the justification thing or the pressure and harassment you'd have to endure. You trusted them and deferred to their judgment. As things turned out, your high-priest-approved spouse proved neglectful, exploitative, abusive, a genuine bag of dirt. You tried hard to make it work but to no avail. You turned to others in your Order for help and followed their advice. You were patient, long-suffering and tried to understand your role. Nothing got better and finally, you decided it was time to hit the road.
You are before the Justification Committee of your Religious Order and about to plead your case. You really don't know whether any of your good and compelling reasons will be good and compelling enough. You assume that they will be. People outside of your Order are able to leave their bad marriages without offering up any reasons at all. Surely neglect, abuse, exploitation, dishonesty ought to be good enough. You'll see.
The Justification Committee can decide whatever they want. They owe you no explanations for their decision and you can't challenge their decision either. If you should decide to go against their decision and leave anyways, they will boot you out of the Order. This will put you in a really difficult spot because you will be isolated from your family, your friends, your work - everything and everybody that has given your life meaning. Not many have ever been booted and it is believed that the few who have, all met with a bad end.
If the high priests fear that you might leave and survive (something that may give others similar ideas) they may keep you hanging on by appointing a special high priest to conduct a hearing into your complaints and rule on whether or not you have good and sufficient reasons to want to leave. The special high priest is a respected member of the Order who is known to rule in its favor. Despite the low probability that you'll get their approval, you go before the Justification Committee on the appointed day and, alone and unrepresented by anyone, plead your case:
Exalted high priests of the Justification Committee, I wish to bail out of my relationship with my spouse whom you selected for me many years ago. My reasons are many.
I have been terribly misled by the high priests of the Order and badly mistreated by the sonofabitch they chose for me. Before I signed on the dotted line I was promised that he would take care of me, that it's a bad old world out there and I needed protection. I was told that he would act in my best interests or at least in our mutual best interests. I was told I was free to leave at any time if I no longer felt that the relationship was beneficial to me. I was told that I would always have the support and protection of the entire Order and that my wishes would be respected.
Well, things haven't worked out this way at all. He lies to me, he neglects me, he takes my hard-earned money and pisses it away on racing cars and trips to exotic places, he messes with my head and tells me this is all for my own good and that if I weren't so damned stupid I would see that and stop complaining.
I've given this a great deal of thought and have tried very hard to turn things around. I've consulted with the official counselors and advisors of the Order and taken their advice. I've been patient and understanding and have asked for very little except - on occasion - what I was promised before I entered this relationship. I'm afraid that he has not lived up to his end of the bargain and neither has the Order. Based on everything that I've done and had done to me, I have no confidence and that any of you have any intention of making good on your commitments to me. Life's too short to be wasted this way. Let me out.
The Justification Committee members roll their eyes and make unpleasant sounds with their noses. They look derisively at you. They are not impressed. The leader scowls at you and finally, speaks:
My dear, we are disappointed. You know the importance of the arrangement we made for you way back when. You made a promise to stay put and do the right thing - whatever we think that is. Your departure will be difficult for your spouse and it will make things awkward within our Order. We take pride in the loyalty and allegiance of our members and their property. It's what sets us apart from the rest of this evil society in which we live. It protects us from our enemies, which lurk everywhere, plotting and scheming our demise. Do you really want to destroy our Order and all the wonderful things it has done for you and your family? That seems to us to be quite selfish. Shame on you for putting your interests ahead of those of all the others who dwell in comfort and happiness in our house. You're not one of our enemies by any chance are you?
There is so much you don't understand about our Order and its objectives. That's no crime of course. We understand. That's why we're in charge and you're not. It's for your own good that you are here with us. Have you any idea what your life would be like without us? You've heard the stories haven't you?
We don't dispute that you've had a few problems along the way but really, we don't think you've tried hard enough to resolve them. Look around you. Do you see any others like yourself lining up to waste our time with your puny domestic issues. Your problems are of your own creation. You are lacking in patience and dedication. Try harder and things will get better. Besides, you cannot expect too much. Now be gone you selfish bitch before we sue you for maligning our venerable Order and one of its most esteemed members!
Well, so much for that. Back to the old port-o-potty that is your life to stand on your head for another eon.
What kind of bizarre scene is this? How can it be that in a democratic society basic rights and freedoms that apply to all citizens can be denied to an entire group of those citizens by a bunch of elitist bastards? How can elected representatives cede certain fundamental powers to a group of oppressive shmoes? Couldn't happen in our society, right? They'd never get away with it, right? The long arm of the law would step in and put an end to this cultish crappola, right?
If you changed "Religious Order" to "mainstream labour umbrella organization" and the fictitious woman in our example to a "union member", you'd be wrong, wrong and wrong. Our bizarre example is disturbing similar to what awaits any group of workers in our country if they decide they are unhappy with their union and would like to go elsewhere for workplace representation. The long arm of the law is wrapped warmly around the oppressive shmoes.
Let's be clear about this: Working people in this country have the right to freedom of association, to freedom of expression and to freedom of conscience just like every other citizen. Under their provincial labour relations laws, they have the right to join the union of their choice and to change unions at certain specific periods of time. These are legal rights that apply to all of them all the time.
Yet the labour umbrella orgs' (like the Canadian Labour Congress) internal rules prohibit them from exercising these rights. These in-house strictures are commonly referred to as "no-raiding" rules. These rules prohibit the umbrella orgs' affiliated unions for representing each other's members. So even if a group of workers really want to leave Union A and join Union B, they can't because Union B can't accept them as members. If Union B thumbs its snoot at the rules and accepts the workers anyway, it is subject to punishment, which has big implications. It can be booted out of the umbrella org and that puts it in a very vulnerable position because, while it's a sin for members of the umbrella org to "raid" each other, it's quite all right to "raid" unions that aren't in affiliated. It's considered a good thing. A fitting punishment and a lesson to others that might be getting ideas.
To make it look like there's some element of choice or chance for those workers who just can't be made to see the light, there is a "justification" process which involves going before some committee of the high and mighty and pleading your case. The high and mighty call the shots however and can decide your fate based on whatever criteria suits them. They can even decide to put the workers in some other union. Now there's choice for you!
The "no raiding" rule is justified as a good thing, something that promotes loyalty and unity in the house of labour and keeps various lurking enemies at bay. Those who want to approach their betters and seek justification had better be prepared for a good guilt trip and further encouragement to try harder to stop worrying and love the union they've got. The deliberations of the justification guys can take as much time as the justification guys want. Potentially, the process can play out until the workers' "open period" for changing unions expires and then their options default to one - the one they want to leave but can't.
So essentially, workers get one shot at joining a union. Once they've joined, it's forever. It doesn't matter if the union they joined as gone bad, or treats them poorly, provides dreadful service or deals away their rights in back rooms. That's it. It doesn't really matter that the law says they can change unions; it's OK for the elite group to which they belong to interfere with that right and throw up one obstacle after another to the point where the right exists in theory only. What good are rights if they can't be exercised?
On top of all this, unions themselves contribute to the problem by penalizing workers who seek to exercise their right to leave or even their right to speak out. Various union constitutions provide for all manner of penalties which can be assessed against members who do something contrary to the interests of the union. Penalties can range from fines, suspension of membership to outright expulsion. Some unions engage in more direct forms of oppression like initiating lawsuits against members who say things about them that are less than flattering.
It's time to end this outrageous interference with the legal rights of millions of hard working citizens. "Raiding" is a construct rooted in notions of ownership. The term itself implies ownership: Don't raid my territory. Don't take my property.
Working people are nobody's property. Changing unions is not about raiding; it's about rights. It isn't right that anyone - whatever their intentions - interfere with those rights to the point that they are meaningless.
Imagine if the next federal election rolls around, the governing party tells you that you really should not vote?
Citizens of our great democratic nation: Please don't vote in the upcoming election. We know it's your right to vote but we don't want you to. We fear that if you vote, you will vote for some other party and that is not consistent with our interests. We know some of you won't want to heed our advice and will want to vote anyway so, we're going to do everything in our power to prevent you from voting.
To discourage you from voting, we are going to set up a minimal number of polls, at inconvenient locations and far away from major roadways and transit routes. If you are so damned intent on voting that you are able to make your way to one of our limited number of polling stations when it's open, please proceed directly to the Justification Counter where a panel of our political hacks will determine whether you really need to vote.
Get our point? Obstructing the rights of citizens, be they constitutional, civil or statutory rights is wrong. No exceptions. It's time our legislators got their heads around this.
An MFD forum contributor goes to the CLC to ask for help with some problems: discussion
Last year, sick and tired of the goings on at Local 787, a few of the Local 787 MFD'ers decided to try contacting the CLC to get some help.
We waited for months and didn't receive any response so I decided to call. I was given the usual response of this person and that person had been away (when do they find the time to actually work) but my letter would be sent to the Ontario branch for action. Again no response. I called again and spoke the head of the Ontario department who listen to my story and she asked why we hadn't contacted them sooner???? With some mounting excitement I waited for an appointment to be set up for a meeting.
Several of us meet one morning with the appointed minion and he listen to our tale. When we had finished, he picked up the copy we had of the CLC Constitution and threw it on the table and told us that that was how much it was worth and it was doubtful that we would get any help. He was right. We never heard another word. Says it all doesn't it?
CLC President Ken Georgetti lays down the law during the infamous CAW-SEIU matter: link
Second and more importantly, the members of the SEIU locals in dispute, their leadership and the CAW, know the rules and procedures under which union members can change unions. In the CLC Constitution's vocabulary, it is called justification. These rules work well. Since 1992, there have been 20 applications for justification; nine were granted and most of the other 11 were resolved to the satisfaction of everyone involved.
If the issue was really about the SEIU members changing unions, they (or the CAW) could have applied for justification. These applications are reviewed by an independent ombudsperson and a recommendation is made to the CLC Executive Committee. After justification is granted, the CLC conducts votes among the members to choose from a number of unions, not just a single union. The process is open, democratic and fair, and ensures that all members have an opportunity to choose the most appropriate union.
CAW President Buzz Hargrove had a different view but has fallen mysteriously silent since the matter was settled and peace returned to the Canadian House o' Labour: link
Many progressives have asked why the CAW did not submit the current membership dispute through the CLC's "justification" process, or why we did not attempt to change the CLC rules through a constitutional change - rather than deciding to accept the SEIU members in violation of those rules. Like the CLC's process governing raiding disputes, the justification process reflects the arbitrary and politicized internal dynamics of Canada's union hierarchy. Ultimately it is the leaders of other unions who decide whether disaffected union members have "justification" to switch unions - the same union leaders who expelled the CAW for daring to offer a home to a group of workers seeking to leave their international. Worst of all, locals which apply for justification are left completely unprotected against the types of vendetta which the SEIU has launched against its Canadian members: the imposition of trusteeships, the firing of elected local leaders and staff, the launching of huge lawsuits against dissidents. It is widely recognized that the CLC's justification process does not offer a meaningful possibility for workers to change unions against the opposition of their former leaders.
The AUPE found out the hard way that it's hard to get out of the house: link
Concerned at these developments, AUPE approached the Canadian Labour Congress through NUPGE in January to seek "justification" under the CLC's constitution to be allowed to hold a vote of CUPE members to join AUPE, MacLennan said.
But while the CLC constitution gave AUPE the right to a justification hearing in seven to 14 days, the CLC instead chose to delay while it considered the CUPE raiding complaint filed two weeks later. "We tried to go through the process of justification before anything else," MacLennan said. "It's truly unfortunate that in all these investigations and accusations, very little thought is given in regards to these members and their wishes. To have a strong, relevant and vibrant union movement, labour leaders need to be addressing members' concerns and that means listening to and meeting with them rather than threatening them with a Constitution."
AUPE believes that this is about the democratic rights of working people and not property rights, which is how too many out of touch "establishment labour leaders" view members' rights.