quote:

---

Originally posted by mahsbah:
I'm sick of being at the mercy of management, damnit.

---

Union bosses act like sweat shop supervisors.
So it all depends on your colour as to how you will be treated by the union.
Unions can not and will not tolerate people of colour adn aboriginals working on a job other than the ones that is predetemrnied by teh system fo white supremacy for them to do.
So if you are white then you can expect to be treated as a superior race by the union bosses.
Also if you are white and working at teh same palce as workers of colour and aboriginals then you are in luck because unions use workers of colour and aboriginals as bargainign chips to get more benefit for white workers.
So all and all it will be be your kingdom or queendom if you are union worker adn workign with visible minorities.
Racism of unions are so blont and no one seem to dare to do anything about it.
Visible minorities do not get representation, are beign told to ignore racism and just do your job and go home.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Negad:
Do you think workign on union job make you less in mercy of others.

---

I've read a few of your posts without responding because i've suspected you're a troll.

But you have been very persistent in expressing your opinion, so i'll ask you:

Do you have a specific, personal experience of racism at the hands of a union that you belonged to?

I once worked at a textile mill where the union's shop steward was a vocal racist, so it is entirely possible that you have had a very bad experience.

On the other hand, the Canadian labour movement puts a lot of work into addressing its own failings in this area, as well as resources towards fighting racism in the wider society. This too i know from personal experience.

So I'm going to have to ask you to also desist from your generalizations about the labour movement while you're presenting your own particular problems here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Correct spelling of "workign" is "working".

---

[ 26 January 2005: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

P.S. I'm hoping this is a mistaken impression, so please feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

[ 26 January 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

The grievance procedure protects everybody, though, regardless of PT or FT status. Also, some unions have been making much greater effort to reach out to younger and part-time workers, lately. Those unions recognize that division in the shop only helps management. The problem is that when it comes time to negotiate and ratify a contract, decisions have to be made about who gets what. And the people who get the most out of the contract are usually the people who have been around for a while, been committed to the job and most importantly, show up at the meetings to discuss and vote on contract proposals. That's usually, disproportionately, the full-timers in the bargaining unit.

[ 26 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

It is not an easy route, and it is a risky route. I never considered it seriously because i never intended to stay at many of my workplaces for very long, and i always had ambitions to exit the marginal job market that i was in.

If part-time work, general labour work, anything that you're doing, seems to be where you are going to be staying for a while, then it behooves you to do something about your non-union status.

Make no mistake though, many unions are unhelpful and indifferent [to] small organizing drives, especially given the potential expenses.

Employers are paranoid, vindictive, often powerful, and labour laws are often ignored with impunity.

But Canadians' individual cases of apathy and resignation add up to collective apathy and resignation.

p.s. I know that i talk a good game. I have no idea if i'd ever have the courage to start an organizing drive myself. Still, that doesn't mean that i'm just talking shit.

[ 26 January 2005: Message edited by: thwap ]

As for getting dicked around by management...I actually lost my job recently, so it's not a problem. I just don't like the idea of getting laid off again! (Obviously a union isn't a great protection against this).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Correct spelling of "workign" is "working".

---

[ 26 January 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by thwap:
Negad,

I've read a few of your posts without responding because i've suspected you're a troll.

[QB]But you have been very persistent in expressing your opinion, so i'll ask you:

Do you have a specific, personal experience of racism at the hands of a union that you belonged to? .

---

I once worked at a textile mill where the union's shop steward was a vocal racist, so it is entirely possible that you have had a very bad experience.

On the other hand, the Canadian labour movement puts a lot of work into addressing its own failings in this area, as well as resources towards fighting racism in the wider society. This too i know from personal experience..[/QUOTE]
So do you expect me to give them a medal for speakign about racism. Have done anything to conbat it or just talkign aobut it is einough.
May be to you but not to those who have to live with it on everyday basis.
Racism is talked about in a manner as if it is a minor flaw. Well thsoe who see it that way can not relate to those who see it as a serious problem. However what it counts are those who can relate to it.

So I'm going to have to ask you to also desist from your generalizations about the labour movement while you're presenting your own particular problems here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

The grievance procedure protects everybody, though, regardless of PT or FT status. Also, some unions have been making much greater effort to reach out to younger and part-time workers, lately. Those unions recognize that division in the shop only helps management. [ 26 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

---

[ 26 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Well, on the one hand, yes.

On the other: could someone correct my impression that the numbers/proportions of unionized workers in NAmerica have been going down steadily over the last (?) years? That there are definite trends here that are difficult for workers to fight in small groups, or in newly expanding sectors?

---

That's true. The rate of unionization among all American workers in 2000 was 13.5 percent and down considerably since the 1970's. The rate in Canada is about 35%.

And it's a given that the USA and Canada owning the lowest rates of unionized work force among developed nations goes hand-in-hand with nurturing the highest infant mortality and child poverty rates among richest nations.

I think if we, as a society, can see our way to placing the welfare of children first, or at least higher on our list of priorities than now, then we may realize an egalitarian and just society. Societies that were forced to place the welfare of children lowest on their agenda eventually self-destructed. Nazi Germany was a relatively recent experiment in infanticide and mass murder of children on through to today in Iraq where, according to UN estimates, 700 000 children have been allowed to starve to death or die of treatable illnesses and an illegitimate war since 1991.

In a fascist society, the only real opposition to vast concentration of wealth and extreme inequality are unions. In that sense, the N.American corporate-conservative war on unions and child welfare is a carry over from the Nazis war on human rights, socialism and unions in general.

[ 26 January 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Negad, while you obviously have very serious objections to "unions" and express very clearly that you believe they are racist (all of them? all of the people in them?), you aren't doing so in a way that makes it very easy for other people on this board to communicate with you.

---

What ethnic group in Canada suffers the highest rates of job discrimination and consequent higher than national averages for poverty and infant mortality ?.

Negad, can you provide us with any statistics that our lowest rates of unionized workforce in the developed world are linked to racism in any way ?.

Where is the private sector taking up the human rights slack in N. America when we have third world living conditions throughout so many of Canada's northern communities ?.

If you ascend the floors of any non-unionized corporation or bank, observe how the colour of the street below seems to fade away at each elevator stop.

Give this a go as your assignment in private sector racism for the year.

[ 26 January 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Negad:

I have a question adnit i snot retorical: why is that that there are not many people of colour in unionized jobs? do you think employers are the only parties responsible for that? Can you analyse different possibilities and any role that unions may be playing in this situation?

---

Since the employers are the ones doing the hiring, they are the ones bearing the primary responsibility.

But I'm not even sure that your assumption is accurate. I am quite certain that there are a number of unionized workplaces that predominantly employ people of colour.

If there is truth to your accusation, I'm still not even sure that there is a correlation to the presence of unions. That would mean comparing workplaces where people are doing the largely the same jobs, in communities with similar visible minority populations.

This is a separate question from asking why unions are more common in occupations that tend to include less visible minorities.

quote:

---

On the other hand, the Canadian labour movement puts a lot of work into addressing its own failings in this area, as well as resources towards fighting racism in the wider society.

---

Why is it that union organizing committees are fairly representative of the diversity of employees in the workplaces but later the union executive boards and bargaining committees are not fairly representative of the diversity of employees in the workplaces?

[ 01 February 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

A good point. But rather than dismiss all unions as inherently, irredeemably sexist, we could look to see how this imbalance occured, what CUPE is doing to try to correct it (if anything).

I've never said that unions were sacred or perfect. They are flawed institutions created by flawed people. But their mandate is to protect the interests of workers, while the private sector institutions are designed to maximize the profits of those who don't do the work. The union is a better institution to get to fight for workers' interests than is the corporation.

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Let say if workers in a country decide that they need to speak out about their rights and if the government send guards to silent them because government see their act as an act of "visceral animosity” what would you say?
From what I have seen from discussions of those privileged who seem to think they are better than everyone else, they seem to be under the impression that this is an act of fundamentalism that “only those people are capable of committing”. They use this for their own benefit and “prove” their supremacy only. Some seem to be so convinced that they are superior that they only try to prove it, they don’t want this concept to even be questioned.
So, you do not send armed guards to silent people who speak about discriminations that is being practiced on everyday basis, instead you use official or perceived power to make them to say and do things as you like to hear and see and only that, is this any different from sending armed guards? To me it is not. You are way too much in control to be needing armed guards to silent those oppressed. Believe me if people organize to stand up against systemic, subtle, overt or any kind of discrimination then the next step would be the same as the “fundamentalist” in ‘other” countries.
Go to different grass root groups and see what happens if and when someone brings up that it seems that everyone involved in this group is white middle class, where are the rest of community? you get responses such as: “we are open for anyone who likes to get involved; we have never done anything to them they just don’t show up and when they show up after couple of times they stop coming to meetings” it seems as if the individuals in these grass root groups feel sorry for themselves for lack of attendance of those marginalized and oppressed and “feel” any question about lack of attendance of those whose oppression they are talking about in their meetings is “blamed” towards them.

Stop “feeling” sorry for yourselves (when I say “you” or “yourself”, I am talking about those privileged that are unwilling to see the world through anyone else’s eyes or experience but their own) and look at how you treat people and see if that is the reason feel that they have to flea that environment. Although you express that you like to have “diversity of perspectives” in tackling an issue however as soon as a perspective may seem to be threaten your privilege then the people who bring that perspective must posses “animosity, hostility,..” towards you and also they are “volatile, histerical, un-stable,..”. You seem to be oblivious to that fact that regardless of what you talk about including other people’s oppression, everything is about you and your privileges and you overtly dominate every situation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewtgsadler:

[QB]But I'm not even sure that your assumption is accurate.

---

I am quite certain that there are a number of unionized workplaces that predominantly employ people of colour.. [/QUOTE]
there are, in area of hospitality services (cleaners) some cloths manufacturers and similar jobs only, not higher paying jobs and meaningful jobs.
Afterall many act on the assumption that “immigrants” are allowed in the country to do the jobs that white folks do not like to do.

Since the employers are the ones doing the hiring, they are the ones bearing the primary responsibility.
....
This is a separate question from asking why unions are more common in occupations that tend to include less visible minorities.

I'm not arguing that either case is less of a concern -- but pointing out that the correct response is entirely different depending on which problem you want to address.[/QUOTE]

I am not talking about you alone and I talking about many people on this site when I say: this is very concerning that a group of people who obviously never even concerned themselves about this issue, all of a sudden are in defence and jumping up and down. Throwing things at this issue and hoping something may stick. Why not take responsibility for your own education and learn about it instead of rejecting it because of lack of knowledge? You don’t want to believe it therefore you don’t want to bother with it . Of course If you do not learn about it then you can go on feeling that you are living in a peacefull and friendly country, adn that must be more comfortable for you, right.

Well, let's look at why unionized places are less representative of people of colour: true, employers do the hiring. However after they are hired and when union has the responsibility to represent them the same way as they do all other workers they hardly represent workers of colours.

Unions refuse to investigate concerns of racism and try to avoid it at all cost.
What would happen when a person is directly told by union officials at different levels that "why do you care that you are being treated certain way? Just come to work and do the job that the employer gives you and go home as long as you receive your pay cheque" however they don't seem to feel the same way about those white workers who demand for privileges that they are not evem entitled to according to the CA and they fight to get those privileges for those workers and only those workers.
Have you ever paid attention to any of these? or you see all fo these as normal, daily occurances and that is the way things are suppose to be?

Another point: as long as unions resist and avoid to deal with racism in a reasonable manneer with respect to the rghts fo targets(usually try to avoid it forcefully, when a person insist on proper procedure to be followed) at any cost including working in solidarity with the management then one can not talk about their human rights and against racism. Some of the things that they do make it very clear that they use people of colour as bargaining chips for extra privileges for themselves and other white workers.
In the past few months I have been trying to get the words out and have heard from those who have been target of discrimination in unionised work places. I haven't even been able to do it very actively. However many responded to it and maongst the evidences that came forward some are as damaging if not more damaging than evidences that was publicized against Texaco.
I am taking a chance and tell you about a portion of one case: there are solid evidence that a union trainer from a Canadian union that seem to be perceived as progressive by a lot of people, addressing those who bring forward concerns about racism as "thin skin, negative, some people think everyone is out there to get them", picks on one person’s accent. the training apparently has been arranged to deal with concern of racism at work place which union resisted to investigate or grieve. This trainer at no time even is attempting to address racism in general terms and when asked at any time about impact of racism the above responses are given.
What do you think would happen after a training like this which is also provided for the employer? Those who perpetuate racism go on very comfortably to continue with their actions and very comfortably see their targets as the problem as the “union trainer” told them, right?
This conduct and comments is not even from a member whose activity is contained within one local. A union educator/trainer goes to many locals and spread the same poison. In fact this kind of training and comments, very actively promots racism. There is not even an smal attempt to combat it.
They like to see peace by keeping those oppressed silent instead of combating oppression.
For all of those who can relate to this example: If Iraq or other countries that have been going through blood shed by USA would to hand over their oil and let USA control them then there wouldn’t have been any war, would there? Why can’t "these" people in "these countries" just can't be happy with what they are given and let us live in a peaceful world? Is tha too much to ask? These two peace makign methods sound quite similar to me.

It is not all that straight forward as many want to see it. When union bosses accept money from employer and workers can not separate between union bosses and employer bosses because they are working in solidarity in perpetuation of oppression then there is a big problem.

So I think before you start throwing things at this issue and goign on defence adn offence at the same time and hoping one may stick and putting the responsibility on others(those oppressed) to educate you even if some don’t want to be educated, first learn about it and then analyse and argue it or put a value on people’s actions or call them names.

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

What we don't see are the CIBC or General Motors advocating unionism or anthying that remotely resembles women's or indigenous people's right to a living wage for an honest days work in Mexico or Honduras. No phucking way. So run out the door and play hide-and-go-phuckyourself.

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I think it is important and valuable for us to have a conversation about privilege. I also think it is important for us to acknowledge the existence of power dynamics in all institutions, but particularly so-called "progressive" institutions, that are oppressive.

What I am not comfortable with, though, is talking in sweeping generalities by stating things such as "unions are only for white people" or that if you unionize your workplace all the people of colour will be fired. That's just not true. I can give a number of examples of union campaigns that have been organized and led by workers of colour and have in fact won valuable gains. My current experience is mostly in the US but I am sure many people here could also provide examples from Canada.

Just the other day I attended a forum (for Martin Luther King day) about Dr. MLK's endorsement and support for union campaigns by workers of colour (There's a good collection of quotes, for example, on AFSCME's website.) MLK is, of course, one man, albeit a very prominent one who held a great position of moral leadership in advocating on behalf of other workers of colour. But the subjects MLK spoke of went far beyond him. He spoke on behalf of a transformative social movement made up of people of colour standing together (with many white people standing with them in solidarity) to demand their fundamental human rights be respected, including their right to unionize. There are many other similar examples that may not be as widely known. A Phillip Randolph and the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Cesar Chavez and the farm workers. Even the contemporary Justice for Janitors campaign.

Labour is a social institution like any other. And like any other social institution there is viscious racism within it, both racist individuals and systemic racist practices. I believe those practices need to be exposed and fought. I understand that if you or people you know have had experience with this, you may not feel that this message board is a safe space to share information that might identify you. I don't want to second-guess your judgment or suggest that you shouldn't be welcome here because you refuse to share something that could come back to hurt you.

But I also think that when you only talk in generalities, and sweeping ones at that, you run the risk of being misinterpretted. My own belief about unions is, despite their problems, I don't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." From your posts so far, I am not sure I understand what you believe on this matter.

In my opinion, though, I perceive that there are right-wing and racist forces out there in the world, who would like to get rid of all unions. If those people succeeded I think that would make things worse for all workers, especially women workers, migrant workers and workers of colour.

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

If you ascend the floors of any non-unionized corporation or bank, observe how the colour of the street below seems to fade away at each elevator stop.

Give this a go as your assignment in private sector racism for the year.

---

What would you and unions say if the government was to say: just go south of the border and you will see how nice you have it here?
Then they can even change the subject to health care in USA by making that an issue. People will be talking about health care in USA and not Canada. Problem solved right.
If that was to happen, wouldn't government be off the hook?
What does one have to do with another? People will be talking about health care in USA and not Canada.
Fidel I am editing to ad this becasue I saw your psot after I posted this one.
Just because CLC is helping workers some where else int he world that doesn't mean they are dealing with it here as well and that is not even a jsutification. I deal with otehr people's racism to deal with my own guilt but won't bother to deal with my own racism. Lucky you if that is enough for you but not for me and many many people who live that life.

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

Your beef is not with the idea or the spirit of unions or worker's solidarity and right to bargain collectively for a living wage. A living wage for all human beings is what's on the line, and you're way over on the wrong side of the racism coin with regard to unions and employers, worker's versus parasites. ha ha

cheers and no hard feelings,please. I get riled easily, so forgive me.

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

So in other words, since capitalists invented racism and since there is a lot of racism in the outside world, that means we shouldn't talk about racism within labour movements, right?

Without unions, you people of colour would be worse off than you are now, so shut up about the racism you experience in unions, you should be grateful for what we've been willing to give you.

Screw that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Negad:
.

.......
But I also think that when you only talk in generalities, and sweeping ones at that, you run the risk of being misinterpretted. My own belief about unions is, despite their problems, I don't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." From your posts so far, I am not sure I understand what you believe on this matter.

---

I totally agree with you, union organizing does happen by people of colour and wins but what happens after it is organized is another issue.
“From your posts so far, I am not sure I understand what you believe on this matter.” I think we may have very different definition of being pro-worker for various reason. I don’t think it is fair to ask someone to accept me as a certain thing such as pro-workers just because I say so that should come through by itself. Therefore I am not going to ask you to accept me as certain thing however I see myself as person who is workign for workers and I am all for the concept of union however unions as they presently exist is what is the problem. Yes I do believe that the problem of racism by unions are wide spread and not contain in one union or few locals. There are number of people who have been expressing serious concerns aobut this issue and that in fact comes from their long time struggle for organizing workers in different parts of the world and paying swift consequences for that (don't take me wrogn I am not trying to sell one over another becasue by mentioning long time struggle. by itself it doesn't really mean anythign at all. the action is what it counts). However when it comes to using the power of union to oppress one group of people and get more privilege for another then I am not going to sit silently just because the concept of union is great and talking about discrimination by unions would give those anti-unions to try to destroy it.
I think one thing to keep in mind is that racism by so called "progressive" institutes and organizations such as “unions” is what put these organizations on the path to destruction and not those who oppose the racism. Lets put the responsibility where it belong.

Another thing that you should know is that there are some very clear and damaging evidence of racism by unions that could have been publicized long time ago or right now however the only reason that they are not being public is because no-one wants it to be used against workers as a whole and do not want any back lash against workers of colour either. I personaly beleive that these evidence woudl put some "unions" in the same rank as "Texaco".
We just like to bring awareness on this issue and demand for immediate action on combating racism at work places whether the ones that are perpetuated by unions or by employers.

I personally hold unions responsible for a great deal of the racism that is perpetuated at work places. They first need to take responsibility for it in context of their actions and start eradicating discrimination of all kinds immediately.

I don't know if you have started any threads on this site before. It's pretty much just as easy as replying to one. Just click on the "New Topic" button instead and it will open a new thread of the "Post Reply" one. Then a window will pop up for the new thread. You can then title as you see fit and frame the discussion in your first post in a way that you think will best bring out the important issues you are raising here.

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Earlier, I said that I suspected you might be a 'troll.' That is not my term for people who disagree with me. It is an internet slang for people who say things to anger people and get them to change discussions into shouting matches and insults. There was a possibility to me, that you were a right-wing anti-union person, saying anti-union things just to provoke a reaction.
I no longer believe this to be the case.

I believe you to be a person who has had a genuine personal bad experience within a union.

At the same time, I believe your statements about unions in general are unfair in the light of the genuine sincere efforts many people of colour and Canada's majority white population trade unionists have made to change unions and to combat racism in society.

I've never said that unions are perfect, sacred, and beyond criticism.

At one point you said that unions were racist and:

quote:

---

All you need to do is to have a look at web sites of unions. That is not even the only evidence but it is an start (Fidel, this is an answer to your question as well).

---

.................. Now, I'm not sure whether these images will even show, and i'm certain that some of these unions only have a window-dressing of diversity, but others are making genuine efforts, and if you click on their human rights campaign links, you will see real campaigns for justice for visible minorities:

From http://www.cupe.ca/

From http://www.psac.com/home-e.shtml

[IMG] http://www.ofl.ca/images/header_home.jpg]http://www.ofl.ca/images/header_home.jpg
[/IMG]

From: http://www.ofl.ca/

The OLF webpage banner does look predominantly white, but these two images highlight their public education and daycare campaigns:

from: http://www.ona.org/index.html

Finally, I know from personal experience that some unions treat all their membership equally, because I did this myself. As an executive officer with a university union I know that I never considered treating a grievance differently based on a members' ethnicity. I know what I did and didn't' do.

Again, whatever your experiences, people are making an effort. Unions are a worthwhile institution to reform and people are doing it.

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: thwap ]

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: thwap ]

It's just that knocking unions goes against the grain of worker solidarity, and we all know how unions are less of a factor in North American economies than they are in European and other nations. Unions are doing good things from Costa Rica to Singapore to Sweden. Singaporean's aren't dwelling on racism among the little people, the powerless; the working class. No they aren't. They're too busy enjoying what are the world's fifth highest incomes on average.

I'd like to add that unemployment rates being what they are in North America are do not encourage normal human activity within trade union movements. Favoritism and nepotism aren't the sole characteristic of private enterprise in any society, I understand as much. But the focus here has been on racism in unions, and quite over the top I might add, and deflection away from larger influencing economic issues.

Lets also understand that Conservative and liberal governments have waged war on North American unions over the last couple of decades. Labour unions have been decimated since Ronald Reagan and lyin' Brian. That's not just racism on a national level, it's fascism.

United we stand. And divided isn't an option anymore because it weakens an already weak worker's movement in North America.

[ 28 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mahsbah:
Does anyone know of union jobs (part-time) that are relatively easy to get? I'm sick of being at the mercy of management, damnit.

---

Some folks on here have pointed to the grocery industry as an example of a unionized part-time job. When I was in university, I worked in a bread factory. There's a large bread factory for each major grocery store chain in most provinces - Weston's, Canada Bread, Safeway/Lucerne, probably Sobey's has their own too.

They offered me full-time hours in the summer (victoria day to labour day) and one weekend shift per week in the winter. It started pretty modest (about $10 per hour), but within a year, I was making $18.50 on most shifts, plus benefits.

They start hiring quite heavily in early summer (April-May-June) because the increase in hot dog/hamburger bun production means pretty much a doubling of the workforce (a lot of folks quit in the fall when the hours drop off, or when they realize the shift work that's required).

Upsides: perfect hours for a student, decent pay, benefits, unionized.