babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Back to Work Legislation, the UTU and CN Rail

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Back to Work Legislation, the UTU and CN Rail
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 23 February 2007 08:46 AM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So, what are people's thoughts on the fact that the federal government is about to legislate them back to work?

I'm not really familiar with the issue myself, so I'll keep my opinions to myself for now, but I'd just like to say that from what I've been reading / have experienced, it seems like back to work legislation is not really warranted nor desirable for the labour movement as a whole.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 27 February 2007 08:33 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd be interested in people's thoughts on Jim Stanford's recent rabble column as well.

Canada's labour movement must find its own voice

quote:
The two-week strike by conductors and yard-service workers at CN Rail has had many economic and political repercussions. By the end of last week, Federal Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn had issued a back-to-work order, and was readying legislation to forcibly end the strike — an authoritarian but now routine government response. The strikers could return to work sooner, if the two sides can reach a voluntary agreement.

The chances of that happening were badly undermined, however, when Canadian union negotiators were removed from office by their U.S. parent: the Cleveland-based United Transportation Union (UTU). It's hard to settle a strike when you're not sure who's on one side of the table.

Indeed, the U.S. leaders had argued (along with CN itself) that the whole strike was unauthorized and hence illegal — despite a 96-per cent strike vote by the actual members. The Canadian Industrial Relations Board eventually endorsed the legality of the strike. But the fact CN and the U.S. union leaders were both attempting an end-run around the Canadian union negotiators, wasted precious time and destroyed the bargaining.

The CN debacle has highlighted a still-simmering issue within Canada's labour movement. Close to 30 per cent of Canadian union members still pay their dues to U.S.-based organizations, and hence are subject to the whims of their American leaders.



From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 27 February 2007 08:53 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, things have evolved since then. The puppet officials sent in by the international have now negotiated a one-year tentative agreement which is basically a status quo deal that had already been rejected by the fired bargaining team before the strike started. Also, the Labour Minister has said that if strikers return to work (which is basically complete - the fired Canadian officials had called for that last week and now the U.S. puppets are calling for it too), he'll hold off on the back-to-work bill (even though it's already had first reading) while awaiting ratification results, due back March 26.

Having said that, Stanford of course is correct about the need for Canadian unions in a general sense. The reason the striking UTU members are likely to now join the Teamsters, however, has nothing to do with that debate. No one particularly wants a U.S. union nor do they like the Teamsters. The simple fact is that they work together, in the same locomotive cab, with a locomotive engineer, and those people's old union (the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers) dissolved into the Teamsters a few years back. The Teamsters have already displaced the UTU on VIA and CP, so it's only natural that both workers in the cab should belong to the same union. Having been betrayed flagrantly by their U.S. HQ, the natural and simple choice right now for the strikers is to be "raided" by the Teamsters. It will reduce the number of unions by one and give them greater bargaining power, while reflecting the community of interest between conductors and engineers.

So it's a little more complicated than Stanford suggests, though ultimately, with the CAW being the biggest union on the railways (and the only Canadian one) and a strong track record (no pun intended), one can predict further consolidation in that direction. Just not right now.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 27 February 2007 09:21 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The mainstream media has been largely silent on the internal struggle, but The Tyee has an excellent article on the subject.

Rail Strike's Strange Route: Canadians may be forced back to work as their US union boss sides with CN

quote:
But the American CEO is not the only one upset about the almost two-week strike being carried out by the company's conductors -- members of the United Transportation Union -- that has impacted business from the Port of Vancouver on out across the country. In fact, UTU International President Paul Thompson and headquarters in Cleveland Ohio declared the strike by the Canadian section in violation of the union's constitution.

Representatives of the UTU argued alongside the company in trying to get the strike declared illegal at the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and Thompson has this week suspended the four Canadian general chairmen and appointed new chief negotiators for the strike.

"They were removed from office, and suspended from UTU membership, for violating the constitution of the union," UTU spokesperson Frank Wilner told TheTyee. "They violated the constitution on two grounds. One was engaging in an unauthorized strike, and the second was negotiating a merger or affiliation with another union," Wilner added.

"It is pure fabrication," ousted UTU general chairman and chief media spokesperson Rex Beatty countered, telling The Tyee that it was in fact UTU International that first explored merging with another union without allowing Canadian members to have a say in the matter. "Under Canadian law, the board certainly never would have allowed that," Beatty said.

"They [The International UTU] will probably fulfil their own prophesy simply because they took such an aggressive move in an attempt to side with the CN to have the strike declared illegal. There is a groundswell to address, so whether that's returning to the UTU or to seek representation with another union -- that's probably more likely now than ever."

Some rank-and-file UTU members told The Tyee that this was a simple case of American union bosses selling out their Canadian members, alleging that union president Thompson and CEO Harrison had an overly friendly relationship.



From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 27 February 2007 02:09 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Stanford of course is correct about the need for Canadian unions in a general sense. The reason the striking UTU members are likely to now join the Teamsters, however, has nothing to do with that debate. No one particularly wants a U.S. union nor do they like the Teamsters. The simple fact is that they work together, in the same locomotive cab, with a locomotive engineer, and those people's old union (the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers) dissolved into the Teamsters a few years back. The Teamsters have already displaced the UTU on VIA and CP, so it's only natural that both workers in the cab should belong to the same union. Having been betrayed flagrantly by their U.S. HQ, the natural and simple choice right now for the strikers is to be "raided" by the Teamsters. It will reduce the number of unions by one and give them greater bargaining power, while reflecting the community of interest between conductors and engineers.

So it's a little more complicated than Stanford suggests, though ultimately, with the CAW being the biggest union on the railways (and the only Canadian one) and a strong track record (no pun intended), one can predict further consolidation in that direction. Just not right now.


Well, my quibble with Stanford's article was that he was trying to frame the dispute in a Canadian vs. U.S. unions framework whereas all the unions involved are actually U.S.-based internationals.

For that matter, Stanford should be careful about tossing around allegations regarding the so-called "dubious democratic record" of International unions. His own union has a less than perfect record on that front, as evidenced by what happened to Willie Lambert last year.

IMO, a "Canadian union" for CN makes little sense when the CN itself has an American CEO and forms just one part of a transnational corporate rail system. Rather I see the direct appeal of having an International that can bargain in a continental market, placing pressure on the employer both in Canada and the United States. The appropriate union may not be the UTU, but it is apparently not the CAW either.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 27 February 2007 04:28 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:

IMO, a "Canadian union" for CN makes little sense when the CN itself has an American CEO and forms just one part of a transnational corporate rail system. Rather I see the direct appeal of having an International that can bargain in a continental market, placing pressure on the employer both in Canada and the United States.


That's as remote as can be from the reality of trade union history in recent decades.

There has never been any cooperation whatsoever between the U.S. and Canadian branches of the same railway unions, even though CP and CN have operated extensive U.S. lines for many decades (Soo Line, GTW, Delaware and Hudson, etc. etc.). It's not for lack of will. The labour laws and jurisdictions are so totally disparate that meaningful cooperation is non-existent. In over 130 years of unionization, same unions on both sides (starting with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the strongest of the old craft unions and most essential to the operation), there has never been one single instance of joint action.

There was slightly more cooperation in the auto industry in UAW days, but the only meaningful coordination was the selection of a "target" company for pattern bargaining. Even so, the bargaining was separate and distinct. By the early 1980s, the ideologies and agendas were so divergent (primarily concession bargaining in the U.S. vs. strong resistance to that in Canada, and strivings for independence on the Canadian side, especially as evinced during the United Aircraft strike of 1974-5), that the split became inevitable. There was no discernible loss of bargaining power in facing the Big 3.

The portrait is unfortunately the same with other cross border transnationals which happened to have the same union on the property. Perhaps you could name one single example where the existence of an "international" union was used to any visible effect in coordinating a united action of Canadians and U.S. members to beat an employer. I know of none.

Speaking from personal experience, Canadian workers tend to see all the negatives of "international" affiliation and reap none of the benefits. Perhaps that is why U.S.-based unions, which once enjoyed the lion's share of the unionized workforce in Canada, have seen a steady decline and now are below 30%.

Workers change unions from time to time. When was the last time you saw them leave a Canadian union and join a U.S. one? Exactly.

ETA: Speaking of CN and its U.S. CEO - when was the last time you heard of a railway strike of any significance against CN in the U.S. - or against any railway for that matter? The U.S. government has, and uses, extraordinary measures to crush strikes before they gather any strength - such as the President's emergency boards and other such made-for-railway strategems. Railway workers in Canada have much more freedom of action than that, even though they too must use their strike power judiciously in order to avoid legislation.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 27 February 2007 04:39 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
The mainstream media has been largely silent on the internal struggle, but The Tyee has an excellent article on the subject.

It's a very good article indeed, Scott. It accords quite closely with what I hear on the union grapevine about what the UTU members have been saying. As for Rex Beatty - the lead Canadian negotiator who led the workers out on strike in defiance of the U.S. headquarters, and got fired along with all his elected colleagues for his efforts - he has apparently attained a sort of mythical demigod proportion for standing up to the U.S. dragon. Not because of anti-U.S. sentiments, but because they betrayed their own members the first time they launched a "real" strike and needed their union the most.

Beatty and his team have since reacted by calling on their members to sign Teamsters' cards. I repeat, the reason for this is not any love for the Teamsters as a union, but purely because their co-workers, the locomotive engineers, belong to the Teamsters, and this appears to be the only method both to forge unity with them as well as get out from under their own discredited U.S. union.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 27 February 2007 06:28 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Perhaps you could name one single example where the existence of an "international" union was used to any visible effect in coordinating a united action of Canadians and U.S. members to beat an employer. I know of none.

Steelworkers, Goodyear Tire, this past winter?

quote:
When was the last time you saw them leave a Canadian union and join a U.S. one?

IWA-USW merger, 2004

I think Canadian nationalism has played itself out in the labour movement. IMO, Globalized trade necessitates that we start seriously talking about labour internationalism in all its forms.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 27 February 2007 07:06 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:

I think Canadian nationalism has played itself out in the labour movement. IMO, Globalized trade necessitates that we start seriously talking about labour internationalism in all its forms.

You're right, the Goodyear strike was waged simultaneously north and south of the border, I stand corrected. But I seem to recall rather tough concessions granted - the one that stands out is two-tier wages for new hires (I believe?) - that's the kind of concessionary atmosphere that created the UAW-CAW split. Mind you, I can't guarantee that the CAW these days is as concession-free as it was then...

You're also correct about the IWA, although they were once a branch of the IWA (U.S.), so maybe they were just returning home? I don't know much about their story.

I do agree with your statement about the growing need for internationalism. But Jesus Christ, that doesn't mean joining a U.S.-based business union!! Please don't mix up the two. The only way Canadian workers can build a truly international labour movement is if they own and control their own independent trade unions - with no strings attached.

In short, a prerequisite for internationalism is independence.

To return to the railway, I agree with you, and not with Stanford - Canadian vs. U.S. unionism is not the issue there, the issue is the betrayal by the gang in charge of the UTU. It's interesting to note that the two previous administrations of the UTU (U.S.) are in jail...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 03 March 2007 04:23 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yesterday, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) filed an application for certification with the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) on behalf of approximately 2,500 conductors employed by the Canadian National Railway.

The conductors and trainmen are currently represented by the United Transportation Union (UTU).

“UTU members have made it loud and clear. They want to belong to the same labour body as CN’s locomotive engineers. We feel that we are obviously their best choice as we work side by side in the cab of the locomotive and represent a large portion of all rail workers,” stated TCRC President Dan Shewchuk.

Furthermore, decisions made by the UTU’s officers in the United States have motivated Canadian UTU members to join the Teamsters.

“The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference is an autonomous body within the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. UTU members are aware of that and are very happy to be joining our ranks. They will finally have the ability to regain control of their union,” added Shewchuk.

The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference currently represents CN and CP locomotive engineers and rail traffic controllers as well as CP’s conductors and trainmen and Maintenance of Way Employees.

The CIRB will make its decision known within the next few weeks.


Teamsters press release


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 12 March 2007 10:31 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A fairly balanced report from the CAW National Rail Crafts' Council. I suppose they don't really have a dog in this fight, in any case I think it's good of them to put this information together.

quote:
On March 1, 2007, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) filed an application with the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) for certification of approximately 2,500 Conductors and Yard Service Employees employed by CN, employees currently represented by the United Transportation Union (UTU), who are in the process of ratifying a one-year contract that was just negotiated with CN. The deal came following a two-week strike by UTU members.

Ratification results will be known on March 26th, which is when the mail-in ballots are counted in the UTU's Ottawa offices.

In a recent press release, the newly elected President of the TCRC, Dan Shewchuk, said: "UTU members have made it loud and clear. They want to belong to the same labour body as CN's Locomotive Engineers. We feel that we are obviously their best choice as we work side by side in the cab of the locomotive and represent a large portion of all rail workers." The TCRC news release went on to say that decisions made by UTU officers in the United States have motivated Canadian UTU members to join the Teamsters.

"The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference is an autonomous body within the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. UTU members are aware of that and are very happy to be joining our ranks. They will finally have the ability to regain control of their union," added Shewchuk.

The TCRC currently represents CN and CP Rail Locomotive Engineers and Rail Traffic Controllers, as well as Conductors, Yard Service Employees and Maintenance of Way Employees at CP.

UTU-Canada Vice Presidents John Armstrong and Robert Sharpe, in a notice to CN UTU members urging them to accept the tentative one-year agreement, said: "as if the government and our dispute with CN weren't making our lives difficult enough, everything is further complicated by the fact that the international Teamsters union has tried hard to split our ranks. In our view, they have broken both the spirit of trade unionism and the tradition of the Canadian labour movement by conducting a raid during our legal strike."

"We have a federal government that threatens to legislate away your rights and force you into Russian Roulette arbitration. And, as if all that was not enough, the International Teamsters Union has been turning brother against brother, sister against sister, dividing us at the very moment when we need to unite to win a good collective agreement. We are so saddened that another union – the union of some of our fellow employees at CN – would stoop so low as to raid us while we are in this crisis and contract dispute/strike situation with CN," added the UTU VPs.

The UTU has filed a formal protest with the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). The CIRB will render its decision on the TCRC certification within the next few weeks. In the meantime, the UTU continues with its ratification of their one-year contract that was reached tentatively with CN on February 24th.

The UTU faced several challenges at the bargaining table and while their members were engaged in legal strike action – continue to negotiate the removal of many concessionary demands that CN still had on the bargaining table; deal with internal problems that caused the UTU to remove it's four elected Canadian General Chairpersons; challenge the Teamsters decision in their soliciting UTU members at CN picket lines to sign Teamsters union cards; and to beat the clock on the government's threat of back-to-work legislation. The Federal Government introduced back-to-work legislation, Bill C-46, on February 23rd, 2007.

This Bill will mandate that the Federal Government appoint an arbitrator of their choice to resolve all outstanding matters by “Final Offer Selection.”

The government suspended Bill C-46 pending the results of the UTU ratification vote. Should UTU members turn down the tentative deal, the government is expected to immediately call a vote in the House of Commons to enact the legislation (Bill C-46) and restrict UTU members from re-exercising their strike action. The UTU and CN would not return to the bargaining table, instead, a final contract would be settled by Final Offer Selection process.


Teamsters file application with CIRB to certify CN UTU Conductors: UTU files protest with CLC citing a raid by Teamsters (CAW National Council 4000)


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 March 2007 10:29 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a strange CAW article - looks like some Local's take on the situation. It talks about the "UTU" without acknowledging the obvious fact that the UTU has been irrevocably split over the past month, between what seems to be the significant majority of rank-and-filers who support the fired General Chairs and the small minority who support the U.S. headquarters.

That's reflected in the fact that the Teamsters filed signed cards representing some 65% of UTU members with the Canada Industrial Relations Board last week.

In any event, Buzz Hargrove carved out a much more partisan stand on behalf of the CAW than the article quoted above did:

quote:
But the hardest pill to swallow is the reaction of their own U.S. headquarters. Despite a 96% strike mandate and Canadian law being fully respected, the U.S. headquarters has not “approved” the strike. This means no strike pay or other support. The UTU international president chose to widely circulate documents publicly accusing the Canadian elected leaders of numerous allegations.

The CAW does not accept any interference by U.S. leaders in the affairs of Canadian railway workers. We know and work closely with the UTU members, local leaders, and General Chairpersons. We have full confidence in their ability to made their decisions and handle their affairs.

I have pledged the full support of the National union to General Chairperson Rex Beatty and his
bargaining committee. I call on all CAW members to continue full support.


CAW website.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 March 2007 07:04 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The article you linked is a month old, whereas the one I linked was webposted on Monday. I figure the CAW rail crafts folk are probably hedging their bets now because they want to be able to work with whoever comes out on top, whether its the Teamsters or the UTU.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 10 April 2007 08:27 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Railway workers vote "NO" to tentative agreement

quote:
Canadian National Railway Co. workers have strongly rejected a tentative one-year agreement, setting the stage for rotating strikes.

Members of the United Transportation Union voted against the proposed labour pact, which was reached on Feb. 24, ending a 15-day strike and averting back-to-work legislation.

A simple majority was required to ratify the labour deal. But of the 2,317 ballots cast, 67 per cent of UTU members rejected the pact, UTU spokesman Frank Wilner said late Tuesday night. There were 1,553 no votes, 402 yes, 148 ineligible and 214 spoiled.


The rejection was expected, given the hatred by the rank and file of the international after all that has been done to the members.

Incredibly, the international had already notified CN, a couple of weeks ago, that strike action would re-start if ratification failed. This is the same international which pronounced the strike "illegal" in the first place; refused strike pay; and fired the entire Canadian elected leadership.

Of course, their aim is to immediately trigger the back-to-work legislation, thus hoping to ward off the Teamsters' application, which was backed by cards representing roughly 71% of the UTU members.

My prediction (we'll know soon enough): Almost no one will heed the strike call, except some scattered locals and individuals here and there. The international, in league with CN, will lobby the government to go ahead with the back-to-work bill anyway. If it doesn't work immediately, CN will have to consider a lockout - they may even consider one sooner.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 11 April 2007 05:44 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do you know if the CIRB has made a decision on the Teamster's petition yet?
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 11 April 2007 05:49 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Do you know if the CIRB has made a decision on the Teamster's petition yet?

No. They deliberately extended all the timelines for response until after the ratification - hoping, no doubt, that that would somehow make the whole thing go away!

The first decision the CIRB has to make is whether to "grant consent" to file. Both the UTU and CN have argued that there was a strike on at the time of filing (not actually true, but nonetheless), and the Code bars certification applications during a strike/lockout unless the CIRB consents.

I am pretty sure the CIRB will consent - it can't be said the Teamsters somehow took advantage of the workers during a strike situation, it was more a mass revolt against Cleveland - and in any event, with over 70% cards signed, the CIRB would be seen to be thwarting the democratic right of workers to simply have a vote as to which union should represent them.

Sorry for the long-winded answer.

As of now, I hear Vancouver, Kamloops, Sioux Lookout and Oakville may be out - most if not all of them isolated strongholds of the UTU international. In other words, they were likely among the 20.6% who voted yes.

This is getting interesting again.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 April 2007 12:40 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is crap. They shouldn't be legislated back to work. Freight trains are not an "essential service".
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 11 April 2007 12:43 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not that I'm for back to work legislation, but I would argue that it IS an essential service.

The ratio of energy and Green house gas of trains compared to transport trucks is essential to our hitting Kyoto agreement.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 11 April 2007 08:14 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

My prediction (we'll know soon enough): Almost no one will heed the strike call, except some scattered locals and individuals here and there. The international, in league with CN, will lobby the government to go ahead with the back-to-work bill anyway. If it doesn't work immediately, CN will have to consider a lockout - they may even consider one sooner.

Well, I shouldn't really quote myself - but how often am I right!?

CN Rail locks out picketing workers as dispute escalates

The media, of course, are too lazy to tell the whole story. The U.S. office of the UTU, in bed with CN, are preparing a disaster for not only their own members, but railway workers and federally regulated workers as a whole. Out of the UTU leadership's own greed and desperate need for self-preservation, they will deliberately trigger federal back-to-work legislation for the first time in a decade. The UTU is dead, but in its death throes it will do some damage yet.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 11 April 2007 10:52 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It demonstrates the need to end international unions. I don't think having the Mafia represent the rail workers will end the problem. The Mafia is infamous for its sweetheart deals with U.S. employers and the muscle to make its members accept it.
From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 12 April 2007 06:39 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well first, of course, I would like to add my own voice in condemnation of the CN bosses and their Conservative/Liberal cronies for pushing back-to-work legislation, instead of actually showing enough respect for those workers who keep the trains running to listen to their concerns about job protection and railway safety.

Second, I congratulate the Canadian Teamsters for signing up UTU members and getting them to join a much more democratic and relevant organization.

A union like the UTU, which has constitutional provisions that allow a foreign-based president to autocratically remove the elected Canadian representatives and appoint someone to negotiate contracts without any accountability to the members either needs to be wholly restructured or scrapped altogether.

It's obvious the US leadership thinks the Canadian members are expendable. At least that's how it appears given the leadership's actions.

Third, what's fundamentally needed here is that CN needs to be democratized and restructured as a more democratic socialist venture, such as a worker and/or consumer cooperative or employee council--instead of profiteering destructive dictatorial greed-heads and bureaucrats who want to suck as much money out of the firm as possible and line their pockets at everyone else's expense.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 April 2007 07:08 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bobolink:
It demonstrates the need to end international unions. I don't think having the Mafia represent the rail workers will end the problem. The Mafia is infamous for its sweetheart deals with U.S. employers and the muscle to make its members accept it.

That's a bit over the top, but coming from someone who obviously has no familiar with unions in Canada or the U.S., it's not that distressing.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 April 2007 07:09 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good post, SA, I agree of course on all points.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 12 April 2007 05:09 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

That's a bit over the top, but coming from someone who obviously has no familiar with unions in Canada or the U.S., it's not that distressing.


Perhaps you can tell me where Jimmy Hoffa is buried?

But my point goes back to the stresses in the old United Auto Workers. In negotiations with the big three, it became obvious that the UAW was prepared to sacrifice its Canadian brothers to protect American jobs. Bob White and his followers formed the Canadian Auto Workers in response.

Yes, Canadian National is an American-owned multinational corporation. But why can there not be separate Canadian and American unions? It worked in the auto industry which is also multinational and American/German owned.


From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 April 2007 06:56 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bobolink:

Perhaps you can tell me where Jimmy Hoffa is buried?


Yes, I can.

quote:
But why can there not be separate Canadian and American unions? It worked in the auto industry which is also multinational and American/German owned.

The largest single union on CN, CP and VIA Rail is the CAW. It is Canadian.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 13 April 2007 06:00 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

The largest single union on CN, CP and VIA Rail is the CAW. It is Canadian.


Then why should the strikers have to join the Mafia?


From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 April 2007 06:03 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bobolink:

Then why should the strikers have to join the Mafia?


Fascinating.

You asked if I could tell you where Jimmy Hoffa was buried. I answered that yes, I could. You didn't press further. That tells me two things:

1. That you know, and were just testing me.

2. That I passed the test - and that's why you've now introduced the Mafia into the discussion.

I think we should continue this discussion through PMs...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 April 2007 08:29 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
House passes back-to-work legislation

quote:
Members of Parliament approved legislation on Tuesday night to force striking CN Rail employees back to work.

The bill handily passed third reading in the Commons 196-41.


Bloomberg gives the vote as 195-71. What the...? They say both the NDP and the BQ voted against.

It should be through the Senate by tomorrow and proclaimed shortly thereafter.

The end of the UTU on Canadian rails. It's already gone on CP and VIA. Good riddance. But too bad it had to leave behind it a record of betrayal and this draconian legislation.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 17 April 2007 11:05 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
House passes back-to-work legislation

Whither democracy...freedom lost, once again.

This the End
In we descend, the End

This is the End
My only friend, the End

The Doors
1967


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 April 2007 04:32 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok, the morning brings some clarity.

Both voting results were correct - but Bloomberg was more correct. The bill passed 2nd reading by 196 to 41, and 3rd reading by 195 to 71, with the NDP and Bloc voting against.

The NDP members had some good speeches on the issue, as did the BQ labour critic. As usual, however, Pat Martin embarrassed himself:

quote:

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

[...]

I do not understand how the Bloc can support the use of final offer selection when some form of interest arbitration would be more suitable for this particular labour impasse.

Mrs. Carole Lavallée:

[...] The NDP member who just spoke and the member before him — I am sorry, I cannot remember which ridings they represent — believe that the Bloc Québécois will support the Minister of Labour's back-to-work legislation. I know that the interpretation services here are excellent and that when I speak French they usually provide a very good translation. Therefore I will repeat, for the benefit of the NDP member who just spoke, that the Bloc Québécois does not intend to support the Conservative government's back-to-work legislation.


Hansard.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 18 April 2007 09:44 AM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
Not that I'm for back to work legislation, but I would argue that it IS an essential service.

The ratio of energy and Green house gas of trains compared to transport trucks is essential to our hitting Kyoto agreement.


While I appreciate your concerns about environmental damage and such, I'm not really all that sure that your argument is all that convincing from the perspective of a striking work force.

In an ideal world, workers would not carry on the work of other striking workers. That means that when the trains shut down, the trucks don't carry on their work. The net result should be a temporary breather for mother earth.

This is why anti-scab measures are so important to the labour movement. It gives them the ability to bargain with their employers with a bit more leverage.

This is also why back to work legislation is so damaging as well. It takes away the ability of the workers to have any leverage against their employer.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 18 April 2007 10:16 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No disagreement there at all. If we could shut down all transportation for a couple of days not only would the business leaders be far more willing to negotiate, but we would reduce out emissions at the same time!
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422

posted 18 April 2007 07:29 PM      Profile for Centrist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm going to be a contrarian here and also be a little provincial at the same time, since I'm involved in transportation and logistics.

BC ports are (or will be) undergoing massive upgrades particularly concerning the strong growth in container traffic from Asia (more particularly Prince Rupert and Deltaport). CN/CP are important conduits in that logistics chain.

Strategically, from a shipper's viewpoint, reliability is key. Down the road, if millions of annual potential TEU's are lost to other US westcoast ports as a result, the future financial cost to the BC economy could be quite substantial.

Operationally, the current impact down the chain from truckers etc. is causing financial hardship.

If this matter only affected the economic powerhouse of Ontario, for example, then I frankly could care less.


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 April 2007 07:41 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Centrist:

BC ports are (or will be) undergoing massive upgrades particularly concerning the strong growth in container traffic from Asia (more particularly Prince Rupert and Deltaport). CN/CP are important conduits in that logistics chain.

I knew CN and CP were vital to the export economy and to intermodal traffic, but I see your point that their importance is due to grow.

I would think, then, that in order to avoid derailments causing (at best) service delivery problems and (at worst) fatalities of workers and environmental disasters, it would be appropriate to support the demands of the operating crews - especially on CN (which has lengthened trains, cut back on dynamic braking, cut back on train inspections, cut back on bridge and trestle inspections, harassed and disciplined employees who insist on proper train orders before pulling out, etc. etc.) - for the right to book rest, enhanced safety enforcement, the right not to have to wait until age 65 to retire with an unreduced pension, the right to work without fear of abuse and harassment?

You did realize those are the main issues on the table for UTU members, I trust?

You can't have it both ways. If the wellbeing of the railway is vital, then so is the wellbeing of the railway workers.

The particular strike they are waging now is stupid and destructive, because it has been deliberately engineered by their U.S. headquarters in cahoots with CN (which nicely responded by a lockout) in order to trigger back-to-work legislation, in a vain effort to subvert the wishes of 70% of their members who have signed application cards to join another union. The legislation will be devastating, not because it ends the strike and lockout, but because it goes on to deprive the parties of the right to bargain meaningfully and freely. Its negative effects will be felt long after the harm of the strike/lockout has been forgotten.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 April 2007 09:06 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CN lifts lockout

quote:
CN Rail lifted its lockout of more than 300 workers Wednesday after federal back-to-work legislation received royal assent.

CN said it invited workers to return to their jobs as of 7 p.m. ET Wednesday night. The employees are expected to be back at work as early as Thursday, ending a week of rotating strikes.

Reports say the United Transportation Union is instructing its members to return to their jobs.


Get it? The dirty deed is done - Bill C-46 is passed - so no need to carry on the farce any more. The man from Cleveland and the man from Tennessee understand each other perfectly.

Only the workers will suffer. But they did show their power, and they won't forget for next time, when the balance of power is more favorable and when they have a (hopefully) Canadian union which does not betray them:

quote:
Major industrial users of the rail freight system welcomed news of back-to-work legislation.

"Canada's forest products industry has yet to recover from the impact of last February's strike, and this latest walkout has resulted in significant service disruptions, lost contracts and penalties for our members," said Avrim Lazar, chief executive of the Forest Products Association of Canada.

Statistics Canada said the February work stoppage contributed to a decline of more than $900 million in Canada's trade surplus that month as exporters struggled to ship goods to the United States.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
trippie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12090

posted 18 April 2007 11:00 PM      Profile for trippie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
THis is what I have been saying about the Unions the whole time....

There needs to be a new stradegy for us...

Every Union in Canada should be joining together to fight this legislation.

But they won't....

And why won't they... because they are divided and the proletariat have not been educated properly...

At this very moment when the Capitalists are waging a battle against us that will reduce our power.. We sit hopeless , with a few of us bitching on a web blog...

There is also a very good leason for us to learn here... The USA and Canadian workers are not a seperate group... We must work together to fight the forces against us...

There is no time for nationalist chauvinism.

We need a United Workers political party. The proletariat needs to understand when it is being attacked and learn how to defentd itself against..


From: essex county | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca