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   » Canadian Labour Today: Partial Success, Real Challenges

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canadian Labour Today: Partial Success, Real Challenges
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 06 June 2005 12:32 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been raving about this month's Monthly Review issue dedicated to labour issues. It really is quite a good collection of articles for those of us who are interested in the subject, and I would encourage anyone who is interested to buy a copy.

The editors have just posted the following article online, which I think is particularly worthy of discussion here.

Barry Brennan, Canadian Labor Today: Partial Successes, Real Challenges, MONTHLY REVIEW vol. 57 no. 2 (June 2005)

quote:
It is undeniably true that the Canadian labor movement has been healthier than our neighbors to the south in the past twenty years. In many ways, Canadian unions represent a positive counterpoint to the crisis of labor in the United States.

Union density levels are around 30 percent (18 percent in the private and 72 percent in the public sector), as opposed to 12.5 percent in the United States (8 percent and 36 percent in the private and public sectors, respectively).1 Canadians avoided the disarming symbolism of shackled U.S. PATCO (air traffic controllers) leaders and the accompanying message of utter defeat. Unions in key sectors such as auto led a two-decade-long struggle against concession bargaining and have so far prevented multi-tiered wage agreements. Public sector unions have linked the defense of public sector workers with relatively effective strategies of maintaining strong popular support for public medicine and social services.
***

But if you look below the surface today, all is not so rosy. The long-term effects of neoliberal inspired restructuring that began in the late 1970s have reshaped the environment of today’s Canadian economy. This has given new power to employers to demand concessions. Whether the threatened outcome is takeover by a U.S. corporation, the movement of investment out of the country, enhanced dependence upon transnational investment decisions, outsourcing, or bankruptcy protection, the logic of capitalist restructuring weighs heavily on the minds of workers. This is not to mention the three-decade-long assault on public sector trade union rights going back to the late 1970s. Governments have increasingly used their power to legislate public sector workers back to work, instead of bargaining.2

Huge differences in wages, job tenure, security, and working conditions continue to be a growing feature of working-class life. Precarious work is becoming more prevalent. Better-off workers worry about losing their jobs and being forced into a lower tier of the labor market. Lower down the ladder, those who survive by working longer hours and making other sacrifices blame those at the bottom. The poorest feel little solidarity with the rest of the class. The reduction of social services and rights and the lack of collective experiences of common struggle have helped to create a “disorganization” of the class, with a growing consciousness of resignation to and acceptance of the status quo, resulting in a search for individual solutions.3

These factors have helped to undermine many of the previous successes of Canadian labor and leave the movement vulnerable. But they only tell part of the story. In this era, when capital continues to aggressively dismantle what remains of the welfare state, the movement has been unable and unwilling to recognize the depth of the crisis, the impossibility of resuscitating the postwar compromise, and the necessity of radicalizing its political outlook and its ways of working and organizing.


Thoughts?

[ 06 June 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 06 June 2005 01:01 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In a week's time (June 13-17) the Canadian Labour Congress will be holdings its Convention in Montreal. Babblers may be interested to know that there is some competition for the position of CLC President: Carol Wall will be challenging Ken Georgetti for the post. The debate that is generated by this may serve to highlight views on the problems of the labour movement and the broader working class and solutions to those problems by the two sides of the leadership race.

Carol Wall for CLC President

I hope that, regardless of the results, Wall gets to speak to some of the caucuses at the upcoming Convention. Because she is a woman of colour she may get some additional attention for her campaign from outside the labour movement.

Canadian Labour Congress

I can't seem to find a Georgetti web site. But I'm sure he is still running for CLC President.

**************

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recently send out an e mail to those on their list of an article by Jim Silver and Errol Black. Here are some excerpts from that article:

quote:
The Way Forward for Labour

Union membership in Canada has increased steadily since the 1940s. In 1940
there were 362,000 union members; in 2004, 4,261,000 members. However,
union density - union members as a percent of non-agricultural paid workers
- has declined in recent decades. The decline is significant. If the 37.9 percent union density rate of the 1980s had been
maintained through the 1990s and into the first years of this century, the
number of union members in 2004 would have been 5,319,000 - 25 percent
higher than the actual number of 4,261,000.

....This decline in union density has profoundly affected the capacity of the
labour movement to influence the political, economic and social agendas at
both national and provincial levels.

Two main factors determine the power of labour to shape events: union
density; and the militancy and combativeness of union members and
organizations. The two are interrelated. When union density is on the
increase, it becomes easier to mobilize members and to confront employers
and the state to achieve gains for working people. When union density is
declining, such gains are much more difficult. The marginalization of
labour in all jurisdictions, including those with NDP governments, since the
1980s is testimony to what happens when union density is declining. For
further evidence consider the case of the USA, where union density in the
private sector in 2004 was down to 7.9 % - with disastrous consequences for American working people and their communities.

The corrosive effects associated with the decline in union density create
conditions which accentuate the erosion. Anti-union employers and
governments become more aggressive in their efforts to drive unions from
workplaces and entrench anti-union legislation. This demoralizes those
already in unions, and makes it more difficult to recruit new members.

It is imperative that we find ways to stop the decline in union density, and
increase significantly the numbers in unions. To do this, we must organize
the unorganized.

There has long been survey and other evidence to show that more workers want to be union members than there are union members. Recent evidence is that around 50 per cent of Canadian workers would like to be in unions - 20 percentage points above the present rate of unionization.

There are formidable obstacles facing unions seeking to organize in the
private sector. Recent efforts to unionize Wal-Mart, for example, have met
with some success, but Wal-Mart is a ruthless employer, comparable to the
coal barons and the Eaton¹s and chartered banks of previous eras. Walmart
will stop at nothing to thwart efforts to unionize, including cutting off
its own parts to prevent the spread of unionization.

To organize workers in the Walmarts of this world, organized labour has to
build grassroots support in the communities where Walmart and other such
reactionary employers are located.

Reinventing Labour Councils

Historically, local labour councils mobilized support for workers involved
in industrial disputes with employers; organized educational activities on
political, social and economic issues for workers; and supported efforts to
elect working people to city council, school boards and federal and
provincial legislatures.

These activities were inspired by the belief that the labour movement
represented all working people, and was committed not only to improving
conditions in the workplace, but also to building better communities.
Labour councils led the fights for public libraries, for universal suffrage
in local, provincial and federal elections, for parks and recreation, for
public utilities to provide sewer and water, public transit and public
health services. Labour councils fought in national campaigns in support of
universal pensions, Medicare, unemployment insurance and a social safety net for the poor.

But in recent decades, labour councils have been battered by relentless
attacks on working people and their organizations by employers and
governments. Labour councils have had to fight defensive campaigns to block the GST, stop cuts to Unemployment Insurance, oppose privatization, protect Medicare, and block anti-union legislation. At the same time, many trade unions that had historically encouraged their members to get active in
labour councils, withdrew their support to pursue more narrowly-focused agendas.

If we are to breathe new life into the labour movement, and reverse the
long-term decline in union density, we need once again to look to local
labour councils as a catalyst in building a culture supportive of trade
unionism and progressive social change. It is labour councils that can,
through their active campaigns to support communities, promote a vision that embraces all working people.

To achieve these results, three things need to happen immediately. First,
the Canadian Labour Congress must direct more resources to local labour
councils to support them in expanding their range of activities and
initiatives in local communities. The CLC has previously considered, but
backed away from, requiring affiliates to contribute per capita dues to
labour councils. Perhaps the time has come to revisit this idea.

Second, while money is important, so is active participation by unions in
support of labour councils. The CLC and its affiliates must encourage
local unions to elect/appoint delegates to labour councils, and support and
promote the initiatives of labour councils, including, for example,
information pickets directed at anti-union employers, and election campaigns
in support of progressive labour candidates.

Third, labour councils must build coalitions with other progressive organizations in their communities to unite on issues of common concern, for
example, degradation of the environment, poverty and affordable housing, and the building of community through support for improved public transit, and local library and recreational facilities.

This rejuvenation at the bottom that arises from involvement in local
communities will contribute significantly to building social solidarity,
expanding the ranks of unionized workers, and promoting democracy and social justice.

By Errol Black and Jim Silver

Errol Black and Jim Silver are Board members of the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives-Manitoba, and the co-authors of Building a Better World:
An Introduction to Trade Unionism in Canada.


Whoops, that was a bit too long. I will try to edit the article down for size. It's just so damn good.

CCPA - Manitoba Publications

CCPA "Stay informed" e mail information

I can't yet find an on-line link to the article but there is lots to read at the website. Enjoy. And consider joining!

[ 06 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 06 June 2005 01:43 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree that the CLC needs a shot in the arm/ass. I'm not sure that Carol's it. There doesn't seem to be a lot of specifics on the website and the endorsement list seems to include a lot of the usual supsects (she seems to have a lot of the NDP Socialist Caucus on side) and not a lot of people that could make this a viable bid.
From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 06 June 2005 01:55 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Burns:...the CLC needs a shot in the arm/ass. I'm not sure that Carol's it. ...[and] not a lot of people that could make this a viable bid.

With some heat there might also be some light. Wall can still have a positive effect without having much of a viable bid.

It's interesting to me to hear some of the PQ supporters openly suggest that they don't want a leadership race in their party at this time (with the recent resignation of their leader). But anything that members of an organization can sink their teeth into and get involved with seems like a good thing to me.

What do you think about the idea, expressed by Silver and Black, that Labour Councils need to be re-invented?

[ 06 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 07 June 2005 04:26 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Barry Brennan, Canadian Labor Today: Partial Successes, Real Challenges, MONTHLY REVIEW vol. 57 no. 2 (June 2005)

quote:
Internal Democracy: Inside major Canadian unions, there is little substantive debate over union policies and approaches. Even where spaces for debate and discussion do exist, leadership all too often predetermines the shape and outcomes. People on the left lack the confidence to challenge, and there is growing cynicism about the futility of expressing one's opinion. In larger forums, such as conventions, all too many potentially controversial decisions are made behind the scenes, and, aside from a handful of dissidents, the debates there are usually sterile.

[ 07 June 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  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