quote:

---

Who is CLAC and why are we picketing them?

Members of the Christian Reformed Church, a Dutch Calvinist Church from the United States, founded the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) fifty years ago. Its membership in Canada grew as Dutch Immigrants came here after WWII.

As a right wing evangelical church, the members formed a labour association that was to be less political then the other unions in the Canadian Labour movement. As an evangelical Christian labour association CLAC believes in giving unto Caesar what is Caesars. They do not promote workers rights but the belief that workers should supplicate themselves before the boss cap in hand and ask “please sir can I ‘ave some more.”

Is CLAC a union?

NO. It is an association, and as such has spent the past 50 years trying to get recognized as a union by provincial and federal labour relations boards.

They are an association that bargains on behalf of workers. When they approach and employer they do not act on behalf of the workers but begin negotiations as labour management consultants. Their approach is to offer the boss a docile bargaining agent on behalf of his employees. The boss and CLAC then promote the association to the employees as a ‘union’, one that is approved of by the employer.

What is the advantage the bosses see in CLAC?

As a fake union CLAC keeps real unions out of the workplace. An employer would rather deal with a pro boss association then a real union of workers.

It also allows the employer to keep their employees isolated from the rest of the labour movement. Contracts are negotiated not between the workers and the boss but between CLAC Labour Management consultants and the boss on behalf of the workers.

CLAC does NOT believe in unionization

CLAC promotes the idea not only of the open shop, where you don’t have to be a union member to get a job, but also getting rid of the Rand Formula where once a union has 51% of the employees support all employees are represented by the union.

They believe in the right wing idea that no one should be forced to be in a union, even if the business is unionized. Only those workers who want a union should be ‘forced’ to be in it. This is the same ideology of the right wing lobby the National Citizens Coalition, and the right wing think tank the Fraser Institute.

CLAC is Not Democratic.

Workers in a CLAC association are ‘represented’ by consultants, who run the association and decide who will be association representatives. There is no trade union democracy in CLAC. Member pay dues but have no say in how the Association runs. CLAC is anti-democratic.

"The majority of CLAC's members in Alberta come from workplaces certified through voluntary recognition. That means that nobody in these workplaces ever voted to certify CLAC as the union - nobody except CLAC itself and the employer that is.” Kerry Barrett, President, Alberta Federation of Labour

CLAC Raids Other Unions.

In Alberta CLAC has been the ‘union’ of choice of the Merit Shops, the non-union construction industry in the province. CLAC likes Merit Shops and represents several of them.

They also represent workers at Save On Foods. They have a sweetheart deal with born again Christian Jim Pattison who owns Save On Foods. Pattison wanted CLAC in so he could keep UFCW out.

The Alberta government has changed the Labour Relations Act to allow the Horizon Oil Sands Project to be non-union, and allow for importing cheap labour from abroad. Horizon has a deal with CLAC to represent these non-union workers.

---

Source: IWW.org

We also had an earlier thread about CLAC in this forum here: CLAC Attack.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

CLAC grievance arbitrations

More CLAC grievance arbitrations

Government Submissions

Sometimes I have wondered if a similar Jewish or Muslim union would receive the same amount of criticism that CLAC does.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

I'm sure that you didn't intend to infer this but what I heard in your post above was that you think CLAC is being given a hard time simply because they identify as Christian. Can you clarify?

---

You're right. CLAC isn't being dumped on simply because they're Christian. If you read the IWW critique, the "Christian" part of CLAC has no relevance other than CLAC's right-wing interpretation of the role of bosses and the inherently subordinate position of workers. It's interesting that you don't address this or any other point of substance.

quote:

---

If you read the IWW critique, the "Christian" part of CLAC has no relevance other than CLAC's right-wing interpretation of the role of bosses and the inherently subordinate position of workers. It's interesting that you don't address this or any other point of substance.

I wonder, were I to post some links to CUPE accounts of its grievance handling, its notices to strike, and other such standard industrial relations procedures and findings, if you'd see fit to drop your evident antipathy for the current CUPE leadership?

---

In my opinion CLAC is a business union and pro capitalism like almost all of the unions in Canada. Few of the unions are revolutionary unions.

I know what CUPE has done for working people and CUPE's policies are progressive.

In my opinion the CUPE leadership like almost all union leaderships tolerates abuses of power by local union officers. Until that changes my antipathy for the current CUPE leadership will continue.

[ 22 February 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

What I think makes CLAC worse, though, is that these things are pretty much its M.O. and in fact lie at the core of its ideology. Even the most frequently criticized business unions like the UFCW have within them some militant locals and active opposition caucuses, and have on occasion waged admirable struggles like the Tyson strike in Brooks, AB.

I have never heard of anything similar from CLAC. I think CLAC is pretty much exclusively a racket for employers to buy "labour peace" and keep more militant unions off the shop floor. The only way for CLAC members to agitate for more militant action is by decertifying CLAC and joining another union.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

I think some of the charges levelled at CLAC could be and have been directed at other unions, too: lack of internal democracy, willingness to sign "sweetheart" deals with the employer, not militant, not willing to show solidarity with other unions, etc.

I think CLAC is pretty much exclusively a racket for employers to buy "labour peace" and keep more militant unions off the shop floor. The only way for CLAC members to agitate for more militant action is by decertifying CLAC and joining another union.

---

In my opinion employers who want to buy "labour peace" would be better served if they went with unions like the Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers' Union (USWA/CLC), and UFCW (CLC). CLAC bargaining units are often raided by the unions which are affiliated to the Canadian Labour Congress.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
In my opinion employers who want to buy "labour peace" would be better served if they went with unions like the Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers' Union (USWA/CLC), and UFCW (CLC).

---

I won't deny that's happened before but it's also come back and bit many an employer in the ass when backroom deals get exposed and the union is forced to represent its members. If not, other CLC affiliates can and will step in. Many of the IWA members who were caught up in that nasty situation in B.C. are back with HEU again now. I understand there is a Loblaws warehouse outside of Toronto that has had two or three votes now on whether to stay with the UFCW or join the CAW, because some of the workers there are former CAW members who have been unhappy with the representation UFCW has been giving them.

Like I said before, no union is perfect but CLAC is by far the worst and arguably not really a union at all.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

the Christian union is not recognized by any working person I know as a 'real' union and even evangelical Christians I know refuse to belong to it.
It is a trojan horse, hiding behind the term union to gain acceptance and using anti-worker policies to break solidarity among workers.

---

If CLAC is only for employers why would employers resist them?

The following Employment Insurance Umpire decision seems to be a legal precedent that benefits millions of Canadian workers:

Unions have no legal obligation to help members with their Employment Insurance appeals.

Maple City Electric: Application for decertification: found to be initiated by employer, dismissed

Appeal of Board of Referees Decision. Umpire finds that arbitrator-awarded damages are not to be considered compensation for lost wages.

Employment Insurance Umpire Decision

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

CUPE Reformer is right in suggesting that much of the IWW critique of CLAC's business unionism can be applied just as easily to many unions in Canada.

This isn't an accident either, much of our anti CLAC campaign (as oppposed to the one being conducted by the AFL and Building trades) emphasizes CLAC's role in promoting a partnership of interests between workers and employers.

As well we go after them for being anti democratic, anti political (which is actualy hypocritical many of their staffers have strong ties to the Christian Heritage Party, as well as the tories), and for raiding; these things are what the AFL/Building trades campaign emphasize instead of collaborationism.

The reason we emphasize CLAC's collaboration with employers is precisely because it is something the CLC unions waffle on. As well the labour relations board system in Canada encourages unions to collaborate with employers, in fact to not do so in key situations is to risk being decertified.

We feel that the labour movement would be much better off if they took a clear stand on representing the interests on workers- regardless of what other conflicts this might get them into.

For example I don't want to suggest that mainstream unions need to become revolutionary, nor is what the campaign intended to do. However, in Alberta CLAC sits on the LRB with all the other unions and business representatives.

If the mainstream unions were to come out as being explicitly in favour of working people this would mean that they should consider being as keen to work with the LRB instead of treating it as just another tool by the government to keep workers down.

No one in the IWW would suggest that the CLC should become revolutionary, that would be like asking a turtle to fly, it simply isn't built to do that. However, we do think the labour movement should represent workers interests at the expense of those of businesss.

I have known a number of members of this church in my lifetime and many of them were warm, kindhearted people. I had nothing against them personally, but they were very conservative both socially and economically. They certainly would not have fit well within the mainstream of the labour movement, much less the left.

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

I don't recall hearing that CLAC was in on that deal but you never know. Other contractors have been using CLAC on the oil sands instead of mainstream trade unions. The IWW protests mentioned earlier in this thread were connected to the Horizon oil sands project, I am not sure if that is the same or a different project than the one that Natural Resources, Ltd. was working on.

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

About Dutch Reform conservatism: I have a friend who works with a lot of Dutch Reform types. They are very right-wing. It goes beyond active NDP bashing to active, enthusiastic support for "conservative" parties.

quote:

---

Alan - you may be confusing leftwing and prairie populist Christian social gospel with the conservative "Dutch Reform" or "Christian Reform" church movement. CLAC is allied with the latter and they are indeed quite right wing.

I have known a number of members of this church in my lifetime and many of them were warm, kindhearted people. I had nothing against them personally, but they were very conservative both socially and economically. They certainly would not have fit well within the mainstream of the labour movement, much less the left.

---

Maybe you should tell that to the United Church of Canada. One of their partner churches in KAIROS is the Christian Reformed Church in North America.

KAIROS Partner Churches and Religious Organizations

[ 21 February 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

CLAC supports the open-shop and that's enough to sour me on them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Alan - you may be confusing leftwing and prairie populist Christian social gospel with the conservative "Dutch Reform" or "Christian Reform" church movement. CLAC is allied with the latter and they are indeed quite right wing.

I have known a number of members of this church in my lifetime and many of them were warm, kindhearted people. I had nothing against them personally, but they were very conservative both socially and economically. They certainly would not have fit well within the mainstream of the labour movement, much less the left.

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

---

Then you'll be delighted to find that Dutch Reform is not one-dimensional and narrow, neither in its theology nor in its public philosophy. Heck, the Christian Democratic Appeal that governs the Netherlands can hardly be credibly damned as right-wing....and it shares the same roots in the neo-calvinist thought of Kuyper that CLAC does and has a social democratic edge to it.

Check out
Center for Public Justice and tell me the neo-calvinists there are narrow-minded right-wingers. I don't think that case can be made. Some of you will be delighted to know that N.T. Wright has in the past been involved in that organization....I don't believe anyone would consider Bishop Wright a right-winger of any sort.

I'm hardly unacquainted with Reform thinking on public philosophy. I've been fairly acquainted with it for years. And I believe people here at babble have seen me say that I'm basically a Christian Democrat with social democratic and libertarian socialist tendencies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Well, if you say so. But I have a more than passing acquaintance with the Christian Reformed Church, and at least in SW Ontario I never saw the side of the church you are talking about.

---

However, as to CLAC, it is pretty well-known that they are in the practice of undercutting other unions' collective agreements, particularly in the building trades. I also understand the union is rather lacking in internal democracy. So whether they are neo-calvinist Christian Democratic leftists or not, I don't think they are a very good union.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Indeed, the Sermon on The Mount argues strongly against that idea.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
The other point that should be made here is that there is nothing in the actual teachings of Christ that oblige his followers to support the wealthy against the poor, or the boss against the workers.

Indeed, the Sermon on The Mount argues strongly against that idea.

The kind of "Christian" values that CLAC espouses are actually derived from the corruption of the church by the values of the Roman Empire. Christopher Hitchens(when he was still on the left)argued that the creed of this corrupted institutional church should actually be called "Christism-Paulism"(he was making an analogy with the decayed and reactionary Marxist-Leninist[I.E., Stalinist]form of socialism practiced in the old USSR/Warsaw Pact sphere)
to distinguish it from the revolutionary teachings the Empire nailed "Jerusalem Slim" up for.

---

Hitchen's analogy is an understandable one and it makes its own point....except that on further analysis it proves to be a most unfortunate analogy. Hitchens is, as many are, under the impression that Jesus and Paul were not entirely of the same faith, that there is a grand discontinuity between Paul and Jesus just as there is a discontinuity between Karl Marx and Joe Stalin.

But post-WWII scholarship has largely demonstrated that in fact Paul was in continuity with Jesus and therefore wasn't the founder of an entirely different religion than the faith Jesus himself expounded.

The big american craft unions are not the same as CLAC however. They are collaborationist because they have sold out. At one point in time almost all these unions- as crummy as they are, were created by the workers.

CLAC is different, it is the creation of a right wing church in cahoots with the Merit contractors association. It is extremely anti democtratic (even compared to say the Teasmters or IBEW), and deliberately exists to keep power out of the hands of workers.

The difference between sell-out business unions (which most unions in Canada are not just the American ones) and collaborationist unions is that the business unions wield workers power to cut deals. They are still stuck in a position of having to fight from time to time. CLAC exists to make sure the fight never happens in the first place. While both in the end want to cut deals with bosses, business unions also want to cut deals with the workers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Avans:
But post-WWII scholarship has largely demonstrated that in fact Paul was in continuity with Jesus and therefore wasn't the founder of an entirely different religion than the faith Jesus himself expounded.

---