If this is not the direction you want to go, though, please say so and we'll try something different instead.

Here goes...

The basic premise of unionism, in my opinion, is that all of us who work in a particular place, craft or industry share common, collective interests, and we should stand together to pursue and defend our interests regardless of race, sex, creed or whatnot else. We stand for dignity, respect, and fair compensation and conditions in our work. We stand against employers who would try to keep us down in order to maximize their own profits, and governments who would pass laws to help serve those employers' interests against our own.

This is the principle, but the reality is often quite different. While unions may fulfill an anti-oppressive role for "workers" in relation to "management," they may contrarily reproduce various forms of social oppression including race or gender oppression within their own structure and practices. Why is this? Is this "reality" a universal or inevitable one? How or why have we departed from the principles above and is it possible for unions, either as they stand today or new ones that we create to come back to this goal? Is this goal really something worth working for, or is the idea of common working class solidarity itself problematic in the face of other fundamental differences between people?

[ 31 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

These are very good questions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

This is the principle, but the reality is often quite different. While unions may or may not still fulfill an anti-oppressive role in "workers" relation to "management," they may contrarily reproduce various forms of social oppression including race or gender oppression within their own structure and practices. Why is this? ]

---

robbie_dee

These are very good questions.

I think there are a lot of factors that creates this situation: the history and the base that unions were built on is one of the factors. At the beginning when unions were forming majority of workers were white men. Therefore the unions were built for a homogenized group.
A homogenized group have common gaols. It is much easier to build a union for a group of people with similar goals, than building a union for a diverse group of people. A diverse group of people have different life demands and needs and also very different challenges as far as the employer and society is concerned. As a result of having a diverse work place, goals are different as well. When working in unity then which goal are we aiming for?

I know now, very often the word solidarity is being used instead of unity. To me solidarity means that we acknowledge our differences and work together to achieve a condition that is accommodating to all. Are we really working in solidarity or is it still united for one goal? I say it is still unity for one goal and that is not the goal of those most oppressed and marginalized.

How would a group of privileged people who see it all as their entitlement react the moment others try to attempt to change things that there is more fairness and equity? There is immediate action to stop it from happening. I can go on and on about this but end this part here.

Is this "reality" a universal or inevitable one? [/QUOTE]

Yes, it has to be prevented at all cost. There is no ifs or buts.
However there should be one short term and immediate plan and one long term plan.

I think it is universal however intensity at different places may be different.
The intensity and existence of oppressive conduct seem to be measured by reaction of those that are most negatively effected by the act of oppression (if at all) The factors such as the fact that many do not fight it at all or fight it a bit and give up and after a while leave their jobs (it is exhausting to having to fight all the time) and there are others that fight to make changes to bring equity to union work places. If these are measured at all, they are measured only from the number of people who put up a good fight and even that is when those who fight are not dismissed as …

Can it be prevented? I think it can be prevented if and only if it is taken serious and also those with less social power are involved in key decision making positions in unions.
As long as decisions are made by those privileged and large social power this would be a hard fought battle. It is troubling when fairness and equity in unions are measured by express of satisfaction by people like thwap (look for his express of satisfaction in the previous thread) and only that. Unfortunatly, this kind of measurement of services and fairness is very common and acceptable.

Thwap sounds like a white middle class man. The system is build around him and for him. He has a lot of social power to express his dis-satisfaction as it happens and as he goes along and can change things for himself very fast, why shouldn’t he be happy and satisfied? However the satisfaction of “thwaps” is not at all an indication about if the system is equitable and working for all.

Union solidarity doesn’t happen by posting pictures of people of colour on union web sites. Using this kind of approaches in order to solve the problems of in-equity is very superficial and problematic. I personally find this kind of approach to be an exploitation of people of colour. We post your picture on our web, therefore we are not racist, regardless of how we treat you. I inserted the points about thawps comments here because I think this is a very common, if not dominate approach and methodology of thinking amongst “progressive” elite ‘activists/unionists”.

Unions have become very elitist. There is not a whole lot of spirit of workers solidarity there.
I used to go to Labour council meetings for a while, oh my, how were members of different unions, fighting over power to control the Labour council? it was like political parties and they were divided along the party lines of their own, it was unbelievable and disgusting. Then look at power struggles over turf amongst leaders of different labour organizations.

The proportion of immigrants earning low wages in Canada is rising. It used to be about a third of new immigrants were earning low incomes. Now, it's over a half. And all this while North American rates of unionized labour have fallen to all time lows since the 1960's. And trade unionism has been decimated in the United States.

Pleased to meet you, Negad. Where are you from, may we ask ?. Are you multi-lingual ?.

I wouldn't have posted the websites except you yourself said that 'all we have to do is check out unions' websites' to see that they're racist.

So I did.
There are all sorts of efforts to portray the diversity of the workforce. I have no idea what you were talking about then, when you told us to go to the union websites to see the racism. Granted, it might all be window-dressing, but just looking at the websites doesn't tell us that. Maybe you were just making more empty claims about unions when you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I asked you to back up you claims that unions use minorities as bargaining chips in their wider goal of making things better for white workers.

You used that as an opportunity to make generalizations about my character as a white middle class male.

I just don't have time for this. Think whatever you want about me, unions, society, whatever. I honestly don't care.

Thank heavens for all of us that the Left is staffed by people more saintly than myself. I really just like to entertain people and get intoxicated. I think needless suffering is a drag.
Whatever you've suffered from racists in the working class, my apologies.
But I don't have the fortitude to endure the needless suffering of further abuse from you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thwap:
Well Negad,

I wouldn't have posted the websites except you yourself said that 'all we have to do is check out unions' websites' to see that they're racist.
Tooodles!

---

If you have read my message that invites some to look at union web sites, carefully, then you would have seen that it was in resposne to couple of people that didn't know about low present of people of colour at unionized work places and I refered them to union web sites to read it there. At no time I have said that union web sites would show you that they are racist.

quote:

---

Unions have become very elitist. There is not a whole lot of spirit of workers solidarity there.
I used to go to Labour council meetings for a while, oh my, how were members of different unions, fighting over power to control the Labour council? it was like political parties and they were divided along the party lines of their own, it was unbelievable and disgusting. Then look at power struggles over turf amongst leaders of different labour organizations.

---

I've seen this, I think it is typical of the petty organizational politics that can consume progressive organizations when they are out of touch with the struggles in which they were rooted. But those roots are still there, they run deep, and there are also many people in the organization who remember them and who are trying to build on them today. And the struggle for rights for people of colour is one of the integral roots of the modern labour movement, in my opinion.

Are you familiar with the story of A. Phillip Randolph and the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters? There's a capsule summary of the story on the PBS website from its series on The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow.

quote:

---

In the 1920s, a group of disgruntled Pullman porters in New York City asked an African-American labor militant, A. Philip Randolph, a strong advocate of the rights of black working men and women, to form an independent union of sleeping car porters and maids. The porters worked for the Pullman Company, whose founder, George Pullman, invented the overnight sleeping train car in the 1880s in Chicago. Pullman hired black men and women to serve as porters and maids to the mostly white passengers who used the cars.

By using blacks in a service capacity, he was drawing upon the master-servant relationship of slavery days when blacks were servants to white masters.

The black community, however, considered porters an elite class of workers because they had steady jobs and traveled around the country. But porters worked long hours with little salary, lacked job security, and had to pay for their food, lodging, and uniforms. Much of their income came from tips. In 1925, Randolph organized the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters (BSCP). He ran into fierce opposition in Chicago, where the Pullman Company's headquarters was located and where many porters lived.

Pullman fought the union, denouncing Randolph as a communist and recruited support from the middle-class black leaders of the city.

Many blacks considered labor unions "trouble-makers" that worked against the best interests of black workers. Randolph made a conscientious effort to win the support of the middle-class black community because of its great influence in the black press and with public opinion. The company refused to negotiate with the union; some charged this was because the union was black. The Brotherhood was the verge of collapsing when Congress passed federal laws guaranteeing the right of all legitimate unions to organize workers without interference from their employers, giving the union a new life. The BSCP now found itself with some legal muscle. In addition, the major labor organization in the United States, the American Federation of Labor (AFL), which had traditionally excluded blacks from its membership-now gave the Brotherhood support. As a result, in 1937, the Pullman Company finally signed a labor agreement with the Brotherhood.

(written by Richard Wormser)

---

There is also a more detailed history on the website of the A. Phillip Randolph Museum here.

In my opinion, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters is an example of African-American workers organizing themselves to achieve justice on their jobs, in what was at the time a very racist industry - the railroads. Indeed, it was also in the U.S. railroad industry that African American workers, represented among others by the great attorney and future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall, took their White-dominated union to court and established that all unions had a legal duty of fair representation towards their members. This was the seminal case: STEELE v. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192 (1944), which laid the legal groundwork for the Supreme Court to decide the more famous Brown v. Board of Education of Kansas (desegregating public schools) ten years later.

As for A. Phillip Randolph, he led his union into the AFL and later the AFL-CIO. In 1963 he led over 250,000 people on a march to Washington for civil rights. Today the A. Phillip Randolph Institute exists in his honour and continues to work towards ensuring and defending the representation of African American workers in the U.S. labour movement.

This is just one story, and one in the U.S. context, but I am sure we could share many others here including ones from Canada. My point is that the history and role of people of colour in the labour movement is certainly not all negative, on balance its quite the opposite in my opinion. That doesn't mean everything's perfect or we don't still have a lot of work to do. But there is something positive here, at least. Moreso, I think is a base on which progressive labour activists can build, those of us who want to see people of colour not just "included" in the union movement but actually among its leaders.

[ 28 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

First, not all unions are the same, nor all locals within a given union. While I'd say there's certainly racism around in unions and unionized workplaces, I see it as more a reflection of racism in society at large than a specifically union construction. The idea that things suddenly get *worse* when a place unionizes seems to me kind of suspect, or at least something restricted to a few sectors with particularly racist backgrounds of some sort. Same goes for sexism.

My particular union is public service-based, and my particular local is as multiracial as all get out, and has more women than men both in the local's general population and in executive positions. Thinking about it, there are only one or two execs of colour--but the major problem with our local is apathy; the local is begging for people to step up, so anyone that wants to can be on the executive or the contract committee or whatnot. Seems like the minorities are just as apathetic as everyone else.
(Apathy is perhaps the wrong word--people are pissed off with the employer, but few have time/energy that they can or are willing to spare and many are fatalistic, think resistance is futile)
There may be very quiet racism around here, but it isn't very dashed visible. I mean, I'm a white guy, I can't really say categorically "there is no racism" and anyway I'm sure there's a racist or two lurking somewhere. But if they didn't keep their mouths shut they'd have problems.
Doubtless if I worked in construction I'd have a different experience; far fewer women, for instance. Unions differ, workplaces differ. I really don't think in the present day that unions are on average as racist as broader society or managers, and certainly not that one can find a single broad union trend to make workplaces more racist.

quote:

---

I think it is typical of the petty organizational politics that can consume progressive organizations when they are out of touch with the struggles in which they were rooted. But those roots are still there, they run deep, and there are also many people in the organization who remember them and who are trying to build on them today.

---

The "roots" are the grassroots - the members of the bargaining unit who are engaged in those struggles and who pay the dues that support the staff. If the organization is out of touch, it's not a matter of remembering but of being in touch with the members and seeing work and life through their eyes.

Some unions have become elitist towards ALL members but the impact is always greatest on those who are most marginalized in the workplace, including women and workers of colour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

Thinking about it, there are only one or two execs of colour--but the major problem with our local is apathy; the local is begging for people to step up, so anyone that wants to can be on the executive or the contract committee or whatnot. Seems like the minorities are just as apathetic as everyone else.
.....
There may be very quiet racism around here, but it isn't very dashed visible. I mean, I'm a white guy, I can't really say categorically "there is no racism" and anyway I'm sure there's a racist or two lurking somewhere. But if they didn't keep their mouths shut they'd have problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Non-partisan partisan:
I was with you up to the last "and". Unions are often out of touch because of the ivory tower syndrome where "professional" paid staffers run the union, often in their own interests.

Some unions have become elitist towards ALL members but the impact is always greatest on those who are most marginalized in the workplace, including women and workers of colour.

---

Unfortunately, unions for some people has become a place to seek power and elite status for themsleves and that is all they are after. Unfortunatley this kind of people "do" get very far because they use what they 'have to" acheive that goal at any price. Even if that price would be to work in a manner that workers are negativley effected such as pitting workers agaisnt each other in a work environment or trying to create wedge amongst workers of colour or pit woman against each other. There are too many cases of union officials threatening workers when workers demand to be heard and the "freindship" of union officials with the employer is always a scarey threat for the workers. They would loose their jobs if they persist in demanding for their rights to be respected.

Try to file a section 74 agaisnt this kind of officials, you first have to find another job before you can even think about it.

I know many may have never seen this kind of behaviour or heard of it but many others have lived it, seen it and heard of it. Also there are those themselves perpatuated this kind of oppression on workers to gain power, status and privilage.

My point is that power has become the motive and it is not about fighting for workers rights and workers solidarity.
I think knowledge of this issue amongst workers would(may) result in more solidarity to combat this kind of motivations.

The apathy that was talked about earlier in this thread is a symptom of these kind of motivations.

I hope that those marginlazed can get together and work in solidarity, even though distances are far and they may be scatered in vrious work places, change the system and practices.

[ 29 January 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Negad:
Have you ever been in a meeting or gathering which is predominantly men and one woman speaks, the men appear to be lsitening very respectfuly however after she speaks they continue with their conversation as if no other opinion, suggestions or concers was offered?

---

Well, I was recently at a meeting of the local's exec plus bargaining committee. It was predominantly women, and I said something and they all listened, then went on with their conversation as if I hadn't said anything. But I don't think it was because I'm a guy, or even because I'm a long-haired weirdo freak. It was because I'm relatively new and because I was talking about direct action tactics like work-to-rule and mass stress leave, and they're mainly interested in negotiation talking points and credible strike threat. So they ignored me rather than arguing.

I'm eminently willing to believe it can happen to women and people of colour because they're women and people of colour, and probably more so if they raise issues that are of concern to them as such which are off the mental map of the white males. But again, I really think this kind of thing varies a lot from place to place. As does the paid-staff issue, especially at the local level. Our union local has one paid staffer--or maybe one and a half, our business agent plus someone who does, like, filing and stuff half time. The business agent definitely does *not* set the agenda or the tone of how the local does things. The elected executive are definitely in control, and they're not paid. I've certainly heard of places where things are professionalized as all get out, I'd just like to get some kind of acknowledgement that things aren't the same everywhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by googlymoogly:
This is interesting; I am currently an intern with the PSAC here in Ottawa; my immediate supervisor is a transsexual woman (she is very very open to talking about trans issues. or glbt issues in general, especially as they relate to unions/the labour movement). I'll ask her for her input next time I'm in.

---

Nevertheless, anyone in Saskatoon (as I am) would be well served to read this piece when asking themselves the question: "How is is that Jim Pankiw (noted former anti-First Nations MP) could count amongst his most voiciferous and numerous supporters large sections of working-class Whites, including unionized White workers? How, when he ran for mayor, did most of his votes not come from the middle to upper-middle class East Side but rather working class neighbourhoods in the ethnically diverse (majority aboriginal) West Side?

In my discussions with many people of colour requests to deal with racism is viewed by union bosses as a demand by "these people" to meet "their needs". In fact they verbalize it in this way as well.

"Are we failing black youth? Yes, yes, yes," said Dei, who has done extensive research on why black teens often feel disengaged in Toronto high schools. "The curriculum doesn't reflect their lives, there are too few black teachers and the zero tolerance policies stigmatize them.

"The dropout rates don't tell the whole story: black students are being pushed out."
In my opinion this is very similar to the situation on unions. The unions structure do not refelect the lives of people of colour and it is totally oblivious to struggles of people of colour. As a resutl people of colour are psuched out of their unionized jobs.

Very often complaints of racism within union is investigated by a white man workign for the union. It is very hard to accept this kind of rules really are meant to serve people fo colour in a equitable manner.

quote:

---

Why aren't unions seeing the issue of lack of present of people of colour at uniozed work places as importnat enough to spend the resources to conduct a comprehensive study to find out the reasons for it. Specialy to see if and how the unions themselves contribute to departure of people of colour from unionized work places.

---

I can't speak for all unions but certainly in Toronto, the Toronto & York Region Labour Council is making attempts to address the issues. They're holding their second annual conference on May 7, 2005.

Just becsue there is a conference it doesn't mean that it is going to be dealt with systematically.
Is it going to be about look how nice we are or about look how we contribute and we ahve to stop it?
I see "Mayor David Miller" what is he going ot talk about? Do you know?
Who is Zanana Akande?

Which one of these workshop is goign to address ways in which racism manifests itslef and then lets begin combating it. is the focus about "those" people in government racist and unions are angles?

quote:

---

Who is Zanana Akande?

---

Zanada Akande is a former NDP cabinet minister in Bob Rae's government and I understand that currently she's the president of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations.

quote:

---

I don't believe calling a confernece "equity" or "peopel of colour" conference by itself alone would address racism.

---

I don't happen to think that one conference is going to solve all problems on the face of the earth either. But it does give people an opportunity to get together and talk about issues and hopefully come up with some strategies to deal with them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:

I don't happen to think that one conference is going to solve all problems on the face of the earth either. But it does give people an opportunity to get together and talk about issues and hopefully come up with some strategies to deal with them.

---

If their approach is not right it won't even begin to deal with this issue. For all we know it end up being another feel good measure by the establishment to appear "progressive".

As it appears you don't seem to know what the content of this conference is and yet you have accepted it as a measure toward elimination of racism of unions.

I have been invovled in conducting surveys or focus groups that meant to get input from people about an issue. However when it comes to making decisions, those in power don't even consider the outcome of those measures. Soem don't even read the reports they just go ahead with their decision making as usual.

Is there a measure in place to integrate the get meaningful input from those marginalized and integrate it in makign decisions?
Thanks for your invitation for this conference but I don't live in Toronto.

In fact one sector of federal government is having two days conference in different parts of Canada about racism at work place. It will be held in Toronto last day of Feb and March first. I like to see how these issues are beign addressed.

I have been in union organized workshops that concerns of those who want to address racism is tied in with "beign thin skin" " jsut take your pay cheque and go home".
Racism is addressed as "workpalce conflict". If someone sees racism as a conflict then how could they even begin to address it.

I also know that they take credit for offering workshops about racism at work place. This kind of work shops doesn't even begin to address racism. It in fact make it stronger. The message this kind of approach sends is "if you can't live with racism you are think skin". And them the whole issue around seeing it as a conflcit.

quote:

---

As it appears you don't seem to know what the content of this conference is and yet you have accepted it as a measure toward elimination of racism of unions.

---

I accept it as a measure to try to deal with the issues faced by workers of colour in this city...who consitute the majority population right now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:

I accept it as a measure to try to deal with the issues faced by workers of colour in this city...who consitute the majority population right now.

I accept it at face value unless I'm given some reason to think otherwise.

---

teh system creates a "getto" for those margianlized to speak aobut theri struggles and pat itself on the shoulder and takes "credit" for themselves however they don't take any meaninigful action to change things.

quote:

---

You must be a very "reasonable" and "positive" person but some of us are not.

---

Well I do try.

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:

Well I do try.

---

Your attempts to be "reasonable" and "Positive" at the expense of those that are suffering in this system is very encouraging. I am sure you receive very good reveiw from the masters.
sorry, but no medal from me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:

Bringing working people together to talk about their issues and find ways to deal with them is always a good thing in my books.

---

Bringing workers together to talk about their issues alone is not going to do anything. Waht is it for? hwo to cope with racism? Whay not take measure to eliminate racism. Why shoudl the burden be on the shoulder of those who are negatively effected by it.

Establishment has an obligation to make changes and include the struggels of "those" workers in the agenda of unions before things start to change.
As long as establishment sees racism as the problem of those who live it then nothing is going to change. Creating a getto won't bring justice for anyone. "we are so nice we help you to look at racism in a positive way and learn to live with it"

Establishment would need to take responsibility for racism and make it a priority to elimiante it.

Another example of such action would be this: you can bring victims of sexual assault together to talk about their experiences all you want untill such a time that changes are made to take this matter serious that would still go on adn will claim more victims. As we witnessed the examples of faith communities.

Creating a getto is a way for those in power or power seeking to feel "positive" and "reasonable" and receive a medal and some kind of status but it won't change things in a meaningful way.

I won't accept to see racism in a positive light nor that I accept a getto from anyone.

quote:

---

Establishment has an obligation to make changes and include the struggels of "those" workers in the agenda of unions before things start to change.
As long as establishment sees racism as the problem of those who live it then nothing is going to change. Creating a getto won't bring justice for anyone. "we are so nice we help you to look at racism in a positive way and learn to live with it"

---

Negad, on the one hand, I suspect everyone here agrees with your basic principles, and some of us have experience with other kinds of ghettoization.

But you are putting words in radiorahim's mouth there, and that is just not fair. Nothing he has said justifies that sort of mockery of his contributions here.

And in my memory of the early struggles of the women's movement, which continue, of course, but which have produced major legal benefits, it definitely was not enough to sit back and wait for the "establishment" to "make changes." It was necessary to organize and win strategic support -- not overwhelming majority support, but strategic support.

quote:

---

I think it can be prevented if and only if it is taken serious and also those with less social power are involved in key decision making positions in unions.

---

How do you feel about the following?

Constitution of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada

Elections
Article 14.01.05

The Aboriginal Person/Person of Colour Rank-and-File Board Member and his or her alternate shall be nominated in the Aboriginal People/People of Colour caucus at Convention by delegates who have self-identified as Aboriginal Person/Person of Colour and shall be elected by secret ballot by all delegates to the Convention, as provided for in 8.08 and 9.01. The member and alternate representing Aboriginal People/People of Colour shall be elected by plurality vote.

http://www.cep.ca/about/constitution2004_e.pdf

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

But you are putting words in radiorahim's mouth there, and that is just not fair. Nothing he has said justifies that sort of mockery of his contributions here.

---

Thank you skdadl!

Negad, if you are waiting for the folks at the top to wake up one morning and suddenly decide to change things it just ain't gonna happen.

So those who have a particular issue to deal with very much need to get together and figure out how to apply pressure to make the changes that need to be made.

Progresive change most often happens from the "bottom up" instead of from the "top down".

Any struggle needs allies. Vietnamese peasants fighting U.S. imperialism had the support of the anti-war movement in the U.S. and elsewhere. The women's movement has had the support of progressive men. The gay rights movement has had the support of progressive straight people. And yes the anti-racism movement has had the support of progressive white people.

Sometimes you win allies through reason and persuasion, while at other times you have to embarass them. Still other times you have to "overthrow" the elite...in the labour movement by running progressive candidates for election against more conservative incumbents or by winning support for implementing progressive policies.

There are many different strategies to use depending on what you are trying to accomplish and the circumstances you are in right now.

quote:

---

Sometimes you win allies through reason and persuasion, while at other times you have to embarass them.

What I do know is that you don't accomplish anything or win allies by denouncing everyone because they're not as "militant" as you.

---

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

I demand to see changes. I share my concerns and experiences with others and encourage others to share their experiences. Once we share our experiences and start working in solidarity in our terms then we can fight our battles in our terms not within the terms and parameter that the establishments make for us.

Lets review just a couple of items:
Some unions added a diversity Rep in their council. What kind of power the diversity reps have in terms of bringing changes? Do members have direct contacts with their reps in order to bring their concerns forward? What kind of structural and policy changes have been made within the union organizations to reflect the diverse society?

When it comes to dealing with complaints of rank and file it is the staff at different level of union who would deal with these complaints or concerns. Let say a person brings forward complaint about racism, who is going to investigate it? (if it is at all investigated) A white man from within the organization who even if had good intentions has no understanding of how racism manifests itself?

If members demand that union training should be developed on the assumption that we are a diverse society instead of how it is designed presently on the assumption that we are a homogenized society then how do they respond? These members feel that their needs are not being met, and they are being demanding for asking it. Is diversity seen only as the needs of “non-white” or is it seen as human rights? Do they feel that if these small changes are made it would mean that they are not meeting the demands of all their members? Is it the assumption that if they are working on assumption that we are a diverse society means that they are not responding to the needs of other members? If working on assumption that we are not a homogenized society would mean that they are not meeting needs of all their members then what would it say about this system?

These questions have been raised on the base of certain conducts and experiences of people of colour within this system.

Struggles that people are facing within this system means a lot in terms of how I confront racism. This is in fact the decisive factor for me. If we have gone down this road many times and every time were pushed back with a force then we would need to take another road to reach to our destination.

If few people on this site want to we can develop some questions and send it to various unions and if and when we receive responses then it can be tested against evidences that exist and make a evaluation of how many of these organizations actually gone above and beyond their shiny brochures.

I really like to see practical changes that begin to show that words mean something.

quote:

---

If few people on this site want to we can develop some questions and send it to various unions and if and when we receive responses then it can be tested against evidences that exist and make a evaluation of how many of these organizations actually gone above and beyond their shiny brochures.

I really like to see practical changes that begin to show that words mean something.

---

Unions evolve slowly. Union headquarters can ignore individuals or give more empty rhetoric to them.

I suggest that you ask Anti-Racist Action to help you.

Anti-Racist Action

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Surely there must be at least one other person in your union who is concerned about racism.

If your staff reps are all white males it would seem to me that your union could use an affirmative action policy in its hiring.

That kind of stuff requires that you get a resolution passed in your local union that gets sent to your union convention.

It means that you have to write the resolution, win support for it in your local union i.e. get your supporters to show up for the meeting to vote for whatever your proposing, and then make sure that your local elects delegates to its convention who will speak in support of your local's convention resolution at the convention.

It may mean hooking up with folks from other locals of your union etc. etc.

It means that you have to learn your union's constitution and how to make use of it to make changes.

In order to work effectively we would need to identify and evaluate the barriers.

One of the barriers have identified is the fact that unions are being dominated for the most part by carrier activists with a career goal of being a leader.

This group of people are looking for a place to fulfill their career goals and not necessary looking to work for workers. This is a status that they don’t wish to loose and will protect it at any price. Workers empowerment is not perceived as a very positive thing by this group of people.

It is important for people to share their experiences and make use of it in order to effectively change things instead of ignoring these experiences.

It is one thing that the career activists talk about oppression of all kinds including racism and gain status for doing so and it is another to see their reaction towards empowerment of those oppressed. I use the experiences of people who have been at the receiving end of this situation to make sure that those barriers do not prevent us from achieving our goals. If I do otherwise I am undermining people’s struggles.

Undermining the barriers is not going to help us to move forward. This is not just about one person or two or me changing the environment of one local it is about bigger picture. We can not allow for it to become an struggle that each person have to overcome every time they are at a new work place, these changes has to be systematically and permanent.

Working in solidarity and learning from each others experiences is what it works. This learning also would include, allowing ourselves to see the world through the eyes of others.
Let say one person have the tools and means to change things in their local the way it works for them. If this person moves to another job then they would need to go through the same struggle again? What happens in another local where the workers who are affected do not have the tools and means? Why should people have to use their energy to either not allow racism to destroy them or use it to change things over and over that is if we assume that they can succeed.

It is not just about my union having white or colour people as union reps or staff it is about meaningful changes. They could even have people of colour employed there. By itself it doesn’t mean much. If I was a woman of colour working in an organization with no power to change things then I have to uphold the white man’s rules then I am just another agent of establishment who happens to be a woman of colour.

Has Condelleezza Rice been changing for black women?

One issue that was raised at the unitetowin blog is the matter of resources available to people of colour for doing what they like to do effectively. There is no a limited access to resources.

Training funds that has to be available to all rank and file is not always available to all. In many instances it is spend for a small group of people while others are either denied access to these funds or kept in the dark about existence of these funds. If only elites and career activists have access to these trainings then who is going to be the future leaders of the unions. It will be those who are being prepared for these posts by the local and with the resources that belongs to everyone. I know, I can go to my local and ask them for the same fund but it is not about me. This is about system and realizing the barriers.

Only when we put all the information together we can get a better picture and may be able to see the roots of the problems.
The system is dominated by a small group of people and they are trying to keep it amongst themselves. They also have direct access to the resources of union to use it to create barriers for others.

When some one reads about experiences of another worker and ways they are experiencing racism and responds by statements such as: “facts as stated can not be disputed” “you are speaking about my struggles as well” “you are speaking to my heart”,… That is the beginning of the realization that we each are not alone and this is wide spread problem.

[ 20 February 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Fuck you Negad. Judy, like me, is a lifelong leftist and has put her body on the line in many organising drives specifically targeting immigrant workers, women, workers of colour. Artistic Woodwork, anyone? Or the "slave quarters" here in Montréal.

Saying there was a lot of sexism on the left does not detract from the fact that the workers' movement and the broad left - including the women's movement, immigrant workers' groups etc are the only means to overcome oppression and exploitation. I haven't read Judy's whole book yet, but I know the story of women's caucuses - and caucuses of people of colour, LGBT etc. But not a smidgen of credence for those who don't know which side they are on.

---

I was going to use quotes from Judy Rebick book because a comparison was made to feminist movement and I was trying to show a point that there are barriers in all movements and we need to learn from each other and from our previous struggles. If you consider that book as yours then it should not be quoted at all.

You are the person who twisted a quote from Judy's book into supporting evidence for your anti-union vitriol. That is not at all what she was getting at. I know what she was getting at, because I was there, not because I'm trying to "possess" her work. What silly academic cant, by the way.

I don't think haters of the working class and the institutions it has fought and died to create have any more place on a progressive site than racists, sexists or homophobes.

Moreover, as I've said in other threads, not all of my ancestry is white, nor are all my relatives, and I take racism very seriously. But not as battering ram to destroy the workers' movement, the women's movement, the socialist movement ...

[ 20 February 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]

From your posts I get a sense that you are very wary of the dangers that arise when organizations respond to racism only on a surface level or with half-measures. But do you have in mind an alternative, or at least the outlines of an alternative, that you think people who are genuinely concerned about these issues should try to pursue?

I missed what it was you posted that Lagatta has apparently taken exception to so I won't comment on that.

I have appreciated your posts and comments. I do have to say that in the past I have found both Lagatta and Radiorahim to be sensitive, conscious, thoughtful posters who are committed to social justice and I am afraid that we may lose the opportunitiy to have a productive conversation if we misinterpret or miscommunicate with each other.

[ 20 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

I don't see radiorahim as distructive we just don't always agree on methods.

When allies take over a movement the movement no longer belongs to the group that are at the receiving end of the oppression.

The problem rises when allies are there to achieve the role of leaders and fulfill their own needs. This is when those who are fighting that struggle have to first fight the allies to be empowered before they can fight the real battle.

This situation does happen frequently and the result is that there are anti-racism movements with no or very few people of colour involved in it. People after spending a lot of energy would end up leaving their own movement because it no longer belongs to them.

People do speak consciously and as if they care about eliminating racism however when it comes to real thing and having to talk about real racism and removing its manifestation then things do not remain the same. Things would get ugly.

In terms of what should be done: ultimately, the struggles of people of colour have to become part of the agenda of unions. This is not going to happen if we are working within the parameters that are set by the establishment.
As this quote in labor note says: “First, there must be a reorganization of unions to empower rank-and-file workers and to raise the consciousness of workers about the historic role of labor and the continuing struggles for justice based on class, race, and gender.” (the quote seem to have a line underneath)

The parameter of our works has to be determined by people of colour.

When people of colour gather to talk about their struggles it has to be in an environment with no control from unions and within their terms where they can identify their challenges and demand for changes to address that.

So first there should be awareness about this issue. The fact that people would be aware of eachothers struggle would mean that they know they are not alone and can work in solidarity with others.

The fact that racism within unions has not been spoken about much and cause reactions amongst those who consider themselves activists is a big source of concern amongst people of colour.

It is well founded concern because they will be facing abuse, isolation and marginalization at work place, within union and in community.

When these issues are out in the open and there are supportive allies then unions would have to listen. If we are sitting without talking about it then things are well hidden and look good from outside.

Firs awareness and bigger caucus amongst people of colour and good allies.

Some of the outburst is only small example of what people are facing in the real world. We are seeing them on the web and when it is out in the real work and you are facing these people then situation is very different. Things get really intimidating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Fuck you Negad. Judy, like me, is a lifelong leftist and has put her body on the line in many organising drives specifically targeting immigrant workers, women, workers of colour. Artistic Woodwork, anyone? Or the "slave quarters" here in Montréal.

Saying there was a lot of sexism on the left does not detract from the fact that the workers' movement and the broad left - including the women's movement, immigrant workers' groups etc are the only means to overcome oppression and exploitation. I haven't read Judy's whole book yet, but I know the story of women's caucuses - and caucuses of people of colour, LGBT etc. But not a smidgen of credence for those who don't know which side they are on.

---

quote:

---

The fact that racism within unions has not been spoken about much and cause reactions amongst those who consider themselves activists is a big source of concern amongst people of colour.

Firs awareness and bigger caucus amongst people of colour and good allies.

---

How do you feel about the following CUPE national convention resolutions?

http://www.cupe.ca/www/c2003Equality/8164
http://www.cupe.ca/www/c2003staffing/8116
http://www.cupe.ca/www/c2003staffing/8117

Have you tried to contact any of the people of colour caucuses in CUPE local unions?

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

[ 21 February 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Giving workers of colour a access to the trough has shown itself ineffective in dealing with systemic racism. And of course, there would still be barriers for workers of colour and other marginalized members to run in such elections.

But, if a few more workers of colour and others are given access to the ivory tower, it still remains an ivory tower.

I'm trying to discern the differences here amid some of the mud-slinging. At the risk of trivializing what I think I'm hearing Negad say, I think her main point is that we need a well-thought out, inclusive plan to deal with these issues. Piecemeal solutions, however well intentioned, have not brought the desired outcomes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I have deleted all comments to Negad - there is no point in my discussing with someone I hate.

[ 21 February 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Watchit Negad. lagatta's a firey Latin one. And we've got her back.

[ 21 February 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

This is for those who send messages to me expressing their disgust at this kind of attacks. Although these are samples of struggles that we are facing on everyday basis which have been consuming a lot of our energy, however, I hope this is not discouraging.

This is not new to us at all and as this kind of conducts start to show themselves then it become more clear as to why things haven’t been changing? Why there aren’t many people of colour involved in labour movement? Or other movements for that matter.
Also the reason for some of my points about allies.

As we know these are not isolated or extreme cases. It may be a bit extreme in a way that when we are involved in a structure and we talk about our struggles and try to include it in the agenda of the movement people may not tell us in our face that they “hate” us or may not tell us to “Watchit”, however, it comes through in many different ways and in different shapes such as actions that further marginalize us, isolation and various different shapes.

We are expected to talk about our struggles and oppression within the parameter of a group of people with a large sense of entitlement and extremely hung on their privileges. We are expected to see ourselves through their eyes and allow them to define our oppression and they decide what we are allowed to do or not to do about our oppression.

We are expected to be more concern about their feeling than our rights.

Some of the actions that we face on everyday basis and on this site can be very much compared to actions Walmart, … (those who are criticised by elites). They criticise actions of others while they do the same things.

I appreciate your support and what counts to me is that those who have the same experiences can share it and find fight our battles together.

There are many true allies who would be in our supports and this kind of awareness would help them to see our struggles and barriers and see how oppression has been manifesting itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by periyar:
speaking of solidarity of people of colour Negad-don't worry- I got your back.

---

Good to hear people are speaking. It is reaching many people.
I thought this qquote from Labor note is relvant to this thread:

"First, there must be a reorganization of unions to empower rank-and-file workers and to raise the consciousness of workers about the historic role of labor and the continuing struggles for justice based on class, race, and gender."

In so many ways struggles are similar and tehre are some common issues at different environments and in some ways struggles are unique. We can all get strength from each other.

WE should not allow tactics similar to Walmart to stop us from fighting for our rights. Walmart is closing the only unionized store to show the workers on that site who is in charge and silent them and also show other workers what would happen to them if they exercise their rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Non-partisan partisan:
While I certainly don't disagree with employment equity hiring principles, I'd like to take a step back and ask, "Has CUPE ever considered electing its professional staff?"

Giving workers of colour a access to the trough has shown itself ineffective in dealing with systemic racism. And of course, there would still be barriers for workers of colour and other marginalized members to run in such elections.

But, if a few more workers of colour and others are given access to the ivory tower, it still remains an ivory tower.

I'm trying to discern the differences here amid some of the mud-slinging. At the risk of trivializing what I think I'm hearing Negad say, I think her main point is that we need a well-thought out, inclusive plan to deal with these issues. Piecemeal solutions, however well intentioned, have not brought the desired outcomes.

I don't blame Negad for being wary about the efforts being made by labour council and other organizations. How many times have we gone to meetings where we, or other people, sound like broken records making the same points that were made 5, 10 and 20 years ago?

---

I appreciate your constructive suggestions. I hope more discussions can pursue and more constructive suggestions can be brought forward.

I think the election of proffessional staff sounds good. Staff would be accountable to teh members in many ways, won't get elected next time.
staff deal with a lot of issues concerning members but presently members do not have any say in the situation.
This sounds it may actually rank and file to have more say in the structure of union.

However I think the election system would need to change. The delegate system is not good.

I have never known what criteria my delgate used to vote except when I raised the issue in the union and we discussed who we didn't want and who we wanted and our criteria for exec members.

I live in what may be the strongest union city in Canada. Essentially, a candidate (be the office Federal, Provincial or municipal) who does not have the backing of the CAW and the District Labour Council cannot reasonably hope to be elected here. Organized labout here is much more politically powerful than any other force.

When I look around this community, who is driving all of the anti-sexist, anti-racist, indeed, any progressive cause ? The labour movement, be it by bringing resolutions before city council, co-funding affirmative action programs in our university and community college, you name it. Yes, big labor rules here, but I have very seldom seen it on the wrong side of a progressive issue, and moreover, it is most often out in front, leading the parade. That is why I am having a lot of trouble understanding Negad's crusade.

[ 21 February 2005: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

While unions may or may not still fulfill an anti-oppressive role in "workers" relation to "management," they may contrarily reproduce various forms of social oppression including race or gender oppression within their own structure and practices.

---

Beg to differ big time on this one. I agree that there is racism and racial alienation within the labour movement. But that definitely isn't because the labour movement breeds racism. In fact, history shows the labour movement in Canada and abroad has often championed the cause of equality, mutual respect and inclusiveness and specifically working against racism.

The sad truth is no group or movement or organization is immune to racist sentiment, be it outright contempt or just preconceived notions or fears. These types of prejudice seem to be bread into our economy and institutions as people are so often pitted against one another in so many ways.

But at the same time, there is nowhere I more efforts put into addressing these problems and issues than in the labour movement. Granted some of these efforts are more successful than others, and more can always be done.

In the Steelworkers, for example, we hold anti-racism workshops, multi-cultural education and other solidarity building efforts. We have rep positions and various ethnic committees. In my local, we work closely with the multi-cultural and human rights organizations here, as well as with the Shuswap Nation. We offer extra training and apprenticeship programs geared toward getting minorities, women and first nations into our traditional workforces, etc.

quote:

---

That is why I am having a lot of trouble understanding Negad's crusade.

---

The following is from a CUPE Local 2563 CUPE National Convention Resolution:

"WHEREAS CUPE knowingly created barriers for target group members who desire to be staff representatives; and

WHEREAS discriminatory language, favoritism and or objective criteria that would create a fear or reason that would make a prospective employee think twice about seeking employment with CUPE."

http://www.cupe.ca/www/c2003staffing/8117

People of Colour Caucuses in CUPE

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ethical Redneck:

Beg to differ big time on this one. I agree that there is racism and racial alienation within the labour movement. But that definitely isn't because the labour movement breeds racism. In fact, history shows the labour movement in Canada and abroad has often championed the cause of equality, mutual respect and inclusiveness and specifically working against racism.
The sad truth is no group or movement or organization is immune to racist sentiment, be it outright contempt or just preconceived notions or fears. These types of prejudice seem to be bread into our economy and institutions as people are so often pitted against one another in so many ways.

---

Racism exists in all components of the society and it does need to be addressed and union is one of it.
What makes unions such a sensitive component is the fact people's survival and livelihood is dependent on their jobs and also unions are in many ways involved in society. Whether it is to offer perspective for a health care system or child care or...

In order to offer a solutions or protect the means of livelihood then it is important to include people's struggles in the agenda of unions in a meaningful way.

Including trainings on multiculturalism or anti-racism, anti-oppression are one component of it. It would help in some ways providing in does address issues in-depth and speaks to the issue. The union trainings that I know of talk about multiculturalism in specific context of multiculturalism training that many people of colour inlcudign myself do not find that address the issues. However when it comes to other trainings it is all set up with assumption that we live in a homogenized society. If we can’t include diversity in the trainings then how can we use it in a diverse society? However trainings by itself is not enough nor that all trainings really address the issues.

People of colour would have to be able to speak about in ways that racism manifests itself and measures should be in place to directly address the issue as it effects those are effected by oppression of any kind.

Discussing of oppression as those oppressed experience it themselves are not being tolerated in many places let alone being accepted and then taking effective measures to eliminate it.

A recent study about public service shows that people of colour are not present within public services for several reasons one of them being that they end up leaving their jobs at a faster rate than others. (I have this study at my work and would like to post it later for those who are interested to read it. This study doesn’t really address the issues but at least shows the pattern).

What are the reasons for that: a big part for that is racism of employer but is that all the reasons?

Most public services work places are unionized, what do unions do about racism at work place whether it is perpetuated by the employer or co-workers?

How often unions file grievances about racism specially when it comes from co-workers?

Having heard from people of colour in spaces that we felt safe to speak, not very often grievances are filed. They refuse to file grievances specially when it involves conduct of other union members. The responses are such as: we are brothers and sisters, we are a union,... If the effected insist or take the matter to another place such as human rights offices then unions see it as a betrayal. Many report intimidation and further marginalization and isolation, creation of a poisoned work environment by union officials. People just can not fight and fight, they would simply leave their jobs.

Should unions take on a comprehensive study by an qualifies independent firms to clearly see the reasons for workers departure from unionised work places, absolutely. That is must, certain criteria has to met in order for the study be objective and comprehensive.

Should those oppressed have a say in meaningful way in setting the agenda, policies and the rules? Absolutely

Very very often complaints of racism has to be taken to individuals who speak about racism in general manner and sound like they have a commitment to anti-racism however they do not have any understanding of how racism manifests itself and do not want to hear it either.

It is good that unions donate funds for anti-racism initiatives or take part in exposing conducts of others such as Mahar case (unions offered some resources such as web site,..) however unions would also need to look internally and see what is going on internally as well. Our government donates fund to initiatives that goes towards initiatives that are trying to deal with poverty however poverty in Canada is still a problem.

There are policies and resolutions written but looking at it closer they won't really empower those oppressed.

When an organization writes a policy to combat racism but racism as it is defined by those in power that doesn’t really help those marginalized. It is still the prerogative of the establishment how to deal with it and it is dealt with as the establishment views oppression.

There is difference between seeing things as people’s rights and treating it as such, in which case people have the power to demand it, or viewing it as an act of kindness that it would be at the discretion of system to whether extend that kindness or not.

It is very important to understand power and privilege and how it impacts the society and each system and try to overcome the disparities resulted from it.

These issues need to be explored in an open and safe environment where those oppressed do not fear retaliation and further marginalization. Only the out come from those discussions, if integrated in the system can brign effective changes.

Create a safe environmetn where people can speak and ask them how often they speak about their expereinces and struggles in activists settigns, wheter unionor others? How long do they particiapte in those meetings before they stop? Why people feel that they can't speak about their own oppression and be part of solution finding for their own oppression?

I receive messages from people who have a lot to offer, actually a lot more than those who never stop talking for a moment to hear what others have to say, but do not feel safe to speak and do not have much energy left to deal with those who would do anything to silent them while others cheer for them. These are not new nor isolated it is wide spread.

If people only hearing form one perspective tehn what is the result?

Having said that, it was pointed out that racism and other "isms" reproduce themselves and often reflect society at large. I agree with this. I think the key is in understanding racism as a relationship, not simply as a behaviour. That relationship, racial oppression and white privilege are the two sides of the coin.

It matters little what my intentions may be. This construct is the result of centuries of unequal power relationships and self-serving definitions which simply cannot be wished away. For example, in days of slavery, one needed not to look "Black" but to have a certain percentage of Black ancestry in order to be considered enslavable. I think it was 1/16 or something.

My whiteness will accrue benefits whether I exercise them or not. For example, I'm apartment hunting. I don't have to worry about being denied a place because of the colour of my skin. Is there anything I can do about it? Not really.

I know this is controversial within some left circles. After all, rich white folks accrue a lot more benefit from racism than do poor folks. Our class interests should trump racism but sadly, that is not usually the case.

Some may even argue that there is no tangible benefit at all from race (or gender?), i.e., that the only thing that matters is class and that we're all sisters and brothers who are more or less equally oppressed by capitalism. Others argue that while racism and sexism exist, their solution lies in changing the economic/social system - i.e. - "Wait until after the revolution."

While I don't subscribe to all manifestations of "identity politics", I also do not reject it because it has forced the left to acknowledge that the "isms" must in fact be addressed in the here and now, both in society at large and within popular organizations.

In my experience, the leadership of my union, which is predominantly white men, have done their best to "control" democracy to ensure non-white people, women and anyone else that has beliefs or opinions that may differ from theirs, do not become a part of the "decision-making" body. Sure, the boys will allow one or two to partcipate, but these people have never been anything more than "gate-keepers."

In my view, the multi-national corporation I work for, is light years ahead of my union, in this regard.

[ 22 February 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]

quote:

---

In my view, the multi-national corporation I work for, is light years ahead of my union, in this regard.

---

Well there. With all due respect, I find this one hard to believe. Not saying that it can't be true in your instance. But it certainly ain't true anywhere else, as far as I can tell.

I apologize if I get too personal on this. But I notice you are a forest worker. I don't know much about what goes on the Island, so I can't comment on your situation.

But here, in both my union local and in the IWA, there is fairly significant ethnic diversity at the leadership and committee levels, and has been for a long time.

While the community is predominantly "white" (don't really like that term), as in Anglo-Saxon North European descent, there are relatively large first nations, Japanese, East Indian communities, as well as non-Anglo Europeans, like Italians, Greek, Portuguese and Slavic.

While the participation levels go up and down from time to time, the presence is always there. In fact, the ethnic diversity is far more among the union workforce, including among the elected reps, than it is among the corporate strata.

Actually, the main reason why there any diversity in management at all is because of union-sponsored, or union-negotiated, training and skills upgrading courses that gave people regardless of their race or ethnicity the opportunity to get promoted into junior management.

But having said this, I don't see more ethnic diversity in corporate management as some big achievement for democracy or equality.

If you want to look at an old boys club, look at any corporate heirarchy. There is no democracy there. No one is elected. The only way women or minorities get accepted into the management bureaucracy is if they adopt and abide by the same oppressive top-down, money-grubbing philosophy as the old boys.

In other words, the attitude of "the working class can kiss my ass, I got the boss's job at last" soon takes over for most folks who get out of a union position and into management.

I have often said that we, as a union, should start training our own managers, with our values and economic wisdom, and demand, as a bargaining proposal, that we get to elect them as our directors.

I view my local union leadership as "oppressive top-down, money grubbing" old boys. These people abuse the membership's funds on a regular basis. They consistently state they are a "democratic union," however, they rarely practice democracy in a fair way - they manipulate and interfere with the process.

Most members do not even bother participating in the ballots - it is a waste of time. The leadership calls it apathy. It's not apathy - there is no point - the ballots are not held in a truly democratic manner. Politicians would never get away with what these people do.

These people are also fully aware that any challenge to their process would ultimately have to go the supreme courts and to do so would cost thousands of dollars. Members can not afford the high-costs of justice.

The manner my union leadership practices democracy allows them to control the outcome of every ballot.

[ 22 February 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freedom of Expression:
Ethical Redneck said, "...The only way women or minorities get accepted into the management bureaucracy is if they adopt and abide by the same oppressive top-down, money-grubbing philosophy as the old boys."

I view my local union leadership as "oppressive top-down, money grubbing" old boys. These people abuse the membership's funds on a regular basis. They consistently state they are a "democratic union," however, they rarely practice democracy in a fair way - they manipulate and interfere with the process.

Most members do not even bother participating in the ballots - it is a waste of time. The leadership calls it apathy. It's not apathy - there is no point - the ballots are not held in a truly democratic manner. Politicians would never get away with what these people do.

These people are also fully aware that any challenge to their process would ultimately have to go the supreme courts and to do so would cost thousands of dollars. Members can not afford the high-costs of justice.

The manner my union leadership practices democracy allows them to control the outcome of every ballot.

[ 22 February 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freedom of Expression:
If the democratic process is flawed, i.e., through interference and manipulation, then, obviously corruption exists. It would be very difficult to take over a corrupt union.

The members are not apathetic. They have just not gotten mad enough to physically throw these people out of office. The day will come.

---

It is difficult to challenge a group of people with a lot of resources. They have the money of the members to unleash their hired guns at their members whenever they wish to.

I personaly don't see it as being all that easy to fight corruption.
There also may be other factors that members may be worried about.

If in case the union officials have a close relations with employer whether formal or informal influences,...

Lack of involvement is not an indication of apathy.

Negad, what part of "human nature" and "hardball" don't you understand ?

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freedom of Expression:
Keeping it "within the family" will only serve to keep the corruption and abuse hidden. It is every union members duty to expose the injustice.

---

Things have to be exposed and systematic means that allows the corrupt conducts should be changed. It should not be about who screams louder. It should be a system that people can participate without having to be subject to dirty politic or be expected to play dirty politic.

Exposure would allow people to be vigilant about these conducts and also many can share their experiences and work in solidarity.

Under no circumestances things should be kept within family. Then what kind of family would that be? There has been ample oppurtunity for things to be changed but it hasn't then actions will be taken by workers to cahgne it and exposure is one of them.

Speaking about human nature:

Those who by nature are justice seeking should be able to get involved.

The way that system is set up presently will result in marginalization of those justice seeking more often than it would allow them to do anything about in-justice.

If we accept dirty politics, as human nature then we are in a wrong path and we are accepting those dirty players as the norm of society. Many see greed as human nature. Shall we accept the greed of corporate and allow them to not pay workers fairy because it is “human nature”?

Are we going to cheer for corporate every time that they succeed in oppressing workers a bit more? Are they being strong, or… for doing taking away people’s rights or is it that the system as it is set up would give them permission to treat workers unjustly? shouldn't we fight to change the system and get what rightfully belong to workers?

I do not accept any of these as human nature nor that I accept in-justice.

[ 23 February 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
Negad, I'm really finding your posts very hard to follow.

They're filled with vague generalities with little in the way of concrete proposals. If you made some concrete proposals, you'd probably find that most people on this board would support them.

---

(Italics are mine.) I agree with that. Plus sweeping generalizations about anyone who questions you or asks for clarifications.

And Freedom of Expression: If things at your local are truly as bad as you say, perhaps you could start another thread and see what babblers could suggest to help you change things. What troubles me here in this thread is the whole sweeping trashing of "unions" in general, as uniformly racist, ... and now, with your contribution, uniformly corrupt. (That's not what your words are saying, you're referring to your own experiences at your own local, but in a thread such as this one, an impression is given.)

I don't think you'd see too many people in this thread maintaining that all unions are free of any vestiges of racism, or that racism isn't a problem. Many babblers are probably also strong supporters of more rank-and-file control of unions. It's just this careless, sloppy, generalizing that gets peoples' goats. And with that, I bow out of this thread now and forever.

quote:

---

It should be a system that people can participate without having to be subject to dirty politic or be expected to play dirty politic.

---

I'm the last one to say "let's fight fire with fire", or "the ends justify the means". In fact, I've been involved in several elections where we lost by a few votes - probably because we did not fight dirty (i.e. - lie, cheat, rumour monger, character assassination etc.) We fought on the level of ideas and sometimes on our opponent's record (fair game).

I've concluded that dirty politics in some unions mirror the dirty politics we see played out by political parties. In fact, unions don't hold a candle to parties when it comes to fighting dirty.

So the big question is - how do you win without playing dirty and without having the resources to sit around all day plotting and scheming?

I was talking to a guy last week from another union. He's run for president unsuccessfully twice and is planning a third run. He takes the view that "winning" doesn't mean just becoming president. You can "win" by increasing your vote. You can "win" by bringing the debate out into the open. While those are noble goals, I don't consider them to be "winning". Winning means getting your hands on the levers of "power" in my books (or at least getting some influence).

quote:

---

I've concluded that dirty politics in some unions mirror the dirty politics we see played out by political parties. In fact, unions don't hold a candle to parties when it comes to fighting dirty.

So the big question is - how do you win without playing dirty and without having the resources to sit around all day plotting and scheming?

---

One may choose to play the game of the dirty politicians to win an election as part of a bigger strategy or to bring temporary relief to a bad situation; however by itself it is not going to remove systematic causes of corruption.

I think in situations that workers appear to be apathetic and are not doing anything; they may feel that they are fighting in isolation and they are alone. Lack of resources to fight corruption of a powerful group of people who wouldn’t hesitate to use dirty politics to silent people is not easy either.

Exposure would bring awareness about the fact that we are not alone. We may be isolated at a physical space of our work place but there are many who are living the same struggles.

This knowledge and sharing experiences would energize people and would allow us to work in solidarity.

A system that is set up in a manner that would allow corruption, has fundamental flaws and it has to be changed fundamentally. Things won't change fundamentally by finding a strategy just to topple one group of corrupt people in one local temporary.

Some suggestions that I have heard, people probably offer these suggestions out of kindness, are similar to suggestions offered by some angry passer byers at anti-poverty protests or call in TV programs in CBC: "a donut shop in my neighbourhood is hiring why don't people go work there", "why don't you get a job instead of protesting?" “there is an apartment vacant in my building, would you like to apply for it?”

These may bring temporary relief to a very few people but would it eliminate causes of poverty? The protests would bring attention to this issue and …..

Exposure about corruption and “isms” of unions would bring attention to this issue and it is a start. This by itself is power of working people.

quote:

---

The membership is slowly realizing what our union is: it is a business, not a union, and the member's best interests are not their first priority. The union/business first priority is maintaining the organization. If it means the members must suffer in order to do so - that's the way it goes. Maintaining the status quo is the union/business number one priority.

---

There is a very interesting piece (and debate) in The Black Commentator that discusses issues of diversity in the labour movement and how planned proposals to reform the AFL-CIO will severely impact the influence and presence of women and people of colour in the labour movement. Just to quote a few bullet points from the peice:

quote:

---

black union wages declined from 2003 to 2004, while the union wages of all other worker groups – whites, Asians, and Latinos – increased during the same period. Consequently, the racial wage gap between black and white union members not only persists but also is getting wider. In 2003, black union workers earned 15 percent less than their white counterparts ($665 vs. $779). By the end of 2004, the gap had grown to 20 percent ($656 vs $808).

This glaring double disparity of high union job losses and shrinking union paychecks for African American workers has gone strangely unmentioned in the debate over organized labor’s diminished power and its capacity to rebound. The fact that the leading voices calling for drastic changes in the AFL-CIO have failed to get up from their stools of indifference to even acknowledge the clearly racialized impact of economic conditions on black trade unionists is appalling but certainly not surprising.

Among the dozen or so proposals to reform the AFL-CIO, several plans would, in fact, undermine the presence and influence of women and people of color in the labor movement. Some of the major changes that would pose a threat to these groups include:

· Reducing the size of the AFL-CIO executive council
· Streamlining the national AFL-CIO
· Reducing the role of state and local labor bodies
· Eliminating all but 20 of the AFL-CIO’s 60 unions through mergers
· Eliminating constituency group representatives on the AFL-CIO’s executive council

---

In relation to our discussion about exposure and connections through exposure.
This article is from Members For Democracy web site: So You Want To Be Free?

quote:

---

...............
Populist movements - are movements of the people. They have their genesis in people. They are created by the people for some purpose that originates with the people.
Movements are not creations of the state. They do not serve state interests. They do not exist to uphold the existing order.
Here's a crucial difference: Institutions support the existing order. Movements oppose the existing order. They move against it.
The state cannot regulate a movement. A movement won't submit to the will of the state. Nor would a state wish to regulate a movement. To regulate it is to give it legitimacy and the state can't legitimize something that is moving against state interests. Outlawing or destroying a movement is the only regulation of a movement that makes sense to the state.
Movements have their genesis when a group of people are dissatisfied with the existing order - usually some aspect of it that places them in a position of great disadvantage.
Movements form when enough of those people connect with each other. Their shared dissatisfaction with the existing order is what connects them. Someone says, "This isn't right!" and someone else responds, "That's what I've been thinking too."
This connection is really important. It's the beginning of a process of freeing the mind from an orthodoxy that dictates: If you can't conform yourself to the existing order, you must be nuts. It gets the oppressor's outposts out of your head.
Once the connection is made, the like-minded talk: About what's wrong (a common grievance is identified), what's right (a common goal is identified), how "what's right" can be achieved (they conspire about making it happen), then there is action. Encouraged by the knowledge that they are not alone, they seek out like-minded others. Forward momentum begins.
The issue that draws them together is fundamental - liberty, equality, dignity - and so is their goal. The goal, when achieved ("if" is not an option), will fundamentally change the existing order.
In pursuit of their goal, movements do not play by the rules - formal or informal - of the existing order. People who are "on the move" are keenly aware that the rules are against them and playing by the rules will achieve nothing. The rules exist to snuff out movements not to help them achieve their goals.
The momentum of a movement as it proceeds towards it goal, is dependent on its strength. It's strength lies in its people. The more people, the more momentum. The role of people in a movement is quite different from the role of people in an institution. This applies to what they do and how they come to be a part of a movement.
People on the move, don't seek to convert people who don't share their interests or goals. Nor do they seek, through institutional partnerships, to indiscriminately herd people into their fold. Converting someone who has no connection to your cause is a waste of time and energy. Bringing the disinterested into your movement will slow it down. Bringing in people who may be opposed to your objectives may sink your movement.
People on the move do not need people who are only half-committed or part- persuaded. They seek people who share their goals. They reach out across the landscape like a beacon, alerting like-minded others that "Here's what we believe must stop/must change/must begin. This is our vision. If you're into it, spread the word. Make it happen."

---

[ 26 February 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

Negad, I take it from all you say that you you are a union member. I take it that you belong to one or more of what you see as oppressed ,inority groups".

I suspect then, that as union members, you and all of those for whom you plead are employed and a a stable income. Guess what ? Most of us don't.

Since you and "yours" are unionized employees, I would strongly suspect that most, if not all have take-home income in excess of $1200 per month. Guess what. Many, if not most would sell a soul, kidney or both for that.

I presume that most of the people on whose behalf you lament have some assurrance that they will eat next week. That would be nice.

I presume they also have some idea where they might be able to sleep, or call home a week from now. That too would be wonderful.

I agree wholeheartedly with an observation made by skadly on another topic; it is not a "sum zero" game, and there are issues within issues, causes within causes.

To me, you are arguing on behalf of the already privledged. If they remain somehow disadvantaged by virtue of discrimination, then you are right and to be commended to champion their cause.

But, so far as I know, no one here bargains on vehalf of the Treasury Board or whoever you bargain with. So far as I know, no one here is on the national executive of your union.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Non-partisan partisan:

So the big question is - how do you win without playing dirty and without having the resources to sit around all day plotting and scheming?

I was talking to a guy last week from another union. He's run for president unsuccessfully twice and is planning a third run. He takes the view that "winning" doesn't mean just becoming president. You can "win" by increasing your vote. You can "win" by bringing the debate out into the open. While those are noble goals, I don't consider them to be "winning". Winning means getting your hands on the levers of "power" in my books (or at least getting some influence).

Unfortunately, I think he's a product of the left - i.e. - finding ways to justify losing and spinning it into some kind of moral victory.

---

I have been trying to make a point about this topic but haven't ahd much time and I am very tired now as well but like to address it anyway.

I think this is a very important point.

Earlier in the thread the issue of eliticity was discussed. It was also discussed that not everyone is interested in union in order to work for or with workers rather it is a place for them to be a leader and to achieve their personal and political ambitions to be a leader.
This article that Robbee_dee posted on another thread (The man who would remake U.S. Labour) also address this topic:

quote:

---

............
Indeed, virtually everything about the way organized labor is structured undermines its central premises. Most national and international officers are career union leaders, for example, without term limits or alternative career tracks and therefore with no incentive to groom younger leaders—indeed, just the opposite. Union elections resemble something out of the old Soviet Union more than anything one envisions when using the word "democracy." Union education departments have been among the first casualties of budget cutting, while union publications are issued ever more infrequently and in some cases have been eliminated altogether. Multiple union mergers mean ever-larger bureaucracies and a steady diminishment of local control and decision making.
........

---

The rest is here:
Let's Depose the One-Eyed King: It's Time We Reclaimed Labor's Vision

In my opinion this is the big problem as these ambitions are the driving force and would result in individuals fighting dirty. Part of fighting dirty is also to come up with “group strategies” to stop people from talking. In my opinion brining awareness about this issue and talking about it is important. It is important because those who are affected by the system of oppression are the people who would understand what you are talking about adn that is the most important issue.

Along the way there are also individuals who make a point to educate themselves about struggles of others before bullying them in order to silence them, would come around as well. I think this as a strategy, providing if it is consistent, would work. It is obviously going to be a lengthy process.

As the number of people who are speaking out increases, strength comes from within. I know this is lengthy but the alternative (continuing with the status quo) is scary.

From what I understand the “Coalition of Black Trade Unionists” in US is much stronger in terms of number of people being involved and actively speaking out about racism. In US they have been active longer and have been open about discrimination and corruption of unions for longer period of time http://cbtu.ca/index.html .

I think open discussions about this issue is important. It is also important to keep in mind that strategies of bullies would silent many people however when it comes to acting as a group everyone would know that there is an alternative to the status quo and having to live with oppression.

In my experiences the more bullies try to silent people the more it reveals what is under nit of the conscious out look. I know it may sound like justification of lost in election but I really think that the oppressors once desperate enough would reveal themselves very loud very clear. .

There is reason that for flying squads within unions. To me this is a sign that more and more people seem to come to the conclustion that something needs to be done.

"The Crisis Facing Working People" and Proposed Plans for Changes

What about the Racism That We Face?

The Union structure as it currently exists needs desperate and immediate changes. The acknowledgment of this structural problem by a U.S. based union coalition being led by Brother Andy Stern of the SEIU is a brilliant and courageous move. Despite the importance of Sterns acknowledgement, however, a proposal to build a new structure that has no tangible plan to include workers in the rebuilding process is troubling.

Even more troubling is the fact that Sterns plan doesn't appear to recognize at all the struggles that blacks, aboriginals and people of colour face within their work places, their unions or in society as a whole.

Racism has an unquestionably destructive effect upon worker solidarity. Accordingly, a successful restructuring of the size and scope that Stern proposes will require the realization, recognition and acknowledgement of the racism faced by individuals at work and in their private lives and a plan to eliminate it. To date, no such acknowledgement nor plan appears in Sterns structure. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any plan whatsoever to combat racism or to even include marginalized workers in the restructuring process.

Make it a double.

Let's face it, there are not many people of colour involved in the labour movement. At least not in any meaningful way. And although many unions have some token material on their websites regarding racism, the general and "politically correct" manner with which they present and promote the material in reality achieves nothing.

While the unions pat themselves on the back for being "progressive", people of colour are still routinely silenced and dismissed simply for trying to insert real and current racism issues into the union agenda.

"Don't rock the boat", "Grow a thicker skin", "Look at things positively!" - all phrases you just may hear from your union leaders should the topic of racism at work be brought to the table.

So, what strategies do unions have in place for combating racism at the workplace?

What strategies do unions have in place for combating racism within the union?

Does anyone really believe that the further marginalization of individuals who speak out about racism actually "combats" racism?

One for the road.

Evidently, unions don't belong to workers any more. Unions have become a playground for power-seekers; an avenue through which personal and political ambitions are fulfilled. Racism doesn't affect them. The notion of empowering the membership terrifies them. And, should they have the courage to look, it is within this fear that todays unions will find their direct contribution to the perpetuation of racism in our society.

A conceptual restructuring of the labour movement that does not include the full and meaningful participation of the rank and file, including those already marginalized by the current system, begs the question: Whom are these ideas serving?

[ 25 March 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

quote:

---

Workers look for equal opportunity from new anti-racism plan
………………
“The announcement of new money for a national anti-racism action plan in the 2005 budget speech was the first of what we hope will be more steps toward dealing with the racism that denies full citizenship to too many of Canada’s working people. The gap between announcing a national strategy and having a national strategy that works is something we are eager to help the government close,” says Hassan Yussuff, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress.

According to Canadian Labour Congress research, racism is very much alive in Canada and it is damaging the lives of millions. Unemployment among Aboriginal peoples is triple the rate for the rest of the Canadian workforce. Recent immigrants earn only two-thirds the annual wages and salaries of everyone else and are less likely to qualify for Employment Insurance because the rules are stacked against them.
………………………………
“Canada’s unions have a lot of experience working with employers and workers to get racism and discrimination out of their workplaces. We’ve made a real difference in people’s lives and we want to make sure that the promise made in the last budget is kept in a way that continues to make a difference where people live, work and study,” says Yussuff.
The Canadian Labour Congress’ statement to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination contains a list of other measures that governments of all levels, employers and working Canadians can take to end racism and discrimination. Topping that list (for the fourth year in a row) is the development of a national anti-racism framework and the establishment of a national anti-racism council.
............

---

The labour organizations claim that they have made a real difference in people’s lives and perhaps they have done some changes on the surface however they have to realize that the issue of racism belong to people who live it on everyday basis.

As long as the labour organizations or any other white dominated organization is trying to dominate any discussion and any attempt for combating racism then racism will remain well and alive. They find solutions that suits them and would protect their feeling of supremacy and privileges. The solutions for combating racism have to come from the people who live it and not by those who stand to loose privileges if racism was to be openly discussed and combated.

The job of others is to change their practices and conducts not to define our oppression or force us to look at our oppression through their eyes(they are happy therefore we should be happy to. Labour organizations can only take the role of allies and not the role of leaders in combating racism.

As allies they can demand that the government make sure that people of colour have the leadership in finding solutions. The individuals who are going to be involved have to be elected or chosen by those who live with racism and not by the general public or the white union bosses. A person who has to please the union bosses in order to save their status or position can not work in the best interest of those who are living with racism.

True act of anti-racism may and would be perceived as betrayal by the big bosses therefore there is a clear conflict of interest when unions get involved in the antiracism at work places.

Government has a responsibility to make sure that it is the people of colour, aboriginals, blacks and all those who are effected negatively by racism are in charge of combating racism everywhere including at work places and do not leave it to the “UNIONS” and employers.

quote:

---

Perspective from Belfast, Ireland (none / 0)

I think the overarching principle here needs to be that the labour movement unites and organises workers regardless of difference. To seek to build industrial strength for workers through a program which involves tackling issues that divide us (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.)
These cannot just be aspirations or mere platitudes in Mission Statements. White people, men, heterosexuals, 'able bodied', and other advantaged groups need to address their own prejudice and structural/institutional advantage.

...
...

If we are seeking to attract the finest leaders to the labour movement, these are the measures we need to take.
When organisers and union leaders work 22 hours a day to build strength for members the priority of promoting equality within our unions may not seem to be relevant. Indeed to even suggest internal inequality may offend these individuals whose sacrifice and dedication would seem hollow if they were to admit that structurally and instituionally the union promotes sexist or racist practices. But you can be assured that usually these individuals come from advantaged and priviledged groups and their skin colour, sex, nationality, physical ability, has not made them feel degraded or condescended to by fellow workers who should be their brother or sister.

Unions need to accept that inequality exists within our ranks and take steps to challenge it where it exists. Its depressing to think that we even have to say this, but its where we're at.

---

quote:

---

The Union structure as it currently exists needs desperate and immediate changes.

---

Actually, the truth is some unions need restructuring more than others. There is an understanding among many union members and activists, including me, that you can never be too inclusive or democratic, and the effort to make our organizations more and more these ways is a constant learning process.

That being said, bushing off the whole labour movement and painting every union as the same is just plain senseless and refusing to acknowledge the critical role of labour groups historically in battling racism in society and within their own ranks and the efforts made by people is even worse.

quote:

---

While the unions pat themselves on the back for being "progressive", people of colour are still routinely silenced and dismissed simply for trying to insert real and current racism issues into the union agenda.

---

I don’t know who wrote this, but it is a huge simplistic and slanderous generalization if I ever saw one. This totally ignores and dismisses all of the serious efforts made by labour activists everywhere. I wonder if the author is really serious about addressing racism and alienation within the labour movement, or if s/he is just trying to score political points with some anti-union power elite (like perhaps the corporate-backed Liberal Party, which claims to be socially progressive yet opposes any form of democracy and in particular the labour movement tooth and nail).

quote:

---

So, what strategies do unions have in place for combating racism at the workplace? What strategies do unions have in place for combating racism within the union?
Does anyone really believe that the further marginalization of individuals who speak out about racism actually "combats" racism?

---

Well, let’s see:

http://www.bcfed.com/Taking+Action/Fighting+Racism/index_4.htm

http://www.laborstart.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&view_records=1&sb=4&so=descend&labstart_jump=1&mh=25&keyword=racism

http://www.uswa.ca/program/content/search.php

http://www.nupge.ca/_vti_script/search.htm0.idq

http://grace.cupe.ca/search.php?query=Racism&topic_id=§ion_id=&author_id=&language_id=en

http://www.caw.ca/search/searchresults.asp

or how about some labour-sponsored specific things”

http://www.racism.org.za/program/wshop.htm
http://www.hrea.org/lists/wcar/alliance.html
http://www.imadr.org/geneva/2002/SCHR54.Week3-2.doc
http://www.directblackaction.com/Racism_UN_POA.htm
http://www.workingagainstracism.org/fighting.html

This is just a tiny speck compared to what’s out there. The list goes on and on and on and on……

Could more be done? Sure. Have some things been done wrong? Probably. Are traditionally disadvantaged groups not as involved as they should be? True in many cases. Are there still social barriers to many of them getting more involved? Obviously there are.

But to imply that no one is doing anything except paying lip service is, well, nuts.

quote:

---

Let's face it, there are not many people of colour involved in the labour movement. At least not in any meaningful way.

---

“Not many” is a pretty subjective term, especially when making these huge sweeping condemnations. “Not enough” might be more reasonable to say. But I find there is almost no organization or movement where “people of colour” (whatever that actually means) are more welcome (other than ethnic organizations and established churches within ethnic communities) than labour unions, including my own local.

I have heard many people say it is the one forum where they can speak about things of concern that a wide variety of people can relate to and understand and appreciate, who won’t challenge their legitimacy.

quote:

---

Evidently, unions don't belong to workers any more. Unions have become a playground for power-seekers; an avenue through which personal and political ambitions are fulfilled. Racism doesn't affect them. The notion of empowering the membership terrifies them. And, should they have the courage to look, it is within this fear that todays unions will find their direct contribution to the perpetuation of racism in our society.

---

Well this is pretty out to lunch. Of course unions aren’t immune to power politics, sell-out careerists and fraudulent individuals. Our corporate capitalist dominated economy cranks these types of people out by the truckload and pushes these destructive attitudes to the max.

But the historic truth is unions are one of the main forums where these types of people and attitudes are challenged, and the fact these types exist within union memberships, and some get elected to leadership positions is because they are influenced by these attitudes that dominate our economy—not because they foster them in themselves. The top-down follow-the-leader attitude that is all too common within many unions these days is in fact much more common and entrenched just about everywhere else.

The fact is unions DO belong to the workers, because they are entirely made up of workers who each have an equal share of ownership and are structured on a democratic one-person-one vote basis, with regular meetings, elections, conventions with elected delegates and open proceedings and in varying ways a social justice and community building mandate.

How well these organizations do these things or how effective they are and how often varies from union to union. It depends mainly on how active and involved the membership is and how well the elected leadership encourages and facilitates this.

But to make the above broad statement is just out to lunch.

quote:

---

Labour organizations can only take the role of allies and not the role of leaders in combating racism.

---

That’s too bad. This writer should have told everyone this a long time ago, since historically it seems labour unions, via organizing, lobbying, education campaigns, political action and support for anti-racist initiatives throughout the public, have been the most successful in winning battles against racism and other forms of discrimination.

Your truly, for one, as a victim of racial bigotry from a working class family that had to fight against it constantly, learned about racism and how to combat it via the labour movement—and nowhere else.

quote:

---

The individuals who are going to be involved have to be elected or chosen by those who live with racism and not by the general public or the white union bosses.

---

Excuse me. In order for someone to be a boss, they can’t be in an elected position where they can be voted out of office. They certainly can act in an authoritarian manner, become corrupted, sell out to the boss, get intimidating, and all the other rotten things that can go on in any kind of organization (not just unions). But they can’t be bosses, since the nature of being a boss is to be immune from accountability to those you boss around.

This statement implies that anyone who is elected to a leadership position in a union automatically becomes some sort of autocrat who acts like a boss, especially if they are “white” (again, whatever that means).

This is not only grossly inaccurate, factless and slanderous. It’s also racist. The fact is some of the most outspoken anti-racist activists are and have been union leaders, and being from European backgrounds. So let’s get off this sweeping generalization and stereo-typing crap. It contradicts the supposed commitment to fighting racism.

BTW, there are many unions, including my own, that have set up elected executive positions or committee advisory positions, elected from various established ethnic groups among the union members. We have an aboriginal caucus rep on our national executive board, as well as advisory positions from immigrant workers’ caucuses, etc.

Then again our democratically elected executives and reps are all a bunch of corrupt power hungry “bosses” and we’re all, regardless of our ethnicity, a bunch of selfish ignorant bigots who need some superior wise intellectual for guidance, by this author’s assumption.

quote:

---

This issue is another opportunity for them to blow their own horns and grab status and then use the same status to further oppress us.

---

Interesting statement. This is exactly how whoever wrote this across: as a raving political opportunist looking for a power base to rant and advance themselves by generalizing, mis-representing and putting down and inciting hatred against other people who they have never met.