quote:

---

The CLC is aligned to the NDP as are its affiliates. The only union that isn't is the real heirs of radical Canadian syndicalism is CUPW.

CUPW is one of the most radical unions prepared to back up its demands with the mass strike, wildcats and direct action. Whose president showed what militant leadership is when he went to jail on behalf of his members who staged a strike despite a Federal Government ban.

Something Buzz has never done, gone to jail for the rank and file. And so his syndicalism is that of Gomperism, bread and butter issues, his politics of strategic voting is to reward his friends, the Liberals and NDP while punishing the Conservatives. This is a step backwards politically.

It also allows for right wing locals to become non involved, and really in the CAW was predicated upon the shift to the right by the Oshawa local which under the tutelage of the right supported the Reform party federally.

Something that Buzz avoids talking about.

---

what do you think?
__________________________________________

quote:

---

unless they have something up their sleeve like starting a similar organization

---

[ 30 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
* Warning - A babbler has complained to me before about getting "pop-ups" from Plawiuk's site. I think its because he uses blogspot.com for hosting. I have never had a problem with it, but I have some fairly good blocking software on my computer. If you are concerned, though, you might not want to follow this link.

---

Blogspot doesn't have pop ups. He is a part of affiliate program to make cash off of people visting his blog and that's where the pop ups come from.

On the blog itself, I think he's off. He makes it sound like every union in Canada and the CLC is NDP and that's clearly not the case.

The biggest problem with our current rift in the labour movement is that it isn't about anything.

In the US there's a big fight that's centrally about how to organize.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenehan:
This probably belongs over in labour and consumption.

---

Whoops, my mistake. I'll email a mod and ask for it to be moved.

[ 30 March 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

CUPW is one of the most radical unions prepared to back up its demands with the mass strike, wildcats and direct action. Whose president showed what militant leadership is when he went to jail on behalf of his members who staged a strike despite a Federal Government ban.

---

The CAW has enjoyed a legal right to strike since as long as I can remember. The CUPW has only enjoyed a legal right to strike, since, I think, 1981 when Canada Post became a crown corporation.

And even then, the government has introduced back to work legislation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Although Plawiuk gives us little to go on beyond his own musings, a CAW split from the CLC could make some sense. They've shown no hesitation about pissing off other unions as it is, and if they were freed from the CLC's no-raiding provisions, the CAW would be free to fire away in various jurisdictional squabbles that they are currently wrapped up in.

---

When my plant was organized away from the Cooper's Union, the CLC kicked the UAW Canada out for a while.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Is "organized away" a euphemism for "raided"?

---

Yes, those raids usually take place before dawn and involve softening-up by rocket and mortar attacks, after which the plant is over-run by suicide bombers - who then serve tea and biscuits while oganizing a secret government-run ballot. Needless to say, the raided workers never really want to join the CAW, but some as-yet unidentified substances in the biscuits apparently induces them to vote in bizarre ways.

ETA: By the way, when the CAW asked members of the SEIU, who were deeply dissatisfied with their existing union representation, to "Lend the CAW your votes!", it was of course nothing like what the NDP and other parties do during election campaigns to steal votes from other parties. Any such comparison is invidious, unfair, and likely a plot organized and bankrolled by Basil.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Is sarcasm a way to avoid the question?

---

Your question was addressed to Tommy Paine, not me - he can explain what he was talking about, I'm sure. I was just ridiculing your question.

When workers are fed up with their union, the law allows them to change unions even if their top brass don't agree. It's done by a democratic secret ballot, and the window of opportunity is a narrow one every few years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The CAW was expelled from the CLC in 2000 after all those Ontario SEIU members jumped ship. The CAW did not welcome the expulsion as an opportunity to "fire away" at any other unions. Rather, it negotiated a settlement which allowed it to re-enter the Congress in 2001. Given that recent history, I'm not sure what you are basing your reflection upon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Your question was addressed to Tommy Paine, not me - he can explain what he was talking about, I'm sure.

Okay... but then you go on to say:

When workers are fed up with their union, the law allows them to change unions even if their top brass don't agree. It's done by a democratic secret ballot, and the window of opportunity is a narrow one every few years.

So who made the first step? Did the workers approach the CAW, or any other unions, first? Or did the CAW approach the workers?

For obscure historical reasons, this is called a "raid"

So, it IS the same thing. And a euphemism is being used because you don't like the sound of the word "raid". That's exactly what a euphemism IS.

Thanks for clarifying that.

And the reasons aren't all THAT obscure. Look into the history of how the Union of Mine Mill and Smelter Workers raided and undercut the more progressive, militant and socialist Western Federation of Miners (in collusion with such union-busting pricks as Selwyn Blaylock of Cominco), and you'll understand why the practise was considered treachery amongst union brothers. Quite often, raiders are seen as "empire-builders", and not much better than the bosses. There's your "obscure" lesson for the day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
When workers are fed up with their union, the law allows them to change unions even if their top brass don't agree. It's done by a democratic secret ballot, and the window of opportunity is a narrow one every few years. For obscure historical reasons, this is called a "raid" - a nasty-sounding word which is used by those people who fear workers' making their own decision about the union they want to represent them.

---

The CAW and SEIU spent several million dollars of their members dues and thousands of hours of their staff and activist time trying to organize workers that were
already organized. If we lived in a world where all workers had a union this might make sense but given that three-quarters of the workforce have no union protection at all this seems like a mind-numbingly stupid waste of worker's resources.

That's why the CLC (and any other labour organization worth it's salt) has rules against starting these destructive civil wars. If a member union is not fulfilling it's responsibilities to its members there are actions that can be taken by the CLC to ensure that it does.

In this particular case the SEIU was a far from perfect union - but they were turning things around and are now one of the strongest unions on the continent. Workers in raided CAW locals don't have contracts that are all that different than those who stuck with the SEIU. I haven't heard anyone (except Buzz and the SEIU local Presidents who now have some pretty swish CAW porkchopper jobs) say it was a worthwhile endeavour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
So who made the first step? Did the workers approach the CAW, or any other unions, first? Or did the CAW approach the workers?

---

In the case of Ontario SEIU, it was local leaders of the SEIU who approached the CAW to seek assistance in getting out of the U.S.-based union. But you should understand that it doesn't matter who approaches whom, and even if the workers end up voting 100% in favour of the new union - it is always defined as a "raid".

quote:

---

So, it IS the same thing. And a euphemism is being used because you don't like the sound of the word "raid". That's exactly what a euphemism IS.So, it IS the same thing. And a euphemism is being used because you don't like the sound of the word "raid". That's exactly what a euphemism IS.

---

No, Heph. The word is not euphemism, it's misnomer. A free secret vote whereby workers choose which union will represent them - that's no more a "raid" in common parlance than a federal election where voters throw out the old party and usher in a new one. It's a misnomer, invented by the most conservative and dictatorial forces in labour who were afraid of change and afraid of workers' taking matters into their old hands. It's also sour grapes when you've lost workers' hearts and minds, and all you have left is their dues money and a legal licence to represent them.

quote:

---

Look into the history of how the Union of Mine Mill and Smelter Workers raided and undercut the more progressive, militant and socialist Western Federation of Miners (in collusion with such union-busting pricks as Selwyn Blaylock of Cominco), and you'll understand why the practise was considered treachery amongst union brothers. Quite often, raiders are seen as "empire-builders", and not much better than the bosses. There's your "obscure" lesson for the day.

---

So that history lesson, which I have no doubt is accurate since it seems to still be bothering you, means that workers in the future should stay imprisoned in a useless lazy corrupt union and never seek to exercise their right to change, for fear of being accused of "raiding" themselves? Give me a serious break. Do you know how many times Canadian branch plants of U.S. unions have split off without permission of "Daddy" and become independent unions? That is legally defined as a "raid".

quote:

---

Quite often, raiders are seen as "empire-builders", and not much better than the bosses.

---

Unionist said:

quote:

---

Given that recent history, I'm not sure what you are basing your reflection upon....

---

quote:

---

When workers are fed up with their union, the law allows them to change unions even if their top brass don't agree. It's done by a democratic secret ballot, and the window of opportunity is a narrow one every few years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenehan:

But to understand this you have to accept the premise that the labour movement is a movement that should be pulling together and not a competing set of corporatist entities battling for market share.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenehan:

2) Robbie_dee may be referring to comments like this: The one thing I am clear of about the CLC is they do not respect the rights of workers to leave one affiliate and join another. That's why we have been expelled... Inviting us back won't do it. There has to be a change in the way we relate to one another." which flowed from Buzz's mouth in an unending stream after the CAW was brought up on raiding charges and led many to believe that he, in fact, though the CAW should have a "right to raid" - presumbaly because he thinks it's more productive to fight amongst ourselves then organize the unorganized.

---

No one - including you or robbie_dee - has accused the CAW of "raiding" anyone during the year that they were expelled from the CLC, and presumably "free" of its no-raiding provisions. That was my point in response to robbie_dee's speculative comment, and you don't appear to have any evidence to the contrary other than more speculation.

As for Hargrove's remark about a "change in the way we relate to each other", that has happened. Previously, rank-and-file workers who had tried for years, without success, to make their union more responsive, were received with a deaf ear by the CLC. Now there are protocols by which the CLC can actually engage the parties in meaningful discussion and ultimately, if all efforts fail, guide workers as to how they can make their own free choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenehan:

But to understand this you have to accept the premise that the labour movement is a movement that should be pulling together and not a competing set of corporatist entities battling for market share.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

So that history lesson, which I have no doubt is accurate since it seems to still be bothering you,

Doesn't bother me all that much. The UMMSW ended up being raided by the Steelworkers, and now are no more. I think it's called "karma"...

... workers in the future should stay imprisoned in a useless lazy corrupt union and never seek to exercise their right to change

Nice way to characterize it. The WF of M was the same union that gave the international labour movement such people as Charles Moyers, "Big Bill" Haywood and Joe Hill. Remember Joe Hill? The one whose name everyone likes to invoke and eulogize? These guys went in and organized labour where nobody else would, and many got their heads busted for it. And then their union, after doing all the dirty work, was raided by corporate lapdogs like the UMMSW. There was nothing lazy or corrupt about those WF of M guys, so stow that kind of talk.

You know, all this hand-wringing and talk of "nasty words" reminds me of the fulminating that goes on by some when they hear the word "scab". Seems to me they think that is a pejorative word, too, but most union people are quite well aware of what it means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I'm sure the CAW has been expelled more than a couple of times.

When my plant was organized away from the Cooper's Union, the CLC kicked the UAW Canada out for a while.

It's no big deal.

---

Tommy,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
The UMMSW ended up being raided by the Steelworkers, and now are no more. I think it's called "karma"...

---

Well, let's be thoroughly accurate here. The Mine Mill Smelter Union voluntarily merged (not raided!) with the CAW in 1993, so I'm not sure which event you are referring to, but I'll await more clarification from you.

By the way, Mine Mill is not the only union which has voluntarily merged with the CAW (merger - not raid). Here is a partial list along with the date of the merger:

quote:

---

Ontario Northland Employees Independent Union (ONEIU) 2002
Canadian Air Traffic Control Association (CATCA) 2001
Air Traffic Specialist Association of Canada (ATSAC) 2001
Marine Communications and Traffic Services Association (MCTSA) 2001
Retail, Wholesale Canada (RWC) 1999
Marine Workers' Federation (MWF) 1996
United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union (UFAWU) 1996
Quaker Oats Employees' Independent Union 1995
Canadian Seat Assembly Workers' Union 1995
The Newspaper Guild, Local 239 (TNG) 1995
N & D Supermarket Employees' Association 1995
Canadian Association of Communication and Allied Workers (CACAW) 1995
Canadian Association of Smelter and Allied Workers (CASAW) 1994
Independent Canadian Steel Workers Union 1994
Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers (CBRT&GW) 1994
Owen Sound Glass Workers (Local 248) 1993
Canadian Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers 1993
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada (UE) 1992
Canadian Textile and Chemical Union (CTCU) 1992
Canadian Association of Industrial Mechanical and Allied Workers (CAIMAW) 1992
TCU-Airline Division 1990
The Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of Canada 1990
Great Lakes Fishermen and Allied Workers Union (GLFAWU) 1989
Canadian Seafood and Allied Workers' Union (CSAWU) 1989
Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers' Union (FFAW) 1988
Canadian Glass Workers' Union 1987
Canadian Association of Passenger Agents (CAPA) 1987
Canadian Airline Employees' Association (CALEA) 1985

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
The WF of M was the same union that gave the international labour movement such people as Charles Moyers, "Big Bill" Haywood and Joe Hill. Remember Joe Hill? The one whose name everyone likes to invoke and eulogize? These guys went in and organized labour where nobody else would, and many got their heads busted for it. And then their union, after doing all the dirty work, was raided by corporate lapdogs like the UMMSW. There was nothing lazy or corrupt about those WF of M guys, so stow that kind of talk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

But I wonder where you get your information about the "raid" by Mine Mill - I thought WF of M simply changed its name to Mine Mill early in the 20th century, but I could be mistaken.

---

quote:

---

By 1919, with news of the Winnipeg General Strike filtering in from the "outside world", the Sandon and Silverton Locals joined the One Big Union (OBU), a militant umbrella group formed in Calgary that year that sought to unite Canadian workers unions and promoted a split with the American Federation of Labour. Lead by Welshman T.B. "Tommy" Roberts, the OBU struck in Trail against Consolidated Mining and Smelting and its union-busting general manager Selwyn Blaylock, but after a winter of bitter struggle, it admitted defeat. Roberts determined to try again in the Slocan, and in order to direct operations Roberts moved out to Sandon.

Among the demands were a dollar a day increase in wages, a closed union shop, and blankets for the men in the camps. Again, the mine owners were not unanimous in their reaction, and some made private agreements with the OBU. In general, however, the demands were refused, and on May 1, 1920 the Sandon and Silverton OBU miners walked out on strike. It was to prove to be the last hurrah for the WFM and the OBU, however.

The Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers (UMMSW), made up of men who had helped Blaylock break the Cominco strike in Trail, sent a representative to New Denver to watch the proceedings. Soon this representative was negotiating with mine owners to supply workers and circumvent the OBU. On May 18, the UMMSW declared the strike over.

Roberts angrily denounced them, and declared the OBU would fight on. Pickets went up around the Silverton and Sandon mines as owners made every effort to import strike breakers. OBU organizers responded by meeting all incoming boats and trains and persuading prospective workers to turn back. As the strike dragged on, into July, the mine owners condemned the OBU as a fomenter of social unrest, labour troubles, defiance of government and anarchy.

By August many OBU men, faced with starvation, had begun to trickle back to the mines. Things didn't recover, however, and the mines operated a sluggish pace. Jubilant, Roberts was convinced the strike was working; what he didn't realize was that it was slumping metal prices that had caused the slowdown far more than the OBU strike. As the situation became more desperate, those who could found other work, and many were forced to turn to hunting and berry-picking in order to survive. Churches organized basket socials, and citizens in both communities helped when they could, donating food and money. And still the strike went on, throughout the winter. By spring it was obvious the entire industry was in a slump, regardless of the OBU strike. By May of 1921 when the owners persuaded workers to accept a wage reduction, Roberts could do no more than write indignant letters of outrage. It was the end of the road for the WFM and the OBU in Sandon.

---

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

i really do think that the way forward for both the NDP and unions is to end the formal links, as in voting delegates, etc. and continue to work together to strengthen the role labour plays politically and legally. i don't think this is a "corporatist" nor "gomperist" view, but one formed from having feet in both camps, where i have been hindered by this in my experience, as the majority, if not all of my members over the years do not vote NDP and think we are all a bunch of limp wristed tree hugger pinkos, and from my experience volunteering with the party, with the absolute exclusion of the passionate union members who volunteer on campaigns, most of the volunteers don't even understand what unions are or labour's role in the history of the party is. they have an impression of unions as negative, particularly if they come from the environmental or social work camps, likley having never been a union member nor understanding the benefits such a membership offers, having bought the media spin that unions are bad, thier members lazy, and overpaid, and are an obstacle to successfully running a business, not because of ignorace or stupidity, but simply because of having never been informed otherwise. (the fault of educational efforts of both unions and the NDP)

stanford makes a point that is hard to dissagree with, namely that the proportion of CAW members, and i would go further to add all union members, that vote NDP is similar to the proportion in the general electorate. i do think that the proportion of union members that vote NDP and get involved politically either as staff for a party or volunteering, is probably quite high, and i think that engagement will continue to occur regardless of whether thier union was formally affiliated or not.

i think that unions will continue to work hard to benefit thier members regarless of the affiliation/dissafiliation issue, and perhaps this will free both the ndp and unions from the irritating and stupid criticism by the other parties and the media that neither camp is credible because of their links. we know this is bunk, but like i have said before, perhaps the time has come to humour the critics with a little pat on the head, and get on with the heavy lifting, without the "bias" millstone holding us back from real discussion of the issues facing anyone and everyone that works.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenehan:
In this particular case the SEIU was a far from perfect union - but they were turning things around and are now one of the strongest unions on the continent. Workers in raided CAW locals don't have contracts that are all that different than those who stuck with the SEIU. I haven't heard anyone (except Buzz and the SEIU local Presidents who now have some pretty swish CAW porkchopper jobs) say it was a worthwhile endeavour.

---

Apparently at least one of the former SEIU local Presidents has changed his tune, too:

quote:

---

March 3, 1956

The Editor

The Sudbury Daily Star

I read with much interest in Monday's Star, the early history of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers of Canada, and of its origins in the Western Federation of Miners, chartered in Rossland, BC in 1895.

I arrived in Sandon, BC in 1896, where I joined the Sandon branch of the Western Federation of Miners, and was working in the Slocan Star mine when the Eight-Hour Day Act was passed by the BC Legislature. Until this Act came into effect, we worked 10 hours underground.

To offset this, the mine owners asked us to accept a reduced wage from $3.50, which had been our daily rate, to $3. Our refusal to accept this led to a bitter strike of nine months duration.

In those days when miners went on strike, the mine owners at once began to devise every possible scheme whereby the strike might be broken. They even brought in men from Nova Scotia, telling them to bring firearms, and representing that these would be needed to fend off the attacks of fierce grizzly and silver-tip bears. These men, on arrival, were landed at the Payne Mine without reaching the town of Sandon. To prevent them making any contact with the striking miners, they were taken directly from the train and loaded into the tram buckets in which the ore was brought from the mine, and were taken this way into the mine.

That evening, a meeting of the enrages miners was called, and many were determined to go into the mine and bring out the new men by force. However, a cool-headed Scot, Bill Davidson, who later became a member of the BC Legislature, gained the floor, and by his good advice persuaded them from this course. He told them that he had been through strikes in Montana and Idaho, and advised working against the owners, instead of with them. He said it was his belief that the Nova Scotians were ignorant of the fact that there was a strike on, and that a small committee of the miners should be appointed to talk with the newcomers and explain the situation.

This was done, and when the actions and intentions of the owners became clear to the Nova Scotians, they came out at once. The union assisted them in raffling off their guns, and they left town.

When the owners realized that their plan to cause a riot had failed, they asked the BC Legislature, then in session, to send in the militia, claiming that lives were endangered. A Mr. Green, who represented the riding, asked the Legislature to postpone action until he could investigate. The result was proof that everything had been conducted peaceably, and that the request of the mine owners was quite unwarranted. The troops were not dispatched.

Later, the mine owners made a slight concession and the strike was settled. I was later, in 1903, elected president of the Sandon branch of the WFM.

A coincidence is that I now occupy the office in the Canadian Senate formerly occupied by the late Senator Green, who was a member of the legislature at the time of the long-ago strike, and who prevented the militia from going to Sandon to break up our miners' union.

Thomas Farquhar

Senator

Little Current, Ontario

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Oh, the raiding by the Steelworkers and the "are no more" thing aren't necessarily connected, although I'm sure if they hadn't been raided earlier they might have been less willing to be swallowed up by the CAW in later years.

And that's an impressive list of "acquisitions" the CAW has there. Tell me, how many unorganized workers has the CAW signed up lately.?

---

Ok, but the CAW didn't raid them, did they? And I have still found no historical record of a successful raid (there were plenty of attempts long ago, no doubt).

As for how many unorganized workers the CAW has signed up lately, I'm not privy to their internal records, but the same link from their website that you just quoted says this (written in 2002):

quote:

---

During the last three years, 18,000 workers have been newly organized

---

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

I don't know how I got down this track, but from what I can see, your account of the WF of M being "raided" by Mine Mill is inaccurate. This is from the Wikipedia entry for the Western Federation of Miners, with lots of reference links:

quote:

---

The failure of later strikes and the depression of 1914 brought about a sharp decline in the WFM's membership. In 1916 the union changed its name to the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers. The union was largely ineffective, riddled with members who passed information on to their employers, and unable to win substantial gains for its members for most of the next two decades.

---

As I vaguely recalled, it was a name change. It continues:

quote:

---

Things changed, however, in 1934 when miners and smeltermen revitalized the union. Returning to its militant roots, the union obtained spread throughout the west from its base in Butte, and then into the South and Canada. The union was one of the original members of the Committee for Industrial Organizing, which later transformed itself into the Congress of Industrial Organizations.

The union also returned to its radical political traditions as well, as members of the Communist Party USA came to hold the presidency of the union in the late 1940s. That, however, also sparked further disagreements over leadership and expenditures and, as the postwar red scare picked up momentum, prompted raids by the United Steelworkers of America, the United Auto Workers and other unions, particularly in mining in the South, where the CIO encouraged predominantly white miners' locals to defect. The CIO formally expelled it in 1950 after it refused to remove its left leaders.

The union soldiered on for another seventeen years, finding itself increasingly outmatched in its battles with employers. While it defeated all of the Steelworkers' efforts to replace it in its western strongholds in the 1950s, it had a harder time holding on to its outposts in the South. In addition, more conservative members, uneasy with the union's foreign policy and with the increasing number of African-American and Mexican-American unionists, tried to take their locals out of the union, opening up fissures that weakened the union's strikes against the Anaconda Copper Mining Company in 1954 and 1959. The union eventually merged with the Steelworkers in 1967 after losing locals to it in Butte and Canada. Many of its former Canadian locals eventually affiliated with the Canadian Auto Workers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

"Raids" in the Canadian labour movement are few and far between

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Tommy,

Questions: Do you remember when and how that happened? Were the workers happy with their old union and got raided, or did the initiative come internally for a change of unions?

---

Before my time, but my understanding was that the Cooper's Union, being an old craft kind of union (barrel makers) was shrinking anyway. Our unit was the only one belonging to the Cooper's in Canada.

Since the plant changed from making barrels for the oil, whiskey and beer business to making truck wheels, it occurred to the membership than UAW membership was a better idea.

It wasn't a "raid", no more than any other time the CAW has signed up workers from other unions.

Workers would rather not be bothered to de-certify and join another union. It's a pain in the ass for those interested enough to do it, and if everything is going well enough, you can't sell the idea to the members.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

Since the plant changed from making barrels for the oil, whiskey and beer business to making truck wheels, it occurred to the membership than UAW membership was a better idea.

It wasn't a "raid", no more than any other time the CAW has signed up workers from other unions.

---

quote:

---

Come to Alberta and you're see lots of raids. The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees is busy raiding Canadian Unionof Public Employees for, oh, I guess at least four years. AUPE has been booted from the house of labour, has been booted from their national organization, has been put under much pressure but continue to cause wasting of resources of other unions fending off raids rather than organizing the unorganized.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:

Let Labour be Free to Choose

---

Interesting site, Reformer. It is much more civilized than the site of the nutbar who proclaimed himself "President" of his own website! But I see that these reformers were actually taken to court by the UFCW and ordered to stop using the union's name:

quote:

---

Between the years 2000 and 2006, the Members for Democracy (MFD), a rag-tag group of labour union reformers, ran a web site at the domain address www.ufcw.net.

In November of 2005, at the conclusion of a 5 year legal dispute with the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued a decision ordering MFD to stop using the ufcw.net domain name.

---