quote:

---

An alternative union movement
Developments in unionism in Europe may come to deeply affect British Columbia, ripe for change after two decades of deceit and betrayal
By Larry Gambone

A new labour movement is developing in Europe which may have an important impact in Canada. It is called the "alternative union movement" and it has developed largely in response to the failure of orthodox trade unionism to counter the ravages of globalization.

What characterizes this movement is the use of direct democracy, local autonomy for unions, and a strong stance on the environment, peace and minority rights. While traditional unions encourage consumerism and an increase to governmental power, all the while never really challenging capitalism, the new movement is anti-consumerist and promotes a vision of a cooperative, self-managed economy.

I recently visited the Barcelona headquarters of the largest of the alternative unions, the Spanish CGT (Confederacion General de Trabajo). This is no small ultra-left sect but is rather a trade union that represents about one million people. It is, in fact, the third largest union federation in Spain, after the Socialist and Communist unions.

The CGT has a highly decentralized structure, a minimum of paid staff, and it practices direct democracy. Each union local is autonomous and, where coordination or larger numbers need to be involved, the groups federate.

They do not see militant trade unionism as the sole answer to the mountain of problems facing the world. Rather, they see the need for a broad movement encompassing community, women's, immigrant, and environmental groups along with co-ops, unions and anti-authoritarians of all kinds. The CGT is part of the "anti-globalist movement" and is one of the most important forces attempting to develop a Europe-wide alternative unionism.

***

Why should "alternative unionism" be of interest to people in BC? Remember the "Almost General Strike" this past April? Think back further, to that other "Almost General Strike" in 1983.

In both situations, many people felt betrayed by a union leadership that cut a late deal with the BC government. This significant lack of rank-and-file influence on events of such importance could only occur in a hierarchical, top-down system of control. The decentralized, bottom-up approach of the alternative unions would allow the members to make their own choices in these matters.

***

The alternative union movement's vision of a self-managed, decentralized and co-operative society is much more in keeping with the Green, feminist, and anti-consumerist ethos found in British Columbia than could ever be the trade unions' old guard's bureaucratic reformism.

---

Full Story

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 08 June 2007: Message edited by: pink ]

To sum this article up in one sentence, the deal was reached with the Liberals by the union leaders and there was no vote to ratify from the members. Is that true or not? If it is true then CUPE is not the sort of union I saw in Europe. This is not to slight CUPE, by the way, of course it is one of the better unions. I simply cannot see any of the Alternative Unions pulling a stunt like that because it would be structurally impossible. (And it would also be impossible in my union, the CSN) Union leaders are delegates - or rather they ought to be delegates, not representatives and would have no authority to make such a deal. Then there is the question of the 1983 Almost General Strike. That one was consigned to history by one Jack Monroe – once again a structural problem, I’d say, for who gave him the right to act on behalf of BC workers?

I think the real reason for the sell-outs by the leadership is fear of losing control. Once a general strike is underway a momentum is built up and the leadership can be forced to a more militant stance than it wishes. A good example of that was the real general strike in Quebec in 1972 where entire towns were taken over as well as radio and TV stations, newspapers and many work places were occupied. This could have happened in BC this spring, for there is an awful lot of anger at the neoconazis who are occupying the government at the moment.

In the United States, where I am living now, unions seem to be moving in the opposite direction of the grassroots, decentralized, direct-democratic model you have seen in Europe. If you check out the thread on SEIU's threat to withdraw from the AFL-CIO, you will see that SEIU president Andy Stern's biggest complaint about US labour is the lack of centralized organization to combat the increasingly large-scale, multinational, concentrated capital of the employers his union and others have to bargain with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pink:

This is a bit of pie in the sky.

---

Good. It's just the kind of pie in the sky we need. In any case, this is hardly an argument--it's just the sort of dismissive language used by the right to denounce anything to the left of Genghis Khan.

quote:

---

The kind of 'alternative model' is essentially what CUPE practices already. Decentralized, power in the hands of the locals, and a strong emphasis on broad political action as opposed to simple 'business unionism.'

---

I'm a CUPE man, and I think CUPE is a pretty good union. But, no it isn't. There is relatively little direct democracy in CUPE. Even the representatives at higher levels are elected indirectly, by representatives from the locals rather than by the rank and file members. In political party terms, they have the horse-trading convention model, rather than OMOV. And there's certainly no way for individual members to influence policy at broader levels than the local. At the local level, while you get periodic meetings at which yeah, people can vote on stuff that's on the agenda, and if they know Robert's Rules back and forward they can put in a new motion, there aren't really a lot of structures to enable participation. And when it comes to the biggish decisions, you can get stuff like the HEU execs making the decision and then going to the membership with a fait accompli. Again, it's a group broader than an individual local, and the only way the rank and file would be able to do much about it would be to get hold of rank and file people from other locals and co-ordinate a process where at each local they went into a meeting of the local with an identical motion to set aside the HEU exec's decision and passed it. Even there I'm really not sure what that would mean, and of course chances are such a motion would end up passing in some locals, passing with different amendments in other locals, and not passing in a couple. Then what? But it's an unrealistic expectation. Basically, at any level of decision-making higher than the local level, there are no structures allowing the membership to have an impact before the next election--and even then it will be indirect as all get out.

quote:

---

And CUPE is the largest union in Canada, so it's doing something right.

---

quote:

---

However, fast forward to the recent 'almost general strike' in BC, and it was a CUPE component (HEU) that was at the centre of it. If your view is that the members were sold out by the powers that be, those powers that be came out of the kind of model of unionism that this article praises.

---

Actually the CSN has "pulled stuff" on the membership, despite its democratic structures and the fact that it is certainly one of the most progressive trade unions in North America. My head is elsewhere today, between Polytechnique and the translation I'm working on, I'll try to think of concrete examples. One might be the recent, extraordinary May Day demo, and then no follow-up on the mobilisation against Charest.

Doesn't the CGT date back to the days of Republican Spain at least, as an anarcho-syndicalist union? But its comeback is news. There are newer alternative unions such as SUD in France and the COBAS in Italy - it is rather a contradictory process - they are more democratic in many ways but also sometimes more sectoral - and one could also advocate the need for fighting for a more militant orientation in the CGIL, for example. The FIOM, the Italian metalworkers' union, has certainly been pushed to the left of late.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Doesn't the CGT date back to the days of Republican Spain at least, as an anarcho-syndicalist union?

---

While this size gives the Union an organized legislative voice in Ottawa and Washington it really leaves employees at the local levels with very little support.

I pay about $100 dollars every month in Union Dues. $20 goes to a committee which manages a large geographic area and their locals. $78 dollars goes to the Union International office and the local gets a whopping $2 per employee per month.

Now we could try to convince our members to up their local contribution but when they see the little representation they get out of their already high dues they always decline.

And who could blame them? Our most recent Union President and Vice President are currently serving two year sentences for embezzlement. We have seen our General Chairperson once in the last decade. With our small local we can't afford to pay anyone at this level to promote our Local issues and trust me, I've tried to do it on a volunteer basis myself. To call it a thankless job is the understatement of the year.

The result? We have no representation on the local issues which are ofcoarse the ones that affect us the most. Agreements that we diametrically oppose are being implemented without any effective debate. (Union wants something for a rich local - they sell out the poor locals to soften the company up.) For example our local health and welfare agreement is pale in comparison to our fellow employees and no one will do anything about it because the money isn't there to do any real bargaining.

I don't know what the answer is to a Union that has basically become another Corporation. We have lots of other Unions sniffing around to see if we are interested in changing over but that would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

There has to be a balance between local issues and international issues. But how can this be accomplished when you are working within a Corporate structure that has no real loyalty to its grass roots workers and organizers?

Unions are an opiate for the masses, and they are too weak in Canada and the States where percentage of unionized work force is second lowest and lowest among richest nations. Coincidentally, our same two nations also enjoy second highest and highest child poverty and infant mortality rates among developed nations. Flexible labour markets are not the answer.

[ 06 December 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

they are too weak in Canada and the States where percentage of unionized work force is second lowest and lowest among richest nations.

---

It seems to me that the bigger they get the weaker they get.

My union continues to collect members when they can't adequately represent the members they already have. Could this have something to do with the executives need for a bigger pay cheque and for greater power?

“In the United States, where I am living now, unions seem to be moving in the opposite direction of the grassroots, decentralized, direct-democratic model you have seen in Europe. If you check out the thread on SEIU's threat to withdraw from the AFL-CIO, you will see that SEIU president Andy Stern's biggest complaint about US labour is the lack of centralized organization to combat the increasingly large-scale, multinational, concentrated capital of the employers …Do you think that there might be some value in the SEIU's Unite To Win proposal, or do you think it is just the last gasps of a dying bureaucracy that Canadian and U.S. workers would do well to stay away from?”

The problem with any centralized organization is the fact it dis-empowers the membership, and leads to corruption of the leadership. The more centralized the less control you have. Trying to copy the corporation model is a big mistake, for this model is irrational to begin with. What is needed is not centralization but genuine federation, this gives the mass, but without the disastrous top-down organization. (I will check out the Unite To Win proposal.) It sounds to me like this call for centralization comes from a union leadership that sees unions in isolation from other movements and sectors of society, when what is needed is the exact opposite.

Lagatta

“Actually the CSN has "pulled stuff" on the membership, despite its democratic structures and the fact that it is certainly one of the most progressive trade unions in North America…One might be the recent, extraordinary May Day demo, and then no follow-up on the mobilisation against Charest.
Doesn't the CGT date back to the days of Republican Spain at least, as an anarcho-syndicalist union? …Another movement that must be looked at is the Montagsdemos in Germany…”

Salut Lagatta!
Actually, I was living in BC during ’72, but I did get to hear a great speech by Michel Chartrand when he spoke in Vancouver.
I have the same complaint about the CSN.
The CGT split from the CNT in 1989 or thereabouts, feeling that they were too dogmatic. I don’t know about the Montagsdemos but will google it.

Crap

“The Union I am a member of is a large, "decentralized" union which unites a wide group of workers within Canada and the USA. While this size gives the Union an organized legislative voice in Ottawa and Washington it really leaves employees at the local levels with very little support. I pay about $100 dollars every month in Union Dues. $20 goes to a committee which manages a large geographic area and their locals. $78 dollars goes to the Union International office and the local gets a whopping $2 per employee per month.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by crap:

It seems to me that the bigger they get the weaker they get.

My union continues to collect members when they can't adequately represent the members they already have. Could this have something to do with the executives need for a bigger pay cheque and for greater power?

They continue to sell us on "safety in numbers" but the numbers just don't add up.

---

Well lets get rid of unions then. Lets get rid of union leaders as occurred in Germany and Spain during the 1930's. Chile and Argentina outlawed unions in what was an experiment in fully deregulated economy from 1973 to 1985.

Unions are the only real opposition to fascism. Unions are working fine with the big three auto companies. GM is still in the top two or three largest corporations in the world last time I checked, and their workers earn a living wage. That is, when manufacture of car parts is not being outsourced to third world countries or American gulags.

[ 07 December 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

In the United States, where I am living now, unions seem to be moving in the opposite direction of the grassroots, decentralized, direct-democratic model you have seen in Europe. If you check out the thread on SEIU's threat to withdraw from the AFL-CIO, you will see that SEIU president Andy Stern's biggest complaint about US labour is the lack of centralized organization to combat the increasingly large-scale, multinational, concentrated capital of the employers his union and others have to bargain with.

In the US, the union movement is historically weak, representing less than 10% of private sector workers, and facing increasing de-unionization in the public sector now, too, under Bush's security state. In Canada, I recognize that unions are much healthier, although I believe they may still be subject to the same trends. In any case, I do expect that there will be folks in Canada who want to pick up Stern's message of centralized power and put it forward for Canadian unions, too. Do you think that there might be some value in the SEIU's Unite To Win proposal, or do you think it is just the last gasps of a dying bureaucracy that Canadian and U.S. workers would do well to stay away from?

---

The only good basis for forming a new labour central is on the previous labour central abandoning all principle, or preferrably, on a new more successful more class based strategy winning some victories. This was how the CIO was formed in opposition to the AFL.

A split in the English Canadian labour movement could have been desirable in the last few years and may be in the next few -- I don't know.

Edited to add: My train of thought had a bit of wreck -- got divereted by a phone call. I also got a chance to read the original article in full.

I think this UFCW reform group demands some attention. They're the resource listed at the end of the linked article. http://www.ufcw.net/

It looks pretty interesting.

The point or points I didn't make in the original above post, was that I think informal non-insitutionalized alternative unionism is called for. The program demanded in the article is very much like CUPE's or the CAW's, especially around building links to progressive social movments. These are things I completely support.

A difference some of us may want to make is that "good" unions + "good" social movements doesn't win the struggle. It's great if these alliances are formed, but what about memebers uniting around both workplace, economic, and social issues in a sustained way? What about social movements providing strong suport not for "unions", but particular unions, particular strikes? What about unions and/or union members supporting particular social movement organizations at particular moments?

Contradictions develop. I had very harsh words with a rabble associate around the issue of the CAW giving additional support to rabble.ca. As a then CAW member living waaayyyy under the poverty line, and seeing the new round of layoffs post 9/11, I was very cross at him suggesting that the CAW could, would, or should bail out rabble.ca. None of this came from animosity to rabble, but rather I would prefer my union to provide at least minimal job/wage protection, before embarking on social and cultural projects.

OK -- rant over. May a thousand flowers bloom, errhhh, frost, at the moment.

[ 07 December 2004: Message edited by: BLAKE 3:16 ]

quote:

---

Well lets get rid of unions then.

---

That's not what I meant. I take the critical perspective on most things . I'm not trying to sound so negative, but to make something better you have to analyse the flaws.

quote:

---

Unions are working fine with the big three auto companies. GM is still in the top two or three largest corporations in the world last time I checked, and their workers earn a living wage.

---

I think if you talked to some of the members of the CAW and UAW - especially outside the big three - you'd find that they aren't getting the same kind of representation that their brothers and sisters have. Their dues are funding the Union's projects inside the bigger companies. Here is one story.

Unions are involved in much more than earning a "living wage" and the fact that their members have a reasonable income doesn't neccessarily mean the Union is doing a good job.

Unions must change, but it's a deeply entrenched society whose leaders have a strong incentive to keep the status quo.

quote:

---

The CGT has a highly decentralized structure, a minimum of paid staff, and it practices direct democracy. Each union local is autonomous and, where coordination or larger numbers need to be involved, the groups federate.

---

This model is interesting. I wonder if there is a lot of "infighting" among locals? And where does the money come from for a small local to take independent job action, or appeal a decision?

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: crap ]

quote:

---

I think if you talked to some of the members of the CAW and UAW - especially outside the big three - you'd find that they aren't getting the same kind of representation that their brothers and sisters have.

---

How many CAW or UAW members are there outside the Big Three? This question is to everybody or anybody, not trying to put you on the spot.

From my knowledge, which is a few years out of date, the C & UAWs were lousy at organizing parts plants and subsidiaries.

quote:

---

As for the European situation, their labor laws and union structures are very different from North America and as such, a proliferation of unions is not necessarily a bad thing. I was not proposing that we simply mimic the situation in Europe, that is impossible. But there must be a way some of these ideas could be adapted to North American conditions.

---

One thing I was wondering about was a comparison of the union situation in France to that in the United States. Specifically, I understand that "union density" rates (basically: number of union members as a proportion of all workers) in the two countries are actually pretty similar - something around the 10-15% level overall, which is quite low. Yet in France, the "coverage" rate of union-negotiated agreements (proportion of workers who receive the union wage and benefits)is much higher. The other thing which seems much higher is the level of overall worker militancy and mobilization, as evidenced both by the higher support enjoyed by left parties and the propensity of workers, both union and non, to take their grievances to the street in the form of widespread, powerful general strikes.

The "coverage" can probably be explained by widespread legislative extension of collective bargaining gains to nonunion workers. But the reason for that again probably goes back to the higher level of worker militancy and mobilization, and the need for the government to respond to union demands despite the low level of actual membership.

The point of this is that I was wondering if the "Unite to Win" proposal was a bit misguided in that it focuses mainly on raising union density in particular sectors. Density can be important, but it is probably just a consequence of a deeper militancy and mobilization of the working class. Further, the example of France suggests that it may not be either a necessary consequence of that class mobilization, nor is it necessary to institutionalize major gains.

But then the question is where that militancy and mobilization comes from? Are there particular union structures that facilitate this? Or does structure matter much at all? Personally, I think what we are really looking for is the spread and deepening among workers of a class-conscious ideology. But where does that come from?

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

How many CAW or UAW members are there outside the Big Three?

---

Lots according to the CAW website.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

One thing I was wondering about was a comparison of the union situation in France to that in the United States. Specifically, I understand that "union density" rates (basically: number of union members as a proportion of all workers) in the two countries are actually pretty similar - something around the 10-15% level overall, which is quite low. Yet in France, the "coverage" rate of union-negotiated agreements (proportion of workers who receive the union wage and benefits)is much higher.

---

quote:

---

The only suggestions I can come up with is continuing the attempt to democratize the existing unions, get some kind of pro-labor media going and work to build stronger links with community and social organizations at the local level. Anybody got any other ideas?

---

I'm interested in hearing as many ideas as possible, but frankly, I think your first few can keep us all busy enough for the foreseeable future!

Your article inspired me to think of one specific idea for an internal democratic reform in the N.A. unions as we now have them. What if a union adopted some form of proportional representation for its own internal officer elections? That kind of thing might encourage encourage the formation of ideological tendencies within the workplace, which could then compete with each other to provide the best representation, as is the case you describe in Europe. It could counter some of the trends towards corruption that are inherent in the alternative "one party rule" model that dominates many N.A. unions.

Because N.A. union elections are generally winner take all, and the rewards of victory are valuable (i.e. staff jobs, trips to conferences, etc.), there is at least some incentive for the dominant political faction in the union to devote its time to seizing and entrenching power, rather than truly representing the members. With a monopoly on the levers of power in the union, porkchopping opportunities abound, and can be doled out to reward friends and punish rivals for the purpose of keeping power. I'm not saying all or even many unions are like that, at least not all of the time. But the tendency exists. And it might be mitigated if the dominant group knew it was going to have to share power with other groups no matter what.