Hugh Finnamore
Senior Consultant
Workplace Strategies Inc.

BC Labour Relations Code Review Submission

[ 01 May 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

CUPE REFORMER... I find that most people who use the term "reformer" within the labour movement are pretty much out to destroy the labour movement, or the respective union that they belong to.

---

In my opinion there would not be any union reformers if all of the unions were run like UE.

UE - The USA's Independent, Rank-and-File Union

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

They setup an "alternative" union ... the IUE.

UE was out of the CLC for a while as well but by (I think) the 1970's was back in. The UE in Canada merged with the CAW.

IUE members in Canada broke away from the parent union and merged into the CEP some years ago.

CUPW has operated under many of the same principles as UE for many years. With full-time executive members not earning much more than rank and file members of the union.

As for the Superstore deal, you'll have to lay the blame on Clifford Evans and the UFCW International. I've talked reams about the deal and who was responsible. Was I involved? Bet your boots I was. Did the crap stop after I left? Not on your life.

At its basic level, a "union" under labour law is just a way for people to organize themselves in their relationship with their employer. Workers form a union, get a "certification" from the labour board, and enter into a bargaining relationship with their boss. By following these steps, they also acquire certain special legal rights, like the right to strike, as well as legal responsibilities, like the obligation to pay dues.

There is nothing in the law right now that prevents a group of workers from chartering their own independent union, organizing at their workplace and getting certification from the labour board, and then hiring a law firm or consulting agency to represent them. There are some unions like this around right now. They are not in the majority, though. Rather, most unionized workers belong to larger, established organizations, most often organizations affiliated with the CLC. I don't see this as a function of labour law, however. It's really a function of the history of union organization, the fact that larger existing unions have more resources to sustain union organizing drives and contract campaigns, and the fact that many workers who organize unions actually want to belong to a larger organization out of a sense of solidarity and a desire to participate in a social movement that's broader than their own workplace. We can debate how well unions actually deliver on that last promise, but even if the unions aren't delivering, I don't know what the government can do to change it.

Even if we accept your premise that workers would be better off belonging to small, decentralized, locally controlled organizations rather than larger bureaucratic unions, I am not sure what changes in labour law or other government policy you would suggest to bring that about. You cite the example of two labour laws in New Zealand, but you don't explain either of them. Maybe I need to read more about New Zealand, because I'm not really familiar with what happened there. But I don't really see, from what you've written, what the New Zealand model would offer to workers that the Canadian model doesn't do already.

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

While I don't disagree with the "ombudsman" concept for unions, I don't want to see it legislated by governments...particularly anti-union ones. The CAW has incorporated this concept but it came about through internal discussion and debate...it wasn't legislated.

While its quite true that in the post-war era that many unions in Canada and in other industrialized countries have become bureaucratized, your idea for employees hiring consulting agencies to represent them institutionalizes this bureaucracy IMHO.

What we need to do is to reclaim our unions. This is going to be long painstaking work and there aren't any shortcuts. In some unions that's going to be harder work than in others.

In some cases that's going to mean creating new unions and new union structures.

We may very well need to create a "new CIO" to take on the crisis in the service sector where many young workers are employed.

quote:

---

There is nothing in the law right now that prevents a group of workers from chartering their own independent union, organizing at their workplace and getting certification from the labour board, and then hiring a law firm or consulting agency to represent them.

---

The labour laws in Canada prohibit labour relations firms from bargaining collectively on behalf of non-union workers. Most of the unions are business unions. I think that Hugh Finnamore had proposed a collective alternative to union representation. It is easier for workers to dismiss labour relations firms than to change union representation. Union no raiding pacts make it difficult for workers to change union representation.

[ 04 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
As for turning worker representation over to teams of lawyers? Screw that.

---

I don’t think that was what Mr. Finnamore was really suggesting. In fact I maintain that is an accurate characterization of the current situation. One of the things obvious from the chronology (that I recounted in "The Labour Relations Conundrum") of my experience with the labour “movement” is that unions like CUPE are in fact largely run by the labour law community, including lawyers on staff and their cronies at firms like Hastings Labour Law Office.

Thats sort of what happened in New Zealand. Some unions all but disappeared, but some of the good ones actually grew and flourished. The ones that flourished were the ones where the members had the greatest say and the ones in touch with the wants and needs of their members.

Anyway, they were just some emerging ideas that I thought might deserve some thought and discussion. An ombudsperson is a hell of a better idea than the "duty of fair representation" sections found in just about ever jurisdiction's labour codes or acts.

keglerdave, get a life. I've never hidden the fact that I'm a labour consultant. Tear at my ideas, not at me as a person. To do otherwise only makes you look bad.

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: Hugh Finnamore ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blacklisted:
it is probably time to contract out a business consultancy tender, and award a clearly defined marketing and business development plan contract.

---

Though I have no background in such matters, I was singularly unimpressed by my own local’s CBA, and in fact was told to my face that it contained nothing that would be of much help to me in pursuing my termination grievance (a grievance that was written and filed by the union, not me). This from the CUPE National staff lawyer who was supposed to ensure the union was properly prepared for the hearing. Several years later what has she or anyone else in that organization done to address the deficiencies in the CBA? I guaranty the answer is nothing.

When we went to arbitration it turned out the union had engaged a tenured law professor who has over many years issued only a handful of arbitration awards. I later checked his background and found that his academic specialty was not labour law but ... contract law. So the union chose to put my case, based by its own admission on a deficient CBA, in the hands of a specialist in contract law. Brilliant!

quote:

---

As for hiring a consultant, what do you think the NHL Players did?

---

quote:

---

RD, I had mere minutes to get a submission in within the deadline. Of course it's far from perfect. There's a couple of ideas in the submission. One idea has to do with an ombudsperson.

---

The ombudsperson sounds like a decent idea. I share radiorahim's scepticism about what a BC Liberal government would do with such an office, but I don't think it was unreasonable to suggest.

I still don't understand what you were getting at with the idea of having workers hire consultants to represent them. Yeah, that may be what the NHLPA does. But the NHLPA is also a legally certified union. I am not sure what changes in law or government policy would be needed to allow other unionized workers to do the same, if they so chose. The fact is, most workers have not chosen to go that route. Maybe because the strategy of going it alone is generally most effective only for smaller groups of highly skilled workers, who can inflict enough damage to their employers with a short strike that they can usually win what they demand without a big strike fund or a lot of coordination with other workers. Such a group of workers would also be more likely to have the money to hire high-priced outside legal representatives on their own, without the backing of a larger organization behind them.

And in the NHLPA's case, even the best legal representation and the incredible rarity of the players' skills and talent didn't save them. Maybe things would have been different had the NHLPA affiliated with a larger union and tried to mobilize other workers and sports fans behind their cause?

[ 04 September 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

I still don't understand what you were getting at with the idea of having workers hire consultants to represent them.

---

Call me a dinosaur, a throwback, hell even call me a Union Thug (a button I wear with pride and honour I might add), but at least I don't go around selling myself off to whoever pays the biggest bucks, or as you talked about in your MFD article "the ones with the fat paycheques and nice big cars," and justify it by calling myself some type of "labour consultant." That's not a personal attack, per se Hugh, it's merely pointing out what you made quite clear in your MFD article. You posted the link in your last post, you can accept the criticism on what you said in it. MFD is a joke in of itself. Any site that advocates for CLAC and a "company union" stance should be rightfully exposed for what it truly is.

How would the workers choose such an organization as their collective representative? Presumably they would have to organize themselves and vote on the subject. They can do that now. If workers do not wish to join an existing union, they can form their own independent union. Through such a union, they could hire whoever they want to represent them at the bargaining table.

I don't think the problem with the labour movement right now is a lack of available folks to represent workers. I think the problem is a high level of management opposition to the very idea of workers organizing themselves to demand something better, rather than just doing what they're told; and a lack of sufficient legal remedies for workers to compel employers to deal fairly with any collective voice of the employees.

[ 05 September 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by keglerdave:
Any site that advocates for CLAC and a "company union" stance should be rightfully exposed for what it truly is.

---

I don't think I've ever seen Hugh or any of the other principal writers over on that other site advocate either for CLAC or for a "company union" stance. They have a forum like this one, where all kinds of people show up and post including a CLAC guy once. But I thought the site "authors" were pretty dismissive of him, IIRC.

[ 04 September 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

And in the NHLPA's case, even the best legal representation and the incredible rarity of the players' skills and talent didn't save them. Maybe things would have been different had the NHLPA affiliated with a larger union and tried to mobilize other workers and sports fans behind their cause?

---

I believe one of the player's unions in either baseball or football (forget which) is affiliated to the AFL-CIO in the U.S.

If the NHLPA was affiliated to the AFL-CIO in the U.S. and the CLC in Canada there would have been a mechanism to rally labour support around their issues. Many struggles with employers are won in the court of public opinion. There could have been some "strike support" exhibition hockey games or things like that. Fans could have been rallied to support the players. It was a lockout afterall.

That being said, I don't believe that you have to have a "union" to engage in workplace activism. The New Zealand experiment wasn't a union-friendly experiment. I think it was intended to defeat unions. Surprisingly, some unions actually thrived and grew. The blueprint for the New Zealand experiment leaves a lot to be desired. I'd never propose that it be applied as is. It is worth studying. The system that's evolved over the past 60 years is crap and it actually works against workplace activism. It's designed to benefit corporations and unions run on the corporate model. Workers have been ignored by the system, and that's exactly what it was designed to achieve.

I'm with RD in thinking that a government of "conservative" thinkers would botch the ombudsperson concept--if they controlled the office. The office would have to be an independent body funded by employers and unions.

Oh and BTW keglerdave, I was a union mercinary:

quote:

---

MFD: You described yourself as a mercenary but a lot of what you're saying suggests you were trying to get the workers a better deal - or protect them from a worse one. Is that right? When and how did they start to matter to you?

HJF: I wasn't a mercenary out to take care of myself at the expense of working people. I was a mercenary in the sense that I had no allegiance to any one union organization. If the Teamsters had offered me more money to stay and kick the UFCW's ass, I would have stayed with the Teamsters. If the CAW offered me big bucks to take on the Teamsters and the UFCW I would have taken that job. I was good at labour relations and combat strategies. When I was with the Textile Processors, I ran circles around the UFCW reps. When I was with the UFCW I helped kick the Teamsters' butt when they tried to break into the grocery business.

I was a mercenary, but a naïve one. I knew how to cut a deal, and I knew the big wigs cut deals too, but I had no idea how low they would go to cut a deal. I was astounded at the deals that were cut. I argued against them, and when they blew up, I had to fix the mess that they caused. I was astounded that I wasn't allowed to do anything to upset the employers.

I'm the easy target for the UFCW to blame on the mess the retail food sector is in, but in reality all as I did was set up camp on the UFCW's turf. And what has resulted today is an example of how far the UFCW was prepared to go to keep a monopoly on "representing" retail food workers.

---

keglerdave, my skin is anything but thin. I'm just fed up with taking delivery of the shit that belongs to your sweethearts at the UFCW.

[ 04 September 2005: Message edited by: Hugh Finnamore ]

While it's obvious that the Employment Contracts Act (ECA) of 1991 was geared to kick the crap out of unions, it brought in some labour reforms that still exist under the current labour government.

One of the institutions created under the ECA is the Employment Court of New Zealand. Transformation might be a better word than "created."

Anyway, I'm not espousing having a pure ECA, I'm just talking about allowing alternative representation for workplace activists--perhaps soemthing along the lines of open-source unionism. Unions won't touch a worker unless she or he can deliver a majority of workers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by keglerdave:

Call me a dinosaur, a throwback, hell even call me a Union Thug (a button I wear with pride and honour I might add), but at least I don't go around selling myself off to whoever pays the biggest bucks . . .

Isn't free speech a great thing? I guess that's something that no amount of money or mercenary ethics can ever get rid of. Unlike you Hugh, I'm not for sale to the highest bidder. My ethics and standards aren't for sale.

---

quote:

---

Yes, free speech is a great thing, and better still if one thinks before using it.

---

Hugh, you're dead wrong where my criticism is coming from. I'm definitely NOT UFCW. As a matter of fact, I'm a member of a union local that still "elects" its own business agents, as well as the executive, rather than hire people from outside. The local I belong to, and the union and I belong to are a good solid fit for what I believe in.

The entire problem with the labour movement right now, is that alot of people have benefitted from the fights of others. It's easier to give up on something when you have no idea where the things people take for granted have come from. It's not something that's taught in schools. We're taught about our freedoms as coming from those who have fought wars overseas and given their lives so that we may have our freedoms.

Never in school did I hear about the Homestead strike, the Ford Motor company labour disputes, or for that fact, the true stories about Robert Dunsmuir, and other industrial barons. No, for that, you have to learn from others. Luckily for me, my family is well grounded in trade unionism, and I had it drilled into me where things came from.

One more point, on Finnamore's posting. Spin is an interesting thing Hugh. You quoted your interview from MFD, and you picked an interesting part to quote.

MFD:"...what you're saying suggests you were trying to get the workers a better deal - or protect them from a worse one. Is that right? When and how did they start to matter to you?"

HJF:"...I was a mercenary in the sense that I had no allegiance to any one union organization. If the Teamsters had offered me more money to stay and kick the UFCW's ass, I would have stayed with the Teamsters. If the CAW offered me big bucks to take on the Teamsters and the UFCW I would have taken that job."

For someone that wasn't out to look after himself, and had his rank and file's best interests at heart... hmmm these statements seem to suggest that MONEY was the most important thing to you, not your ethics, principles or morals. And while money is a consideration in why one would enter the world of labour relations, a principled stance would be as well. By this very statement, you make it perfectly clear that you were available to the highest bidder.

No one is saying that that's wrong in a broader sense, but don't come on and pontificate about how you were out looking after the rank and file's best interests, when in fact it was your own pocketbook you were interested in. And that's the difference between you and I. You're the antithesis of what a true trade unionist is. And now, you're basically a management consultant, and believe me, I don't begrudge you in the least. I truly think you're on the right side of the table now.

I just don't want anyone who looks at this field "labour and consumption" to have the faintest idea that you're in any way shape or form, representative of all trade unionists.

And on that note... on this Labour Day, I want to say thank you to those who's blood sweat and even lives have paved the way, so that all working people can enjoy things like pensions, paid vacations, days off of work, paid holidays, and others. These basic necessities are available to all workers, union and non union alike.

quote:

---

CUPE_Reformer:

If workers do not wish to join an existing union, they can form their own independent union. Through such a union, they could hire whoever they want to represent them at the bargaining table.

I don't think the problem with the labour movement right now is a lack of available folks to represent workers.

---

I have been a member of several unions. In almost every case the handling of members' grievances had more to do with who the griever was than with the merits of the grievance. Workers' grievances should be handled exclusively by labour relations firms. Workers should not limit their imaginations to only what is possible in the existing labour relations systems.

In my opinion workers who are members of unions (which are affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress) have very few choices for different union representation.

[ 05 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Workers' grievances should be handled exclusively by labour relations firms

---

If you want all grievances to be handled by labour lawyers or labour relations consultants you better be prepared for a massive dues increase to pay legal bills.

IMHO its a much better use of the union's money to train grass roots activists to handle as much of this stuff as possible.

quote:

---

In my opinion workers who are members of unions (which are affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress) have very few choices for different union representation.

---

There are two issues involved when workers decide to change unions...one is legal, the other political.

Legally speaking, workers are free to change unions during the "open period" at the end of a collective agreement.

When a union joins the Canadian Labour Congress, one of the rules of "the club" is that you won't poach members of other unions that belong to the club.

If you do, you can get kicked out of the club.

Its a rule that generally speaking I agree with. "Raiding" battles between unions can get very ugly. The scars can last for years.

If unions are spending their time fighting with each other they use up valuable time, energy and resources that they could spend fighting anti-union employers and governments.

The AFL-CIO in the U.S. has pretty much the same rule...although it will be interesting to see how things develop given that a number of major unions have decided to leave the AFL-CIO.

That being said, things should not be so tight that when a group of workers is totally and completely pissed-off with their union and want a different one that they're tied up in bureaucratic knots for years if they try to follow the "proper" procedures.

A massive dues increase to pay legal bills might not be necessary if workers do not have to pay any union staff persons between $80,000 and $110,000 each year.

[ 06 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

The last time you linked to an election result, it showed that the reform candidates were all beaten. Why is that? I would suggest that it is because there are not enough of the membership who feel the same way that you do.

Trying to make an end run around member democracy by touting some sort of labour consultant system is insulting to the members who didn't vote for you, and it's insulting to me and every other Union member who votes in any Union election. You are basically saying that Union members aren't smart enough to make the decisions that affect the Union, and thier working lives. When the members didn't vote for you and your friends, they were telling you something. That something was that they didn't share your vision, they didn't want you to represent them, and they didn't want you to make decisions that would affect thier lives. Do the honourable thing and stop trying to bypass the democratic system that is in place.

If you should get elected, and be given the authority by your membership to implement your labour consultant system, then all the power to you. I will not be in agreement, and I would never vote for such a system, but above all I respect the members right to make that decision for themselves. That, CUPE Reformer, seems to be the difference between you and me.

Edited to say that I work full time for my local and I don't make 80 to 100 grand a year. As a matter of fact, about 20% of my fellow members make more than me, and if I was paid by the hour at my former hourly plant rate, I would be making a lot more.

[ 06 September 2005: Message edited by: slimpikins ]

quote:

---

CUPE Reformer, if in 'almost every case the handling of members grievances had more to do with who the griever was then the merits of the grievance', then the workers would be outraged. And enough of them would be outraged that it would be easy for a reform candidate to be elected.

You are basically saying that Union members aren't smart enough to make the decisions that affect the Union, and thier working lives.

---

Most union members have never signed any grievance forms. Many union members will tolerate injustice as long as it doesn't affect them personally i.e., the Teamsters' union when it was controlled by the mafia.

Fewer than ten percent of union members usually attend regular local union membership meetings. Local unions are not immune to favouritism and selfish cliques.

[ 06 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Bro-Ken hugged Cliff Evans like a sweetheart at the CLC convention in Montreal, but ripped me in BC newspapers.

keglerdave, when you get the balls to call the UFCW and the Teamsters on the carpet for their sleazy ways then I'll have a discussion with you.

However, members who don't like that can vote the bastards out. The fact that they don't tells me that they are happy with what is going on, or at least they aren't mad enough about it to make the time to go to a Union meeting. I mean, if I am pissed at something, and I could help change it by going to a meeting and voting, then I would. If I like what is going on, or at least have no problems with it, then I will either go to the meeting and vote accordingly, or not go to the meeting because there is nothing that I want to see changed. If watching the baseball game on TV is more important to me than going to the Union meeting, then I can't have too many problems now, can I.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
radiorahim:

A massive dues increase to pay legal bills might not be necessary if workers do not have to pay any union staff persons between $80,000 and $110,000 each year.

---

Man. What union pays that kinda salary? I'm clearly getting ripped off here.

EDIT: I'll also add that having a consultancy firm or lawyer handle everything a staff rep/national rep/whatever does - answering inquiries, bringing grievances, negotiating collective agreements and running arbitrations - would frankly cost enough money to bankrupt damn near any Local.

[ 06 September 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

Sniff, sniff... oww that hurts.... NOT!!!! Hugh, don't go away angry.... just go away!!! lol.

Rather than posting cream puff interviews in which you make statements that contradict everything else you say (like the famous MFD one you posted and referred to.) Why not just admit what most people in the labour movement know to be true... you're a hired management consultant now, and any comments you have on the state of trade unions in this province, should be taken with a grain of salt, considering where you're coming from.

I also wouldn't say UFCW are my "sweethearts" as it was the Superstore deal that has lead to the crumbling of the entire grocery sector. I personally don't have much use for Bro Ken either. But I'll tell you something, it'll be a cold day in hell, before I ever sell my soul to the highest bidder, union, or management. Ohh sorry, went to the people who paid the most money to kick someone's ass, as you stated in your MFD article.

Man, something must have got in your cornflakes to have to resort to such vulgarity as telling me to "slink back under my shrub and sleep in my own bullshit."

How is it bullshit when you're own words and statements are used in justifying statements and positions that I hold???? I find that someone who has to resort to saying stuff like your statement, generally, their arguments have no foundation. You whine and bitch about how you're portrayed as "the bad guy" and slammed by UFCW and the Teamsters or Bro Ken. In terms of the teamsters... what do you expect? You go on start a smear campaign against the entire union, and expect them to say "Ohh thats ok Bro. Hughie... we forgive you." Of... "hey we understand Hughie.. it was only business."

You're right, as I said before, you're a self proclaimed mercenary. But you can't accept just what being a mercenary (aka a hired gun) truly is. A person with no loyalties. Not only to the union in which you belong(ed) to, but to the people who's livlihoods you were eroding. And now, you're a "labour consultant"... as I said before, good for you, finally you're on the right side of the table, for yourself.

Anything that I've ever done as a union rep was with the full blessings, direction and knowledge of my bosses. Ask the Teamsters what they know about the secret local--Local 711. Orders came out of Washington DC. All the UFCW shit was directed from the highest levels.

keglerdave, your bleatings have an air of "cognitive dissonance" in them:

quote:

---

"You begin to conform your being to get the privilege of conformity. You soon come to believe what you're saying because it's useful to believe it, and then you've internalized the system of indoctrination and distortion and deception, and then you're a willing member of the privileged elites that control thought and indoctrination. That happens all the time, all the way to the top. It's a very rare person, almost to the point of non-existence, who can tolerate what's called "cognitive dissonance" -- saying one thing and believing another. You start saying certain things because it's necessary to say them, and pretty soon you believe them because you just have to." - Noam Chomsky

---

Oh, and I was just kidding about you buying balls and a brain. You can't buy them. You either have them or you don't. I guess you're out of luck.

Anyone with half a brain knows that your engaging in an ad hominem (fallacious agument). That says a lot about your thinking processes and character.

quote:

---

Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hugh Finnamore:
Oh, and I was just kidding about you buying balls and a brain. You can't buy them. You either have them or you don't. I guess you're out of luck.

Anyone with half a brain knows that your engaging in an ad hominem (fallacious agument). That says a lot about your thinking processes and character.

---

cognitive dissonance / ad hominem

Wow... had to reach into the old thesaurus / dictionary for that one I bet. Got me there. I'm afraid Latin isn't one of my fortes. But the cut and paste from the dictionary was a nice touch, thanks. I did however look up "cognitive dissonance" and came up with thinking conflict, or perhaps conflicted thinking. Whatever it is, as usual, you're wrong.

As for my arguments being "ad hominem" which for those folks following along at home means

" appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason)." (I too know how to cut and paste, not bad for a truck driver huh? Oh wait.. that's what you started out as wasn't it?)

Well, the facts are merely as you have stated. I've merely translated your own statements and recollection of history into a commentary and position. I've also used those statements to "out" your positions on the labour movement and the like. You have your spin and I have mine. But I must say,

I haven't reached into the bag of vocabulary or the personal insults to attempt to muddy the issue. (for the most part) Those who do engage in both personal insults (remember... I only commented on what's public knowledge and used your own words... that's not a personal insult.) and attempting to engage in, "if you can't dazzle them with intelligence... baffle them with bullshit" tactics, or acting like your somehow superior because you can quote Chomsky, or can use a dictionary. I wonder how long it took CUPE Reformer to contact you and tell you someone had come on here and called you out? Once again, your own statements.

One other thing about the actual topic of "using labour consultants as bargaining agents." Your own position could be construed as self serving, as in effect that's what you yourself are, and it would be to your benefit for unions to not bargain their own collective agreements but to use hired guns as yourself to do it for them. In effect, your submission as posted in the link is nothing more than an informercial for Workplace Strategies Inc.

And wouldn't it be to your benefit to have to NOT face business agents, stewards and the like, people with a familiarity of the workplace and the collective agreement, and an understanding of what it takes to get a deal done, so that you could exact the best possible deal for your client, rather than having to negotiate with that unfamiliarity?? If that were the case, then no doubt a shark like you could shred agreements and force the workers to their knees for their masters (your employer). Because let's be honest here Hugh, all insults aside, how many unions have engaged you and your company's services since you started it up? You are what you are, a hired gun.

Labour has them too, within the unions themselves. But rarely, if ever, do they go outside to hire people to conduct the fundamental act of a union, which is to represent their workers, at the bargaining table, in the grievance meeting, or on the shop floor.

It's ok Hugh. I'm very comfortable in my knowledge of who I am and what I stand for, and continue to as well. I do have a set, and more often than not, am out on the edge where I work walking that fine line for the people I represent and look out for. We are what we are Hugh. I'm a Union Thug, and you're a hired gun. I'm comfortable in my actions and in my own skin, but I do have to say, after reading the continued personal insults and the "can't dazzle them with intelligence... baffle them with bullshit" routine, I would question if you're comfortable in your own skin. Because I think that people that have to resort to the sort of tactics above, are actually saying,

quote:

---

I wonder how long it took CUPE Reformer to contact you and tell you someone had come on here and called you out?

---

quote:

---

What is a troll?
The term "troll" can mean a number of different things, but in essence, a troll is a person who aims to have 'pleasure' at your expense. There are two main types of trolls:

1.) people who have the psychological need to feel good by making others feel bad.

This is a sort of "psycho troll", whose deception involves deceiving themselves as well as others. Such people may use their real names on the internet, and they may not even realise that they are "trolling" because it is all subconscious.

2.) people who pretend to be someone that they are not - they create personae that you think are real, but they know is fictitious.

---

Best way to piss a troll off is to ignore her or him.

"Don't go away mad.... just go away!!!" lol.

Hugh = sellout.

quote:

---

However, members who don't like that can vote the bastards out. The fact that they don't tells me that they are happy with what is going on, or at least they aren't mad enough about it to make the time to go to a Union meeting. I mean, if I am pissed at something, and I could help change it by going to a meeting and voting, then I would. If I like what is going on, or at least have no problems with it, then I will either go to the meeting and vote accordingly, or not go to the meeting because there is nothing that I want to see changed. If watching the baseball game on TV is more important to me than going to the Union meeting, then I can't have too many problems now, can I.

If you can't get a majority on your side, then you can't implement your changes. Thats it, thats all. Your attempts to circumvent the democratic process show me, and the world, that you are a dictator without a following. Either get the people behind you, or give it up and accept that the membership just doesn't agree with you.

---

Your ideas work well in a small local. It can't work where you don't even see the majority of your co-workers never mind anyone from outside your retail outlet.

When you have a local of 20 or 30,000 members who work in several hundred stores and where management throws you out if you step foot in them, but they welcome the business agents who work for the incumentt--you ain't goin' to change anything at a union meeting.

Is low attendance because people are happy? How the heck did you come to that conclusion? It's because they just don't give a shit. In retail and hospitality they are part time and don't look at being in the union for a long time. Their lives are miserable and the union has let it slip backwards over the past 20 years.

Your thoughts are common, but they may not be the real reason why people don't support unions in their present state.

Workplace activism will always live, but corporatized unions tend to stifle that activism.

"CUPE Reformer, sure Union meetings could be better attended, but they are not. And sure, lots of workers don't sign grievance forms. And, sure, sometimes there is favouritism.

However, members who don't like that can vote the bastards out. The fact that they don't tells me that they are happy with what is going on, or at least they aren't mad enough about it to make the time to go to a Union meeting. I mean, if I am pissed at something, and I could help change it by going to a meeting and voting, then I would.

If I like what is going on, or at least have no problems with it, then I will either go to the meeting and vote accordingly, or not go to the meeting because there is nothing that I want to see changed. If watching the baseball game on TV is more important to me than going to the Union meeting, then I can't have too many problems now, can I."
CUPE Reformer, sure Union meetings could be better attended, but they are not. And sure, lots of workers don't sign grievance forms. And, sure, sometimes there is favouritism."

Most people's first interaction with the union isn't when they first start their job, it's either when there's a problem at work or during bargaining. I find a great many people rather indifferent and at times grossly ignorant, where and what their union dues go towards. I think a great many people today look upon union dues and union membership a mere annoyance to get the job that they want, or just a fact of life in the company that they are working for. And for that fact... a tax write off.

As a steward, I've made it a point to go up to every new hire in my company, introduce myself, ask if they have any questions and let them know how to get a hold of me. As well as give them some tips on the culture and relationship within the company. Many people are either previous members of my union, or for the most part, ambivilent about it. Most of the people I work with look at union membership as almost an insurance policy. Most choose not to take the time to get involved at the Local or National level. (in my work place specifically).

But if there's an issue within the workplace, and the union calls a meeting, its generally well attended. To get members more involved, you have to for lack of a better word, sell the membership on the idea of being active. At my workplace, I've attempted this on a small scale, one at at time, but then again there's only 100 members at my workplace. At the end of the day, you can only do what you yourself can do. I can only control my own interest and activity within the union, and I've chosen to be extremely active.

And truth be told, there's some truth in the stuff about problems with bureaucratic unions, and the problems of decertifications.

But you do a good job of presenting the problems with Hugh's proposals, and of defending the traditional trade union structure.

Behind all the tough-talk, some serious ideas are being clearly articulated.

As for changing the way a local is run, that's almost impossible. How does one person who works a 40-hour week traverse the province to speak at every session of the "quarterly" union meeting? You put your motion on the floor in Cranbrook, discuss it, vote on it and then leave it to the executive to sell your idea even if it's against their best interest?

Jim Smith wrote a good piece called the Corporatization of Unions. He mentions the IWW. It's worth the time to study how the IWW was formed and why it was crushed by so-called union activists.

Thwap, you're right, New Zealand experiment was a con job, but not many were really conned. Noam Chomsky wrote a good article on it entitled Old Wine, New Bottles--A bitter taste.

What I'm asking people to discuss is alternatives to the present state of affairs --namely the corporate model of governance employed by most unions. Was New Zealand's experiment a total bust, or were there changes that produced positive results? The new labour government kept some of the stuff from the Employment Contracts Act.

I don't claim to know the answers. I'm asking people to think long and hard about what labour activism is about, what's working and what's not.

[ 09 September 2005: Message edited by: Hugh Finnamore ]

Do I really need to say this to labour folks? Try leafleting outside the stores. Talk to someone going in, and if you can get them on side, they can spread your literature and message inside. A little more work, maybe, but it is doable. Don't forget to harp on the fact that the company lets the incumbent in but not you, showing where the company's really at, and what the incumbent is all about. Stay on the sidewalk or in the parking lot, and all is legal.

A small local that merged with us (another small local) had a president change about 8 years ago. The challenger took a leave (unpaid) under the collective agreement, and campaigned. He visited stores, talked to people, even did up his truck with signs and drove from store to store. He won by a landslide. He also was not allowed inside the stores, and he responded with a big sign on his truck that said '(incumbent) is allowed in, Safeway won't let me in....a vote for (incumbent) is a vote for your manager.' Workers started asking why he couldn't come in the store, and soon he was allowed to visit people on breaks, in the break room.

I know this is a lot of work, but it is effective, at least more effective than complaining about the lack of democracy.

[ 09 September 2005: Message edited by: slimpikins ]

What's sad about your example is it shows how difficult it is for a union member to access democracy. How many people could afford to take an unpaid leave of absence to fight a highly-paid opponent with unlimited access to free travel with all expenses paid?

In many provinces, you can't even get on the UFCW ballot unless you have the signatures of 10% of the bargaining unit. That could mean you have to have 500 to 1,000 signatures, which all have to be carefully obtained with air-tight verifications. Try that when you work in a store with under 75 members.

In Ontario, a Teamster president held local union meetings at a location that was an eight-hour drive from where the majority of members lived and worked. Other times, the meeting is held at times when the members are working, so that they can't attend.

There are all sorts of ways to rig a meeting.

In my local, we have had 2 challenges to the president. One was a well known worker, and that was his problem, he was well known. It worked against him. He was permitted to speak to the executive board, and he attended all the unit meetings at the locals expense. He got less votes than he had relatives. His main issue was that the Union, on advice of legal counsel, declined to proceed to arbitration on a discipline grievance of his. His campaign was all 'me, me, me', and he got hammered.

The second challenger was a maintenance worker, with a decent following among the other maintenance workers. His concern was that the maintenance workers did not have a sufficient voice as they were a small proportion of the membership. He felt that if a maintenance worker was president, then maintenance issues would get the recognition that they deserved. He also lost, not even getting a majority of the maintenance workers (calculated by numbers, it was a secret ballot). Many of the maintenance workers disagreed with him as to the level of representation that they received.

I guess that the lesson here is that if your campaign is 'me, me, me, look what happened to me' you probably will lose. If your campaign speaks to a minority of the members, even if they all agree with you, they are a minority and you will probably lose.

Democracy is the best method. It has flaws, and they become obvious when the rules are stacked against the challenger. However, true reform candidates - and by this I mean people who want to reform the Union, not people who think that they got shafted and want to get rid of the shafter - can and do get elected.

What's the big difference between the two models below?

quote:

---

ACME Labour Representation Inc.

President: Bob Smith
Vice President: Wendy Hannah
Secretary: John Smith
Lawyer: Mary Worth
H&S Officer: Randy Dandy
Worker Consultant: Wendy Shoes
Worker Consultant: Ralph Socks
Worker Consultant: Joan Hatrick
Worker Consultant: Dan Glover
Office Clerical Staff: six people

ACME Labour Union

President: Bob Smith
Vice President: Wendy Hannah
Secretary: John Smith
Lawyer: Mary Worth
H&S Officer: Randy Dandy
Business Agent: Wendy Smith
Business Agent: Ralph Socks
Business Agent: Joan Smith
Business Agent: Dan Glover
Office Clerical Staff: six people

---

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, so I will state my opinion bluntly.

Anyone who advocates a labour consultant system is likely someone who tried and failed to gain control of a Union and is trying to make an end run around the system. It is nothing more than a back door attempt to gain control, because the traditional methods, like getting the most votes, aren't working. So much for democracy.

Yes, CUPE Reformer, I am talking about you, and other like you. If you can't get elected, there is a reason. And no, it isn't entirely that the other guys are playing mean. You have to at least consider the possibility that people don't want to go where you want to take them. And it isn't because they are brainwashed by the union, unable to hear your voice, trapped by a lousy constitution, etc.

Your voice is loud and clear. I mean, come on, I'm not even in the same local as you. I understand that you're in 1518, or once were, and I'm not. And I know your position on almost everything, thanks to babble and MFD. I'm not brainwashed, I just plain don't agree with you. And I'm not alone, obviously, because if I was, you would be the president of the local. You're not.

And before you respond with all sorts of examples about how your local is so horrible, and how they done did you wrong, save it. If it was that bad, then the people would vote you or someone like you into power.

quote:

---

I understand that you're in 1518, or once were, and I'm not. And I know your position on almost everything, thanks to babble and MFD.

---

I have never been a member of UFCW Local 1518. I only want better union representation and the CUPE membership to be better informed.

[ 10 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

When you run for election (like I did), and win (like I did), then your opinion will have the weight of the people behind it.

---

quote:

---

How many unions explain Robert's or Bourinot's Rules of Order? In Ontario, a member collected 1,500 signatures complaining about a 65% wage increase given to the officers while the same guys agreed to a 1% increase for the members. The goofs recommended the 1% and the members told them to ram it and demanded a strike vote. When the member tried to present the petition at the union meeting, she was told that she was out of order and to sit down. She got no explanation as to how she could present the issue or how she could get a vote on the issue. She and her hundred or so supporters were simply shut down by the executive.

---

Actually...lots of unions train their members on this sort of thing. One union that I used to be a member of spent probably two whole days of a week long training programme on this kind of stuff complete with mock meetings and conventions...showing trainees old convention video coverage (where there were some pretty heavy duty debates going on) etc.

By the time the trainees were finished they were pretty well versed in this stuff.

Anyway, I think you're generalizing about stuff that's happening inside a couple of unions and painting the whole labour movement with it and that's just plain wrong IMHO.

There are some unions that have very large widely geographically dispersed "composite" locals...while other unions tend to have smaller geographically contained locals.

I've been in both kinds of unions. In the union with smaller geographically contained locals I would agree that we had more immediate democracy and accountability. But we never had any money to speak of for all kinds of things. Also we were much more dependent on staff...who were accountable to the national office when we needed some "heavy lifting".

In the union that had large composite locals we were much better financed at the "local" level, relied on national office staff much less...but democracy and accountability was less immediate...and the local leadership was more entrenched.

But whatever the faults of the two "systems" I'd never want to turn everything over to consultants.

Besides, unions aren't just about grievances, arbitrations and collective bargaining anyway.
Alot of my labour activism over the years has had absolutely nothing to do with any of this stuff.

You deliberately missed the whole point of my previous post. Here it is again.

Democracy is the way to go. You can't get elected, therefore the people don't agree with you. Labour consultancy is an insidious attempt to circumvent the democratic process of election of officers. I see through it, other people will see through it too.

BTW, the extremely powerful position that I currently hold by virtue of the democratic process is 'unit recording secretary'. There are over a dozen of us throughout the local. My primary responsibility is the taking of the minutes at stewards meetings, posting of notices in the plant, and the odd time when consensus is not achieved in a stewards council I hand out the ballots and count them in front of the electorate. Not what you would call a mover and a shaker.

I am not scared to talk about the Union at all. However, when someone tries to push some sort of scheme that would take the members democratic rights away, that someone is going to be on the receiving end of my wrath. FYI, I talked with some of the members of my union and asked them what they would think about a labour consultant handling grievances, bargaining, etc. The first question that I got was, 'Have these consultants ever worked in this plant?', followed by 'If we don't like the people that we have, we will vote them out. What's wrong with the way things are right now?' Does that sound like a membership that is crying out for sweeping changes?

Members for Democracy? What a joke. There is nothing democratic about it, or your half baked scheme to replace democratically elected representatives with a corporation. As far as I can see it's a bunch of whiners who think they are smarter than the membership they claim they want to serve and blame thier failure to get elected on everything but themselves.

quote:

---

But whatever the faults of the two "systems" I'd never want to turn everything over to consultants.

Besides, unions aren't just about grievances, arbitrations and collective bargaining anyway.
Alot of my labour activism over the years has had absolutely nothing to do with any of this stuff.

Do we start sending our "labour consultants" to rallies against privatization, deregulation, government cutbacks, globalization and war? If so they'll be very small demonstrations.

---

Ah, but many so-called unions are little more than labour consultancies already. Their operational model is a business model.

I’ll take the key word as “sending” in reference to so-called activists attending rallies. All too often the numbers are there only because their time is paid for or it’s expected if they are going to get a free trip to the next convention (party).

Yes I’m talking in generalization, but I’m not making that generalization out of one incident in one union. I speak that way because I’ve seen the stuff in the Teamsters, the UFCW and the Textile Processors (former attached to the Teamsters and now rolled in with the UFCW).

That being said, no you wouldn’t send your consultancy’s employees to the rally—-you’d go and so would all the other activists that you work with.

It will be a sad day when activists have to be hired and individual responsibility is pushed off on to governments and unions. On second thought, maybe that sad day is here and we're living in it.

The present model is dying. People can point at corporations all they want, but the real cause of the accelerated death is to be found in mirrors in workers homes throughout the world.

Ask yourself, "What happened in the 1940's that created the mess of a system that exists today?" Why did the labour leaders of the day agree to the present system? How has it benfited workers in the long run?

The present system will destroy unions, but workers' groups will always spawn workplace activists. Some believe that destroying unions is a good thing. I don't think so. People who work for a living must have a voice in how they are treated. A collective voice is vital in so many ways. Power behind the collective voice is vital as well.

Rather than talking about unions vs. no unions, what is is about the "system" that is killing unions as a relevant player in workplace activism?

______________________________-

Oh, and as a note to slimpikins: One of your former International VPs wrote the following, "A comprehensive examination of the union democracy and leadership accountabiltiy issues within UFCW." It can be found at www.reapinc.org/
The MFD site has a recently-retired Local Union President voicing some of the same things. You've said that you can make a difference in your local, can you make a difference at the National or International level?

What do you think of the UFCW/Teamster merger that's in the works?

[ 10 September 2005: Message edited by: Hugh Finnamore ]

Of course, we have thousands of members. Why do only a dozen participate in activism on a regular basis? I have been trying to figure that out for a while, and this is what I have come up with.

The summer is pretty busy at the workplace, with 6 day weeks the norm. People often say that they would like to go, but are too tired, have other obligations like family, etc. With all the hours that we have to work, activism can sometimes fall to the bottom of the priority list. And it is easier to get someone to come with you to stand outside in the summer than in an Alberta winter.

Workers will come out to an event that directly affects them. We had hundreds of Iraqi members who came out to protest the war there, lots of Chinese members to protest at the Chinese consulate......you get where I'm going with this. Unless the issue hits pretty close to home, it is hard to get people out.

The core group of activists that we have in the plant have been trying to increase the number of activist members by spreading information. We talk to people in the plant, telling them how different issues can and will affect them. We post information about rallies and demonstrations in the plant on the Union bulletin board. We started last year with 2 of us, and now there are a dozen hard core activists. Most of these folks were activist minded before, but needed the catalyst of a group to get started.

The Union does not play an active role in this group. There are some things that the Union does to assist us, such as posting things on the bulletin board, fax machine use, equipment like megaphones and sign making tools, legal advice, etc. However, we are very careful not to entangle the Union and the activist group, because we have activists that call in absent to participate in events, and we sometimes go hard against the company and it's interests, things that are prohibited by the collective agreement if the Union does them. When we have enough activists, we will change that part of the CA, however that's a strike issue, and we don't have enough members willing to strike to change it yet. Let me be clear that the Union doesn't suck up to the company, however we do follow the CA and won't 'engange in any action that will adversely affect the company's business interests while this collective agreement is in force'.

However, we are often the only ones there representing labour. There are a few others like us from other Unions, but we seem to be the only ones that are there consistently and in any sort of numbers.

For building an activist group in the workplace, I highly reccomend reading 'The Troublemakers Handbook', either 1 or 2. We have been using the information in there as a model, and it has been working to a limited degree.

edited to add Hugh, I just read your note to me. You're right, the UFCW has some problems. Never denied that. Don't know that I am interested in merging with the Teamsters. I will be sure to educate myself on it before I vote. I am not in any rush to change anything at the national level, because I like the direction that we are heading overall. If I change my mind, then I will jump in to the fray. But rest assured, if I were to work on changing the national structure, I surely wouldn't advocate a labour consultant system, or pretty much anything that MFD is behind.

[ 10 September 2005: Message edited by: slimpikins ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hugh Finnamore:
Anyway, I'm not espousing having a pure ECA, I'm just talking about allowing alternative representation for workplace activists--perhaps soemthing along the lines of open-source unionism. Unions won't touch a worker unless she or he can deliver a majority of workers.

I mentioned New Zealand's ECA because it is one of the few examples of where the concept was tried.

---

Sorry to be a little late coming back to this, but I just wanted to point out that south of the border, the idea of "open source" or "minority" unionism has been getting a lot of attention lately.

Labour law professor Charles Morris argues that the "Blue Eagle" code of fair competition under the 1933-35 U.S. National Industrial Revitalization Act, which was later codified into the National Labour Relations Act (NLRA), protects the right of any group of workers to engage in collective bargaining, regardless of whether or not they constitute a majority of a bargaining unit in a given workforce. The Steelworkers union is apparently in the process of bringing a case before the U.S. labour board on this. Canada's various provincial labor codes borrowed heavily from the U.S. NLRA - it would be interesting to investigate whether any similar legal arguments might be made in Canada.

You might want to check out Morris's book: The Blue Eagle at Work (2005).

[ 10 September 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

I highly reccomend reading 'The Troublemakers Handbook', either 1 or 2....

...I surely wouldn't advocate a labour consultant system, or pretty much anything that MFD is behind.

---

[ 10 September 2005: Message edited by: siggy ]

From the insiders:

quote:

---

And, who knows, I had heard rumors--and it is a possibility--that the Teamsters and UFCW might end up merging. The combo makes sense: the stuff getting to grocery stores and other retails outlets comes in on trucks.

---

quote:

---

Siggy... Don't put too much faith in the rumours of a merger between the Teamsters and UFCW.

---