See this article in Kingston's independent paper

quote:

---

Local union eyebrows were raised when Smokey Thomas of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) helped the Chamber of Commerce with a media spot during the most recent flap over the Big Rink (a.k.a. the LVEC). Thomas, a onetime local unionist who has made a career for himself at the OPSEU head office in Toronto, backed the Build It Now crowd anxious to get the Rink built.

Thomas is in the midst of an OPSEU political battle, running for president of the big Ontario public-service union. (OPSEU in-fighting can get so nasty that some labour-watchers call it the Lebanon of the Labour Movement.) Thomas claimed he was backing the controversial Rink to support construction workers and because he was worried about the City getting sued.

The creeping privatization of public-sector jobs is a huge challenge for public-sector unions. The Big Rink is being built with public money. It will be owned by the City of Kingston. But will the people working there be members of Local 109 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the union that represents City workers? Or will they work for lower wages and fewer benefits as employees of Arcturus, the company running the Rink?

Odd that a public-service union leader would be such a militant backer of what could well be one of the Public/Private Partnerships that so worry unions like OPSEU and CUPE.

“In the last election the Labour Council supported candidates based, among others things, on their opposition to privatization,” said Council vice-president Debi Wells. “They happened to be the same people who have been critical of the LVEC.”

---

[ 05 May 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

According to this article, the "big rink" had the support of the Kingston Labour Council but there was a disagreement over location.

There are a number of people within OPSEU who are optimistic that the political space will now expand and that the days of the politics of exclusion may be over. Time will tell.

While I was also a (disappointed) Rapaport supporter, I think the outcome was "second best" for those hoping for a more membership-driven union.

While overall it was a fairly "clean" campaign (in OPSEU terms - we used to be called the Lebanon of the labour movement), Rapaport was subject to months of whispering about him being "too old" to run for president. This came from the Casselman camp as they attempted to paint their status quo candidate (Nancy Pridham) as young with fresh ideas.

Casselman politicized her own retirement in a number of ways which will end up hurting her legacy. She had her tribute dinner moved to the night before the election (instead of after the election when the banquet is usually held) and used it to promote her candidate in numerous ways. It was quite the spectacle.

She wore her candidates button on the podium of convention while the balloting was still underway. She allowed staff - including at least one of her Executive assistants - to openly campaign for her candidate. She condoned a former OPSEU leader who is now in the #2 spot at the OFL to openly campaign and be on the floor of Convention. She tried to strong arm scrutineers and supporters of her opponents into removing their buttons or backing out of scrutineering.

In the end, none of this did any good except to prevent Rapaport from going against Thomas on the final ballot.

[ 05 May 2007: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]

I think I like this too:

quote:

---

Thomas ran on a platform that included not having ties to any one political party.

“We will not practise partisan politics,” he said.

In the past, the union had been closely associated with the New Democratic Party. At the 2006 convention, delegates voted against a motion that would have formalized ties with the party.

“You look at the Steelworkers or the [Canadian Auto Workers] and they are pro-NDP,” said Kathy Smith, president of Local 468, which represents about 750 government workers in Kingston.

“As a general rule, OPSEU is pro-NDP as well.”

Thomas said he will sit down with provincial leaders to get a feel for each party’s platforms. Thomas said he believes the union could work in conjunction with the NDP, but said the union will generate issues based on its members’ needs.

Past performances, such as the Bob Rae years and decisions by the Tory years of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves won’t be considered, Thomas said. He said the primary factor will be the platform each party provides and what each would do for his union.

“The members’ interests are first,” he said.

---

From what I've read so far, as a member but not an insider and not overly "in the know" about the inside politics, it sounds like Smokey will be a decent leader.

P.S. Is there any movement within OPSEU to try to make it one-member-one-vote? I don't like the delegate system.

[ 05 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

As for political action, I have always opposed the "funnel" view of politics - i.e. that the union outsources all of its political action to a political party at election time by providing them with lots of money and resources but with no accountability.

While I would support endorsing and giving assistance to all NDP incumbents (who have been strong voices for OPSEU at the legislature), I'd like to see the main focus this year on the YES campaign for proportional representation. In the long run, pr will do more for working people than any one party in any one election.

OPSEU's convention almost unanimously endorsed the Citizen's Assembly proposal so that puts us in good stead. The message to the President and the board was clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2:
One member one vote came to Convention a few years ago and was overwhelming throunced.

---

By nominated delegates? Understandable!

But the truth is, when you elect your delegates, you don't know what they stand for or how they're going to vote on any particular issue, and they could easily change their mind at convention anyhow. There's no obligation on the part of the delegates to represent the opinions of the local, and no way to ensure they do. So really, the election of delegates seems to be little more than a popularity contest.

[Edited to get rid of scare quotes around "elect" - I wasn't being sarcastic.]

[ 06 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

That leaves less than half the delegates to be elected locally (some do and some don't). A few (but not many) locals direct their delegates to vote for this or that candidate but most leave it up to the delegates.

Seems to me that it's pretty easy to build solidarity when it's never tested by fellow members crossing picket lines.

quote:

---

There seemed during my time to be a closer relatioship between Union exec and grassroots. OPSEU conventions were warm, engaging and discussed seriously relevant issues of workplace safety, workers rights, children's services,equal pay for work of equal value.

---

I would agree that at least in some parts of the province, that relationship is definitely weaker. But just as significantly, there are also walls between the union's head office and the local (and some regiona or sectoral) leaders. Many campaigns are very top down and local leaders "question" the formulaic approach at their own peril. I was sent to "coventry" a few years ago for suggesting that certain campaign tactics which might be effective in a smaller community would not be the best approach in the big city.

However, there are still some good debates at convention and important and interesting issues brought to the floor through the resolutions process. In some respects, OPSEU has matured in that respect since I first started attending the convention. Implementation is another matter.

[ 07 May 2007: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]