quote:

---

When it was run by Portuguese-born welder Tony Dionisio, Toronto-based Local 183 of the Labourer's International Union of North America (LIUNA) was not only the continent's largest union local, it was a powerful political force. Now that it has been taken over by its Washington-based parent, with permission of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, it is fast becoming a political joke.

It's not for lack of trying: The Hamilton officials who now run the giant local, which supplies the brawn behind Toronto's continuing construction boom, have proven just as keen to spread their influence as Dionisio and Co. once did. The difference, as the results of several elections show, is that they don't have any.

In the recent municipal elections, LIUNA threw its weight behind three prominent mayoral candidates, all of whom lost. Hamilton Mayor Larry Di Ianni, a close ally in the union's hometown, was the biggest loser. But former Liberal cabinet minister Joe Fontana, running for mayor of London, Ont. with LIUNA backing, made his own big splash in the shallow end of the vote pool. The last of them was Vaughan Mayor Michael Di Biase, ousted by challenger Linda Jackson, pending the results of a recount.

---

John Barber, Globe & Mail

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Toronto-based Local 183 of the Labourer's International Union of North America (LIUNA) was not only the continent's largest union local, it was a powerful political force.

---

Also, for background, here is an earlier thread I started, but forgot about, about the trusteeship.

[ 06 December 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

The war between LIUNA and Dionisio is interesting.

The alliance between Buzz Hargrove and Tony Dionisio is very very very interesting - and, in my mind, a whole new topic.

quote:

---

The fact that an industrial union with a history of (at least nominal) politcial radicalism is willing to cut a deal with a business union hack like Dionisio is pretty significant.

---

Is it really any different than his poaching of Retail Wholesale from the Steelworkers or the famous raid on the SEIU in 1999/2000?

quote:

---

When the Labour Day parade sets out from University and Queen this Monday morning, the largest private-sector union in Canada won't be there. The Canadian Auto Workers have decided to have their own event, thank you very much, rather than walk in shame at the ass end.

On the day that's supposed to send a don't-fuck-with-us message to the big, bad bosses, unions are instead clawing each other's eyes out and hurling allegations of deceit, double-dealing, fraud and craven manoeuvring for power. Norma Rae would not be proud.

The worst split in the labour movement in 50 years is about an attempt by eight Ontario locals of a U.S.-based union to break away from their parent and merge with the CAW. In the labour business, it's called a raid -- when one union signs up the members of another in a hostile takeover bid. There have been lots over the years, and they always involve their share of bitterness.

But the circumstances in which 30,000 members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) became the object of this tug of war are more sensational than any garden-variety union raid. The entire union movement has been dragged in, creating a toxic stew of personality squabbles, political differences and competing egos that no one can clean up.

---

EDITED TO ADD: I tend to agree with the mods that a lot of this LIUNA Local 183 stuff should be consolidated. I'd be willing to go back and edit the thread title, though, if you want to suggest something that explains the whole topic better?

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

- It's outside their traditional jurisdiction in the auto sector.
- The paperthin excuse of "Standing up for Canada" is being tossed around as justification for raiding.

It's different in these ways:

- Dionisio and LIUNA are well outside the "progressive labour" tradition. They're business union people and the Buzz/Dionisio alliance seems to be about business not principles.
- At least to my knowledge, no industrial union has even attempted to move into the building trades.
- There is a political dimension: Buzz (who is growingly linked to the Liberal Party) is teaming up with Dionisio (who is a longtime Liberal bagman)

I think there's two topics here:

1) What is the CAW up to? Are they attempting to become simply a one-stop union for all workers? Is this driven by a political vision for labour or is it a business-union drive to expand into new areas as the auto sector collapses?

2) LIUNA turf war.

quote:

---

- At least to my knowledge, no industrial union has even attempted to move into the building trades.

---

Are you aware of the long saga of the B.C. Carpenters' Union? They were a renegade branch of the U.S.-based United Brotherhood of Carpenters who opposed International President Doug McCarron's consolidation of locals and centralization of power. They broke away from the International in 2004 and the CAW were hot and heavy in the bidding for affiliation, although they eventually decided to go with the CEP instead. See this article including a helpful "backgrounder" from 2005.

Notably the Carpenters, LIUNA and SEIU are all members of the Change to Win Federation south of the border. The Canadian RW was affiliated with the Steelworkers, but really they too were refugees from the 1993 merger of their parent organization, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, with now Change-to-Win member UFCW.

I think the real motivating factor in all cases has been the internal politics of these unions, particularly the centralizing "reforms" that people like Andy Stern, Doug McCarron, Terry O'Sullivan of LIUNA, and to a lesser extent the leadership of RW/UFCW have been imposing vs. their local Canadian vassal's desire for autonomy. The CAW just sits there willing to scoop up the members. It helps offset continuing job losses in the automotive sector.

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

ADDING: I think it's simplistic to blame this all on fallout from ChangetoWin - the CAW/SEIU raid was nearly a decade ago, long before Change to Win.

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: Is this it? ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Is this it?:
1) What is the CAW up to? Are they attempting to become simply a one-stop union for all workers? Is this driven by a political vision for labour or is it a business-union drive to expand into new areas as the auto sector collapses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Where do people stand on this? I'm kind of confused at the politics involved in this. On the one hand, union raiding sucks, but on the other hand, if I belonged to a sucky union and a strong one known for not taking any shit were to come along, I think I might welcome a raid.

---

In this case, I think we have Dionisio, the long-time leader of the allegedly sucky union, getting deposed by another group of people who allegedly suck for different reasons. Dionisio wants to get his power and perques back so he goes to Buzz for a loan to start up a new union and raid his former turf.

[ 06 February 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Where do people stand on this? I'm kind of confused at the politics involved in this. On the one hand, union raiding sucks, but on the other hand, if I belonged to a sucky union and a strong one known for not taking any shit were to come along, I think I might welcome a raid.

---

A little labour history is in order, I think. Because our manufacturing sector was and still is an American branch plant economy back when unions were organizing, plants tended to organize along the lines of their sister operations in the States.

This made for a union movement made up of many smallish unions, not exactly organized along the lines of the work people were doing. This causes a lot of the problems we see in the labour movement today.

I believe that the CAW meant to address it's shrinking membership base, and tackle the inherent weakness in the labour movement by bringing in, through merger and raids, smaller unions.

The CLC doesn't help much in these situations. Raiding could be halted if the CLC set certain standards of performance for the membership for member unions-- which would then take away the reason, or excuse (depending on your point of view) for raiding within the CLC.

Raiding unions outside the umbrella of the CLC has always been fair game.background from the Glove and Maul

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Oh. Well, what the heck is Buzz doing supporting that? Say what you will about Buzz's politics, but I thought that at least when it comes to labour issues, he was pretty solid. This doesn't sound good at all. I guess he must figure that this old guy with the new union will be better for the workers than the status quo.

---

Michelle, I'm going to stay out of this typical "bash Buzz and call him the worst conceivable names we can find in Roget's Thesaurus" bloodfest, except to say that this is about an attempted U.S. takeover - by one of the most unsavoury international unions around - of a Canadian local that is causing it grief. The rest, about Paul Martin and the Liberals and Thomas Edison and Genghis Khan, is the usual window-dressing by the bash-Buzz club.

I'll stop whistling "Speak Softly Love" when I post here.

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

The rest, about Paul Martin and the Liberals and Thomas Edison and Genghis Khan, is the usual window-dressing by the bash-Buzz club.

---

I'll agree with Unionist to this extent. With friends like Buzz Hargrove, who needs enemies. Paul Martin found this out during the last election campaign when he ended up having to distance the Liberals from some ill-thought over the top remarks resulting from Hargrove shouting off his mouth.

And isn't it typical for Hargrove to claim he personally examined the allegations of wrongdoing against Tony Dionisio and found them without merit. Those silly Ontario judges and labour relations adjudicators clearly don't hold a candle to Buzz Hargrove.

I'll note a couple things to be fair first.

I think Robbie Dee's assessment is pretty accurate but if I had to pick between the LIUNA International and Dionisio I'd pick Dionisio. Dionisio's a modestly disreputable business union thug. The other side is literally linked with organized crime.

This is possibly a good reason to start a real push to build a genuinely progressive union in the construction trades by working with existing progressive unions.

Buzz, however, is throwing some cash at a slightly less disreputable, and not at all progressive, thug who wants his empire back.

Raiding is appealing when you're stuck in a crappy union and you want better representation. If we had something even approaching sanity and solidarity in our labour movement we would solve that problem by introducing measures that would ensure that unions that desert their members would face the unified wrath of organized labour. Unfortunately, in the last half century, we've moved from having an industrial labour movement that was founded on ideals of solidarity and worker empowerment to a collection of business unions that view union members as market share. That's oversimplifying in many ways but the fact is most unions in the CLC care more about preserving their own dues than what's good for Canada's workers. Consequently, instead of a body where real decisions and staregy is made the CLC is a joke.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Is this it?:
ADDING: I think it's simplistic to blame this all on fallout from ChangetoWin - the CAW/SEIU raid was nearly a decade ago, long before Change to Win.

---

Oh, I wasn't blaming "Change to Win" per se, I was blaming a common drive for centralization of power in the different Change to Win affiliates.

The Change to Win unions are all old A.F. of L. craft unions which traditionally had a lot of local autonomy. After Andy Stern took over the SEIU in 1996, he started pushing his "New Strength New Unity" plan which heavily centralized a number of union operations previously left up to the locals, and also led to the trusteeship of a large number of locals. This was probably on balance a progressive step, since most of the locals were mobbed up. But the Canadian locals who were, as far as I know, generally honestly run, felt that they were also going to get swept up in this tide. They didn't want to be run out of Washington D.C., so they switched to the CAW.

Although this predates Change to Win by a number of years, the fact is that Sterns "New Strength New Unity" plan for the SEIU eventually led to the "New Unity Partnership" with the Carpenters, LIUNA, UNITE and HERE (later to merge into UNITE HERE). The New Unity Partnership urged other unions to pursue similar internal changes to those that the SEIU made. The NUP was supposed to launch former HERE president John Wilhelm's run for the AFL-CIO presidency in 2005, but they aborted it after counting noses and realizing they didn't have the support. In the meantime, the NUP unions had allied with the UFCW and the Teamsters under the "Change to Win Coalition" banner, so they decided to fold up the NUP, leave the AFL-CIO, and start the Change to Win Federation.

My point was only that the situation with the Laborers, the Carpenters and the SEIU are all related to similar developments in their respective international unions. The situation with RW is a little different, because there the split between RW and the UFCW happened much earlier (1993); and they went through a "holding" stage with the United Steelworkers before ending up in the CAW. Still, from the CAW's perspective I think the motivation was similar - taking advantage of other union's internal splits to bolster their own bottom line. Edited to add: in fact, the CAW-RW was raiding a UFCW represented Loblaws warehouse as late as 2004.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Buzz, however, is throwing some cash at a slightly less disreputable, and not at all progressive, thug who wants his empire back.

---

Hum, I can't comment on the character of the new local head, but it does look like CAW is raiding through a white glove.

Stern's big picture push for the corporatization of labor (labour) is in fact forcing the hands of labor leaders all across North America. He is virtually the only guy within labor who is getting ink as to having a plan.

While i couldn't disagree more with his direction, he has gotten buy-in from some of the biggest internationals in the game. Has anyone heard any news from the AFL-CIO or the CLC of late? Bodies like these are most often hopeless and helpless; but the CTW bunch got more than their share of positive coverage; at least in the beginning.

Buzz and CAW is a whole different animal. That said, it is clear he likes the strategy Stern has applied. Eating their own may well be the only way these organizations survive, and in Buzz's case, i suspect he knows that better than anyone.

Hargrove's embrace of the deep integrationist Liberals would be harder to justify in this context, but in the end what he is really after are subsidies for the Canadian auto industry, which the NDP can't deliver because they are never in power. It's a devil's bargain, but one could argue that this is no different than Stern's selective embrace of Republican politicians when it suits his "organizing" agenda, despite that Party's overall hostility to labour far beyond anything the Liberals would ever stand for.

I realize you can probably poke a lot of holes in this, but I am playing devil's advocate here...

EDITED TO ADD: Fancy seeing you here, Bill! How ya doin?

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

The fact is, the nationalism is just rhetoric to cover up an all-around expansionism.

If Buzz sat down with other Canadian unions and developed a strategy to build a "made-in-Canada" labour federation I'd take notice.

quote:

---

You can argue about Stern's motives but I think it's a gross oversimplification to call his plan "corporatization". What he's pushing for is centralization and planning, something that the labour movement's been lacking in the US for decades. Is he bent on self-promotion? Is he too close with bosses? Possibly. But the same charges were made against John L Lewis and I think, with the benefit of hindsight, workers won more than they lost with the creation of the CIO.

---

It's a far more reasonable comparison using the UAW's partnership programs adopted in the 80's. Another could be the airline unions efforts to crawl in bed with their employers in the 90's. Both worked for the short run. When their partners tired off them the divorce was painful and expensive.

Further, Andy's comments on the death of employer health care is troubling (or at least should be to any trade unionist). Saying we need national health care in the US is one thing, telling employers its doa is another.

A curious footnote to this discussion for those of you in Canada is this question: Wasn't it the UAW's partnership programs that caused Buzz and company to succeed from the international? If that's the case, how ironic would it be if now Buzz is following in Andy's footsteps of saving labor through consolidation, mergers and working with their "partners."

The true test of any union movement has to be in the outcomes. For years now concessions have become the standard. Minimal increases and benefit reductions are almost the boilerplate for contract talks in both the US and Canada. I guess time will tell if the CTW's plan is one of real action or just lot's of hype.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
The split was triggered by the Canadian leadership disagreeing with a weak (at least) contract proposal from the UAW. When the UAW said, no, you can't be UAW and have a better contract in Canada what became the CAW said bye.

---

Thank you jrootham, I was about to make a much longer and more boring post saying essentially the same thing.

The CAW split from the UAW was a reflection of the two sharply different directions taken by the two national labour movements as a whole starting in the early 1980s - a direction of (more or less) struggle in Canada vs. (more or less) abject capitulation in the U.S. From having comparable rates of unionization on both sides of the border at that time, Canada has dropped a few points but is still in the 30% range (give or take, don't have the exact number handy). The U.S. has plummeted to around 11 or 12%. Struggle made the difference.

quote:

---

If Buzz sat down with other Canadian unions and developed a strategy to build a "made-in-Canada" labour federation I'd take notice.

But I'm not holding my breath.

---

That would be an admirable project, but that's not going to happen.

It's telling, really, of Union leadership in Canada. If they were actually dedicated to the best interests of Canadian workers and social unionism, they would have found ways to merge and amalgate into three or four national unions, which would have much more political clout.

But these petty kings don't want to subbordinate themselves to another. This isn't an argument over the philosophy of International Unionism vs. Nationalist Unionism, it's an argument over ego, and self interest.

quote:

---

A curious footnote to this discussion for those of you in Canada is this question: Wasn't it the UAW's partnership programs that caused Buzz and company to succeed from the international? If that's the case, how ironic would it be if now Buzz is following in Andy's footsteps of saving labor through consolidation, mergers and working with their "partners."

---

unionist responds:

quote:

---

The CAW split from the UAW was a reflection of the two sharply different directions taken by the two national labour movements as a whole starting in the early 1980s - a direction of (more or less) struggle in Canada vs. (more or less) abject capitulation in the U.S. From having comparable rates of unionization on both sides of the border at that time, Canada has dropped a few points but is still in the 30% range (give or take, don't have the exact number handy). The U.S. has plummeted to around 11 or 12%. Struggle made the difference.

If Bill Pearson or others are interested in the real history of the CAW split from the UAW, have a look at the full text of Sam Gindin's book, but in particular this chapter.

---

I think if we are going to look back at the history as reported by Sam Gindin, we should also have a look at what Gindin is saying today:

quote:

---

Dear Buzz,

A number of questions about the CAW's general political and more specific electoral orientation are being asked both inside and outside the union. These are questions of importance to the Canadian Left as a whole. We cite a few such questions and invite comment.

First, coming out of GM bargaining in October, 2005 the union proudly declared that GM had agreed to limit job losses to 1,700 due to “efficiencies.” Within a few short weeks — and with nothing changing that wasn't known — GM announced some 3,000 additional job losses including the closure and loss of a shift at its two best plants in North America (measured in terms of productivity, quality and a $10/hr cost advantage relative to the U.S.).

Yet the union offered no criticism of GM. Where was the union's anger or sense of betrayal? Where was any challenge to the neo-liberal promise that competitiveness brings job security?

Furthermore, the CAW had virtually led the lobbying to get GM $450 million in public funds to save jobs. Again, what happened to the job guarantees? It might have been too much to expect the union to admit the failure of its policy, but why — having gone in this mistaken direction — did it at least not challenge GM and call for withholding that subsidy until the company reversed its decision?

---

Sam Gindin, "Raising Difficult Questions for the Left," rabble.ca, February 13, 2006

Indeed, it was folks like Gindin and Bob White who were at the helm when the CAW made its big break. But I think it is fair to ask, as Gindin has, what is Buzz doing with their legacy?

[ 13 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Bill Pearson asks:

Indeed, it was folks like Gindin and Bob White who were at the helm when the CAW made its big break. But I think it is fair to ask, as Gindin has, what is Buzz doing with their legacy?

---

Oh, I fully agree with that. The CAW is taking some very questionable directions today. And from I can see, internal dissent and debate is not very visible. That is troubling.

But my reference to Gindin's book was only for the limited purpose of correctin Bill Pearson's impression about "partnerships". History shows that in the era of "stagflation", while the U.S. union movement was getting smashed by the two-fold baseball bat of:

1) Reagan's crushing of the PATCO strike; and

2) the sell-out concessionary bargaining stance of some of the major unions (including the UAW);

the Canadian labour movement was standing tall, resisting the terror tactics of "we're gonna go bankrupt", and conducting business as usual without giving concessions. The CAW was in the vanguard of that movement. Will it remain so under today's very different conditions? That is what Gindin is questioning, and his concerns must be debated and answered openly and honestly.

And about "P3's", the McGuinty Liberals campaigned on promises to stop public-private-partnerships. But now they're promoting "alternate financing procurements", AFP's, which are said to be the same thing from a different angle toward eventual privatization. This Liberal government is not worker-friendly by any means. We've lost 120, 000 good paying forestry and manufacturing jobs during their term in Toronto. Manufacturing is in recession, and growth estimates for Ontario have been halved since December.

[ 13 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Yes, there is much laudable in all they did. But if you question the direction Buzz has gone in, you can't escape the fact that Buzz is leader because he was fed the royal jelly by White, Gindin, and Nickerson, amoungst others.

This in a time when Victor Ruether was travelling Canada, warning of the dangers of a powerfull caucus system.

I was around for the White years, and I saw how they operated to quash opposition. That's all fine and dandy when you have people of vision in power, but it also serves to entrench someone like Buzz.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Pearson:

I'm sorry Iti, but comparing Lewis and Stern in the same paragragh is a bit over the top for me. The corporatization term is simply a reference to his movement from a biz union model to absolute and total control at the top. I hardly think that was the agenda Lewis had... Further, Andy's comments on the death of employer health care is troubling (or at least should be to any trade unionist). Saying we need national health care in the US is one thing, telling employers its doa is another.

---

As for the Lewis comparison, we'll see. I will note that John L Lewis was a notorious corporatist centralizer who was far more brutal with opponents than Stern has been.

The question still is; is Buzz buying into Stern's bigger is better concept? Does he see unification as the solution to the onslaught of concessionary agreements?

I would agree with Isi that Stern has a vision, and as you noted, i don't agree with it. Unfortunately the trend in the ufcw has been to merge and grow bigger unions; badder unions; better unions.

Suffice to say i'm still waiting. I was there for the merger between the clerks and the cutters in 1979. I applauded Bill Wynn for making it happen. I saw the future as being bright with endless possibilities.

Twenty six years later, the net is we have an international and huge locals with some of the best wages and benefits in the business. Sadly, it's for the staff and officers. In many cases we represent workers making just over minimum wage. In many cases, members have no health care, no retirement.

I know the vast majority of the workers the ufcw represents are in low paying wage jobs...but shouldn't that be reflective in how the leadership is doing? What they are paid?

Here is the other rub with Stern's plan: Having run a local union, i have come to the conclusion the answer lies in worker empowerment, not in growing the bureaucracy. So much of Stern's plan is about what they are and so little about what the workers are all about.

We could argue if once they are big enough they will suddenly become democratic organizations that function as worker friendly structures: Is there anything in the recent past that would give rise for that to be the case?

In my early years with the union i longed for the idea a wobblie type structure would be the most effective. The longer i was on the inside, the more i came to believe nothing would or could change the current biz union model.

Now retired, i see i was wrong. Stern is proposing to take it to an even more rigid top down model. While the term corporatization sounds critical, it merely reflects what i see him trying to do...run it like a massive corporation.

quote:

---

Embracing a thug has to show poor judgement: If he can deliver members, i suspect these two will be hugging the shit out of each other, which will be the closest thing you will see to solidarity these days from labour.

---

First off, maybe in Bill Pearson's world, this is the only solidarity there is. But where I am, at least on the ground among many labour groups, it's still very much there.

Second, I don't know who's the bigger villain: the local 183 former president, or the LIUNA international executive. Actually, a quick net search with the head "racketeering and construction" brought up numerous cases of collusion between many LIUNA reps and mafia-owned, or influenced, construction firms.

It doesn't take much digging to see that the construction industry is, and always has been, ripe ground for laundered money, tax evasion, pay-offs and illegal commerce. When criminal organizations getting into the construction business realized they couldn't bust the unions, they started doing whatever they could to buy-off, blackmail or otherwise unduly influence elected union leaders: bribes, illegally funding candidates in union elections and, failing all else, killing opposing contenders. sadly, LIUNA seems to be pretty much at the center of this over the years (I guess the labourers, being the biggest sector of the construction work force are the main targets for illegal activity).

quote:

---

Buzz and CAW is a whole different animal. That said, it is clear he likes the strategy Stern has applied. Eating their own may well be the only way these organizations survive, and in Buzz's case, i suspect he knows that better than anyone

---

Not much the same at all. According to CAW members I have spoken with, Hargrove seems to be doing two main things:

--promoting the CAW via playing the nationalist card

--promoting the CAW via the "populist renegade" card.

I was told at the CAW convention in Vancouver last fall that the union already has many members with a variety of trade and engineering skills working in the heavy-industry mine and mill/smelter maintenance and refit sectors--many of whom would like to get more into general construction (and apparently many of the contractors they work for are happy to go along).

If this new stunt works, and large numbers of Toronto labourers join the CAW, that's a great starting point to begin major organizing drives in the construction sector (hell knows the traditional Building Trades can't seem to ever get their act together to do this).

quote:

---

First off, maybe in Bill Pearson's world, this is the only solidarity there is. But where I am, at least on the ground among many labour groups, it's still very much there.

---

The easy place to point at is the rift between the AFL-CIO and the CTW. I could argue the value of staying or the value splitting, but the only thing that matters at this juncture is what happens as we go forward.

I doubt anyone in North America would want to try and argue the success of organized labor over the past two decades. Spare the spin please, i was part of trying to make silk purses out of sows ears. The reality is always in the outcome; and we have seen workers backsliding as labor has gone into its cocoon.

To this discussion, i have to chuckle. It would be kind of cool listening to a couple of construction laborer's in Toronto arguing at the bar: "My crook labor leader ain't as big a crook as your crook labor leader."

What's wrong with this picture SA? Simple for me, the crooks don't belong in the business of representing workers. Hell for that matter, the pigs at the trough don't belong representing workers either. What the hell happened to ethics and morality?

quote:

---

By getting the union executive to help out Dionisio, Hargrove can now play the "Canadian union for Canadian workers" mantra in the construction sector like never before. Add to this the apparent growing interest in organizing in the construction sector and the apparent popularity of the CAW with many people (including many non-union folks), it makes a pretty powerful potion, and Hargrove sees this as a real opportunity.

---

Raiding aside, i'm more troubled by Buzz being willing to tie his can to a guy who was accused and found guilty of trying to move (a better word than steal i guess) $5 million dollars from his local. This release claims: Local 183 business manager Tony Dionisio has been fined $10,000 for his role in attempting to divert $5 million away from the Local to his "personal control", a Canadian Independent Hearing Officer ruled.

With all due respect to those of us in and out of labor; does anyone think this is what a labor movement should be made of? Can anyone out there justify labor leaders getting filthy rich while workers toil at just over or at poverty wages?

Sorry gang, i loved my years in the labor movement, but i am sickened at what it has become. Hogs at the trough and gangsters running the show far overshadow those who are in it for the right reasons. Where's the line? Who should be the moral compass? When is too much too much?

The answers are simple...the members. Until there is full disclosure, legitimate democracy and total transparency it will just be more of the same by those in power...insuring they keep getting theirs.

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: Bill Pearson ]

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: Bill Pearson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Pearson:

With all due respect to those of us in and out of labor; does anyone think this is what a labor movement should be made of? Can anyone out there justify labor leaders getting filthy rich while workers toil at just over or at poverty wages?

---

I know there has been no love lost between the folks who run/own Uncharted (the old UFCW.net website) and Babble. Most of my experience regarding the Canadian labor movement has come from what i read there. Obviously they have a bias, a slant you would not care for. While they were sued for their use of the UFCW name in their url, there was never a charge of libel.

What troubles me on sites like this one with other "mainstreamers" is their unwillingness to acknowledge or address the problems within labor. Good labor leaders simply close their eyes and pretend it's okay to let criminals exist. They are unwilling to speak out about abuses by guys who have total control; who use their positions to take care of their friends; who make a mockery of the democratic process.

I'll be the first to admit the gluttony that goes in the US isn't the same in Canada. However, what about the CCWIPP pension plans problems? What about the concessionary agreements in grocery stores. There are actually locals in Ontario that bargained mid-term contracts and never let the members vote on them.

Sorry unionist, that's the kind of stuff i expected from locals in the United States. The point of my posting here has been to question if those of you inside labor are concerned about the apparent direction you are headed.

Nope, you're not as bad as the USA, but you do have see the roots of solidarity crumbling. CAW has been attempting to organize already unionized workers for years, and it is clear they see that as their path to a brighter, bigger future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Pearson:

I know there has been no love lost between the folks who run/own Uncharted (the old UFCW.net website) and Babble. Most of my experience regarding the Canadian labor movement has come from what i read there. Obviously they have a bias, a slant you would not care for. While they were sued for their use of the UFCW name in their url, there was never a charge of libel.

---

I don't have a high opinion of the UFCW and certainly didn't have them in mind when I made my very general comments about the labour movements in the two countries. I don't see them as a very credible or important player in the union movement here - certainly they're not typical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
As for your comments about crime in the unions, that is really such an insignificant phenomenon here as compared to the decades of scandals and mob connections in the States as to be, again, irrelevant in my view.

---

That may or may not be true as a general statement. Maybe the ties to organized crime have just been better exposed in the US due to more vigilant law enforcement and/or the availability of recourse under statutes like RICO?

In any case, we are talking about LIUNA here, and in this case, there may well be criminal elements involved, as referenced in ITI's post above:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Is this it?:
if I had to pick between the LIUNA International and Dionisio I'd pick Dionisio. Dionisio's a modestly disreputable business union thug. The other side is literally linked with organized crime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
That may or may not be true as a general statement. Maybe the ties to organized crime have just been better exposed in the US due to more vigilant law enforcement and/or the availability of recourse under statutes like RICO?

---

Robbie_dee, that's called innuendo. If someone said, "Canadian children don't bring firearms to school every day in large numbers", I suppose someone could reply:

quote:

---

That may or may not be true as a general statement. Maybe the detection systems in the U.S. are just more effective than in Canada.

---

It's kinda lame.

Also, we are talking specifically about LIUNA here. Do you deny that there are or ever have been criminal elements involved with the Laborers in Canada?

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Also, we are talking specifically about LIUNA here. Do you deny that there are or ever have been criminal elements involved with the Laborers in Canada?

---

I do not deny this whatsoever. I have absolutely no knowledge or information about this issue.

All I can say is, I have been involved in the union movement for more than 30 years, and have never heard of any allegations or findings of "corruption" - whether in my union or in any other Canadian union or Canadian section of an international union - beyond what you might find in the occasional company or church or Rotary Club. It simply is not on my radar screen.

What do you think of my anecdotal, unresearched impressions?

ETA: Let me add this. We used to hear lots about mob involvement in U.S. union pension funds. My (again anecdotal) impression is that other than the construction and similar industry, a much higher percentage of Canadian workers enjoy employer-run pension plans - so no need for unions to run their own, with the potential for corruption that I guess comes with that.

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

All I can say is, I have been involved in the union movement for more than 30 years, and have never heard of any allegations or findings of "corruption" - whether in my union or in any other Canadian union or Canadian section of an international union - beyond what you might find in the occasional company or church or Rotary Club. It simply is not on my radar screen.

What do you think of my anecdotal, unresearched impressions?

---

I think that most unions are clean, run by honest, well-meaning people, and most union members are fortunate enough never to have to confront these sort of problems. I think that's true in both Canada and the U.S. That being said, it doesn't mean the corruption is not out there. Also, some unions are cleaner than others. The industrial unions generally have a pretty good record. I've never heard any serious allegations raised against the CAW, for example. The building trades are more mixed. I think a union like the CAW could do a lot of good if it was able to get involved in the construction industry and "muscle out" some of the bad actors. On the other hand, if they have to cut deals with a lot of other slime-balls in order to get there, they may just end up dirtying their own hands. I'd hate to see a "clean" union get infiltrated by the mob because they let the promise of new dues revenue cloud their judgment about who they were getting into bed with.

Edited to add: sorry not to address your good question about pensions but I think it demands a longer answer than I have time for right now. There were a lot of good reasons why unions in some industries chose to bargain jointly trusteed pension plans. And also a lot of good reasons why workers in other industries (like Steel and Auto, for example) either didn't or couldn't get the same from their employers. On the other hand, obviously access to the pension fund "cookie jar" has also served to attract all kinds of unsavory characters. The incident Bill refers to above with the Canadian Commercial Workers Industrial Pension Fund (CCWIPP) may be one of those cases, although I don't think there was any mob connection in that case, just (allegedly) reckless behavior by some trustees.

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

What troubles me on sites like this one with other "mainstreamers" is their unwillingness to acknowledge or address the problems within labor. Good labor leaders simply close their eyes and pretend it's okay to let criminals exist. They are unwilling to speak out about abuses by guys who have total control; who use their positions to take care of their friends; who make a mockery of the democratic process.

---

It has troubled me for a long time. Not long after I joined babble I searched the babble forums for news of probably the biggest scandal to have ever affected a national union in Canada. I could not find anything in the 2002 babble postings, about the CUPE scandal.

Union Democracy and Our Loss of Innocence

Also Man denies taking more than $300,000 from CAW in Lunenburg was posted on LabourStart, January 10 (11 days ago). LabourStart news articles are regularly posted on babble but not this news article until today.

It appears that for many leftists ignorance of union corruption is bliss.

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:

It appears that for many leftists ignorance of union corruption is bliss.

---

Is that the absolute best you could do?

A 2002 story without mentioning what followup criminal charges were laid by anyone?

And a story last week where the CAW found some individual apparently stealing the members' money and called in the authorities?

quote:

---

A 2002 story without mentioning what followup criminal charges were laid by anyone?

---

quote:

---

The police investigation is now over and criminal charges were laid on February 19, 2004. Four people have been charged with multiple counts of fraud and of conspiring to commit fraud. Two other persons were named as conspirators but not charged.

---

2001 Election irregularities

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

The alleged election improprieties in CUPE, on the other hand, go to the heart of a union's internal democratic procedures and are therefore a "big deal" even if less money was involved. I think I recall we did have a thread about the story on Rabble at the time it occurred, though it is impossible to find now.

This does seem to be getting rather far afield of the original subject of the thread, in any case. What do you think of the apparent CAW raid-by-proxy on LIUNA, C_R?

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

What do you think of the apparent CAW raid-by-proxy on LIUNA, C_R?

---

Many construction workers coming under the jurisdiction of the CAW Public Review Board and Ethical Practices Codes is wonderful.

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

I don't agree with Buzz's electoral or Israeli or similar policies, but when it comes to union matters, there's a reason why the CAW grew from 120,000 when they split from the UAW to 265,000 today - despite losing tens of thousands of their original 120,000 auto jobs.

---

34 union mergers and the yearly salaries for CAW national representatives $112,000+.

[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

34 union mergers and the yearly salaries for CAW national representatives $100,000+.

---

Presto! CUE Reformer becomes CUPE Deserter with this one.

I agree the salaries of the national officers are way too high. However, to be fair, if you look at the CAW Constitution, you see that these salaries ($131,000 a year for the president) are actually reflective of what the top paid CAW members make in the work force (like the mechanical engineers, designers and technical staff in the auto sector especially when you add in the huge amounts of over-time they work). And it's understood those full-time elected positions require those who hold them to be doing union business pretty much seven days a week, year-round.

That's not to say some of these types don't goof off every now and then. But many unions, like the CAW, have fairly open and accountable structures that don't let folks get away with too much without getting caught.

I do think the salaries are excessive, in that the vast majority of CAW members don't make anywhere near that much in a year. I would prefer to see the salaries based on a, say, two-thirds medium average of what the union members across the board earn. That way even the national leaders are much less likely to lose touch with the realities faced by the union members at the lower end of the income scale.

quote:

---

It appears that for many leftists ignorance of union corruption is bliss.

---

It appears pseudo-reformers like you never give up the selective slander of labour organizations.

No organization, or community, is totally immune from corruption or sabotage by corrupt people or groups. It's a sad fact of our capitalist-dominated economy.

However, when we look at the big picture, which is the only way really we can judge the validity of organizations or institutions (labour or otherwise), we see that the link between labour unions and corruption or racketeering, is actually quite stretched and weak, and the overall impact is minimal, especially compared with other sectors, and especially with corporate crime.

Police and federal studies on racketeering and fraud crime as it relates to unions in Canada is tiny, involving less than $20 million a year on average--not that this is good by any stretch and not that we, as activists, shouldn't do something about it.

When it occurs, corruption usually involves various elected union reps being bribed to do or not do certain things by racketeers who are actually the bosses of the companies, or have some fiscal interest in those companies, that the union works for.

Interesting, with all the media hype about unions and crime, this little fundamental fact rarely gets mentioned. I guess our friend CUPW Deserter doesn't have much to say about it.

As said, crime involving the defrauding of union funds by crooked officials is actually fairly rare and the amounts are relatively small. This is largely because, despite what faults various unions may have, they are on the whole democratic and fairly open and accountable organizations where it's much easier for someone to get caught if they get itchy fingers.

Now, let's compare this to corporate crime in Canada. There no shortage of information, which obviously doesn't get talked about much in the corporate media, on this subject, since it is so huge and wide spread.

Even the most modest figures show at least $30 billion a year gets sucked out of the economy because of corporate crime of various kinds.

And these stats DON'T include the ever-worsening phenomenon of "white collar" crime, which is concentrated among corporate managers and capitalists, or the various job scams, tax fraud and shenanigans on the stock exchanges across the country.

Start adding at all up the information just from federal sources shows it runs well into the hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

It's one thing for labour activists to want to clean up any pus-laden criminal elements that quietly try to attach themselves to our unions like flesh-eating bacteria. I, myself, have been involved in various ways to support rank and file efforts to dump corrupt, or at least unprincipled or ineffective leaders. But it's quite another to just suck up and blow out the hysterical and dishonest crap about grossly inflated concerns over largely un-proven corruption allegations by the corporate media and corporate-funded politicians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
It has troubled me for a long time. Not long after I joined babble I searched the babble forums for news of probably the biggest scandal to have ever affected a national union in Canada. I could not find anything in the 2002 babble postings, about the CUPE scandal.

It appears that for many leftists ignorance of union corruption is bliss.

---

I think that's kind of unfair. We have, for instance, allowed you to post criticism of CUPE and other unions. You could quite easily have posted that on babble. On a board where what gets discussed is whatever gets brought up by the members of the board, all you had to do was start a thread.

In the labour forum, I enforce the rule that trashing labour from a rightwing point of view of no unions isn't allowed. But criticizing from a left-wing, labour-friendly point of view, especially from inside the movement, is always allowed. Not everyone who is left-wing and working class is unionized. Not everyone who is left-wing and unionized is happy with everything their union does, and this forum needs to be open to them discussing it.

That said, the arguments over union corruption have always been a little foreign to me. Yes there is some in the states, but i hardly think its been the reason for our free fall. As Rob pointed out, the feds have been targeting those unions for near on forty years.

I have argued on forums for years cleaning up labor wouldn't turn us around. Once the mob was gone, would that inspire workers to join us? Would there be a wholesale movement by workers to become organized?

The point being; mending at a broken arm while ignoring the cancer that is killing you hardly makes any sense. There are bigger problems in organized labor than the criminal element.

I have read your statements about labor not being in the same boat in Canada as in the US. I have agreed, but i have also seen you begin to slide. I have watched the ufcw (and others) in Canada do things that are absolutely unethical and while they did it, labor leaders stood silent.

Now with Buzz funding Tony D's efforts, i do see similarities to Stern's game plan with the CTW. The goal for labor is to grow, the question has to be how? By raiding? By destroying corrupt unions? By politically leveraging yourself to get elected officials to give you bargaining units? By working with your corporate partners to gain dues payers?

I have long held labor has to embrace the tenets of the AA program...attraction rather than promotion. Workers should want to join unions; it is in their best interest. When that is not the case, the question has to be asked why not?

Having been inside, i think a large part of the problem is the current structure of biz unionism. While some see that as a trite statement, it aptly defines what we have become. Members simply pay the dues and hope what they pay for is a good value. In some unions it is, in others it isn't.

Whether you are in Canada or the US, workers are not winning this battle. To become successful we need to organize workers in critical mass. We need good contracts with employers who respect their workers and treat them as an important reason for their success.

One of the problems of course is the changing nature of work. Virtually all job growth is coming out of two sectors: Service and retail. It should come as no surprise, they are the two lowest paid and least benefited classifications of workers.

I was surprised to see unionists candor regarding the ufcw; thank you for speaking straight up (though i suspect you may have pissed off some folks who think they are the labor movement). It would seem to me reforming them would be an important task for any federation to see as critical to the equation of rebuilding a true worker movement.

It is clear in this discussion there are differences in the two countries. If i posted salaries for top ufcw leaders in the US i imagine you would better understand my umbrage. There are any numbers of guys making $200,000 and $300,000 and even $400,000 a year to lead locals of 20,000 plus members. At retirement their pensions are in the $200,000 range...while the workers they represent are struggling to get by.

quote:

---

The former is clearly a principled effort labour activists and members to repair and improve labour unions. The latter is just ignorantly buying in to a fraudulent smear campaign designed to weaken the labour movement and undermine workers’ rights.

---

quote:

---

I think that's kind of unfair. We have, for instance, allowed you to post criticism of CUPE and other unions. You could quite easily have posted that on babble. On a board where what gets discussed is whatever gets brought up by the members of the board, all you had to do was start a thread.

I think this forum has been pretty open to that. You haven't been silenced and neither has Bill Pearson or others who have discussed unions from a critical, but pro-labour stance.

---

Thank you for your fair moderation.

CUPE sets the record straight September 28, 2002 and CUPE Statement on Police Investigation September 14, 2002 were both posted on LabourStart. I am now searching the Internet archives of 2002 rabble postings for any mention of the CUPE scandal.

In 2002 I did not know that babble existed.

The source of much of what I post on babble is the pro-labour LabourStart.

[ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Perhaps SA can share what the acceptable level of union corruption is.

---

Well I can the pseudo-progressive slander squad is out in force again. This time more childish misquotations.

OK, siggy, maybe you can actually point out where in my last post did I say that any level of corruption within labour unions is acceptable.

Forget it. You can't, because you obviously know I said none was acceptable and the onus is on labour activists to try to make it that way.

I did, of course, say that in our oppressive corporate capitalist dominated economy it appears no organization or movement or institution can be totally immune from corruption--not that this is OK.

Of course, what I did point out, and provide links to the facts, is that corruption within unions in Canada is a tiny fraction of what it is elsewhere--and where most of it takes place is right in the halls of undemocratic corporate wealth and power--something that the corporate media, and apparently you as well, don't like to talk about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:

Of course, what I did point out, and provide links to the facts, is that corruption within unions in Canada is a tiny fraction of what it is elsewhere--and where most of it takes place is right in the halls of undemocratic corporate wealth and power--something that the corporate media, and apparently you as well, don't like to talk about.

---

quote:

---

Whether you are in Canada or the US, workers are not winning this battle. To become successful we need to organize workers in critical mass. We need good contracts with employers who respect their workers and treat them as an important reason for their success.

---

This comment by Bill Pearson carries some good weight. I should say, BTW, to keep this discussion from souring any further, that while I may disagree with some of what Bill Pearson and Robbie Dee (or even CUPE Reformer) say, I also do agree with much of what they say. So, for me, for the most part, this isn’t a fight between labour activist and anti-union flakes, but a debate between activists about the current problems and what to do about them.

It’s true. We are overall losing the battle—partly because, to some degree, we’ve stopped fighting the dictatorial parasitic powers over our economy. “Critical mass” organizing, at least from how I see it, is something folks in my union are trying to do (albeit in more targeted ways—with slim resources and intensive corporate and government intimidation and opposition, it’s tough).

Getting good contract and making bosses respect them is certainly key and always has been in creating a relevant and innovative labour movement. But we also need to put more effort and ingenuity in going further.

We need to seriously start pushing for the democratization of our economy, and the mass education and organization that goes with that. The ever growing power of corporate tyrannies, and worsening anti-democratic conduct of governments, especially in this era of so-called “globalization” and the “new world order,” needs to be something the labour movement takes on seriously as a long term goal.

Organizing and public interest and social justice causes in our communities is also something that we need to do much more of—getting out of the closed box of what labour relations boards and laws dictate. Also more proactive labour/community focus political organizing as well.

In Canada, much of the latter, and increasing, albeit still very marginal, of the former is being done with some good success. The thing is we are not being assertive or consistent enough in doing it—whether it be directly via our unions or via the NDP. We are still very intimidated by the corporate media, both on the economic and political fields, organizing in new sectors, like the self-employed and small business, using our collective bucks to develop cooperative and community-based ventures and worker-run businesses, and spurring new ecologically sustainable and prosperous sectors like eco-tech and industries, and getting existing members to get more involved and vocal in the political process (join the NDP directly rather than via some nebulous affiliation), etc..

quote:

---

Well I can the pseudo-progressive slander squad is out in force again. This time more childish misquotations.

---

I've walked in your shoes, i've lived the life inside the halls of labor. I've watched a once proud movement disintegrate before my very eyes. I've watched good labor leaders stand around with their dicks in their hand do nothing as the pigs plundered the treasuries. I've watched incompetent leaders act in nothing but self-serving capacity. I've watched as the democratic process has been pissed on to save their own asses...and still nothing but silence from the good old boys.

quote:

---

Bravo, SA! There is no shortage of forces in this society that hate and defame the trade unions. They come in all shapes and sizes, from ultra-right to pseudo-left. Their "criticisms" are aimed at weakening the workers' movement, not at purifying or strengtening it. We have outlasted their predecessors and we shall do so again

---

Labeling siggy is too funny. Lets see, she is a ufcw member working in a grocery store. At one point she was a steward for local 1518 and when she ran on a slate for union office the election process was tossed in the shitter. She was sued by the ufcw international and dragged through the legal system for a hundred dollar award for a website aimed at exposing the ufcw's lameness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Pearson:
Calling those who challenge the bureaucracy names is hardly a rebuttal.

---

Anyone who says the unions are "corrupt" without being prepared to provide substantial proof will be called names by me until they show they are not simply anti-union. It's easy to avoid the name-calling - stop calling the union movement names without proof.

quote:

---

Labeling siggy is too funny. Lets see, she is a ufcw member working in a grocery store. At one point she was a steward for local 1518 and when she ran on a slate for union office the election process was tossed in the shitter. She was sued by the ufcw international and dragged through the legal system for a hundred dollar award for a website aimed at exposing the ufcw's lameness.

Through it all to this day she helps more co-workers in her store than the union who is paid to represent the members. Labels are the folly of fools too lame to discuss the actual issues. I came to this site calling no one names, simply looking for legitimate discussion from what i thought were real trade unionists...i'm still waiting.

---

What's this - ad hominem in reverse? I'm sure siggy is a wonderful, extraordinary person, but I was judging her (heaven forbid) based on her sarcastic 3-line post in this thread - the first time I've personally ever heard from siggy. Thanks for providing all this unsolicited and hitherto unknown information about her achievements - but does that make her post immune from criticism? Not in my book.

Furthermore, when I check her profile and click on her link, I get:

quote:

---

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.

---

I know the more radical among us see no hope under the current structure of labor. While i'm not there yet, Stern's bigger is better scares the day lights out of me. The system has failed in the past and embracing more of the same only better is an accident waiting to happen.

I think there is hope for community based organizing. I think the internet allows us far better reach and educational tools never before available. I think trying to become innovative and creative is essential and i find very few unions stepping outside of their comfort zones.

Which labour organizations, do you envision, doing what you are calling for?

No hard feelings SA, just so long as you don't try to tell us that those "tiny" stats are the result of the corrupt turning themselves in or the law bringing them down on members' behalf.

And, you may want to cover your ears, unless of course you like the sound of stats going up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by siggy:

unionist, you may want to login before trying to access forum permissions.

---

It doesn't work - either in Firefox or in IE. Perhaps others would like to try:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:

Is it time for a new coordinating labour body like the Confederation of Canadian Unions?

---

I believe he was charged, found guilty and fined under the union Constitution, not in a court of law.

He pissed the international off enough that most people aren't betting on him living long. I'm not sure if one can take him being found guilty in a trial lead by the international, who are out to remove him, as proof he did steal the money.

[ 23 January 2007: Message edited by: ouroboros ]

quote:

---

Which labour organizations, do you envision, doing what you are calling for?

---

Ya know, just to say, it’s so great to see CUPE Reformer engage in debate and ask a few good questions for a change.

The answer is I can envision lots of them doing what I call for. But it’s the ones that are already at least at some minimal level doing this that is the most interesting.

Labour unions, the BC Federation of Labour, with the help of Vancity and the NDP government, set up Growthworks Capital,a unionized employee-run Socially Responsible investment and capital management team that runs labour-sponsored venture capital funds, like the Working Opportunity Fundwhich has since become the largest financing fund for small business and new economic sectors in BC.

In addition, the Fed has also set up the Working Enterprises Group, a cooperative of six unions that provides a variety of services specifically oriented toward working people, including travel services, financial planning and tax services and, mainly (by far the largest and most successful) home and personal insurance.

Furthermore, numerous NDP-affiliated unions have initiated several successful worker buy-outs and start-ups, like the CEP And the Steelworkers

Several unions in BC have also fought and pushed to get control of some of their pension funds and set up Concert Properties, a co-op venture of 16 plans devoted to ethical development, including low end market housing. It’s since become the largest residential developer in western Canada.

It’s success prompted the creation of SHARE, the Shareholders Association for Research and Education, whose main function is to educate union reps, and over time union members, on how to get control over their pension funds and use them responsibly in accordance with labour movement

In addition, labour unions and socialists (especially NDP ones) are historically connected with the credit union and cooperative movements in Canada, often pioneering these types of democratic businesses and working with them.

Worker Ownership resource Center

Canadian Cooperative Association

Vancity Capital Corporation

These are just a small collection of examples of what’s going on.

As to community organizing, you will find that various labour unions are involved in just about every major social or political issue or movement out there. Just check out any web site of the BC Fed, CLC or union and , especially the local labour councils.

There certainly are lots of problems with many labour unions, just like there are with all of our progressive social movements and activist and political organizations, including with some of these efforts listed here. That’s part and parcel of living under a corporate capitalistic dominated economy, where the values of corruption, exploitation and betrayal are the norm—and confronting these problems and fixing them is, obviously, part of the whole struggle.

But don’t give me the worn out excuse-for-whining-and-doing-nothing crap that it’s all screwed up and no one is doing anything good—because that’s simply not the case.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Steppenwolf Allende ]

quote:

---

No hard feelings SA, just so long as you don't try to tell us that those "tiny" stats are the result of the corrupt turning themselves in or the law bringing them down on members' behalf.

---

No, the tiny stats are from the sources I have quoted showing most of the corrupt elements were in fact caught by the various unions' annual audits that they could not escape from (despite obviously trying).

And, BTW, if you want to avoid hard feelings then you might want to cut the arrogant dismissals and factless comments about posters here (like you tried to do in your last post).

quote:

---

And, you may want to cover your ears, unless of course you like the sound of stats going up.

---

Oh OK. Now I get it. I should just forget the audits, RCMP fraud squad, and union reform and election campaigns and their info I worked on, read about and linked to here, and instead just listen to what you tell me.

I should clearly be able to see that you obviously have far more knowledge and information on these matters than all these other sources do.

quote:

---

Timing is everything in life and while i was typing the piece above SA posted a more intellectual response. Thanks, i think there is a need for legitimate debate over our future is essential.

---

Actually, Mr., Pearson, both those responses were intellectual. But one of them, which was not directed toward you, was a mean but fact-based response to a mean and factless put-down.

quote:

---

Please don't just dismiss people because they have resentments towards their unions. There are some unions where the abuses have been abundant. All too often members have become the scapegoat when leaders have acted out of impulse or with complete disregard for the democratic process.

---

I don't dismiss anyone until I've heard them out, checked them out and some of what they say, and then decide if I think they're legit or not. That's what I have to do in both my trade and as an activist, as well as just trying to be a good person.

Don't get me wrong. I know about many of the shenanigans that go on in many labour organizations, especially in the US (including in your group, the UFCW). I was living in the US at the time when then UFCW President William Wynn (at that time getting $215,000 a year--the highest paid union rep in the US) was running around trying to convince the members that elected him and paid his salary, many of whom were making just-above-poverty-line wages, to take concessions demanded by the packing and processing industry bosses. I could give you a yearly play-by-play on that goof's escapades during his rise and fall.

But what I have been trying to point out here is that the crapola that goes on in various labour organizations is not something unique or extreme, and in fact is quite modest compared to other organizations, and especially corporate and state institutions. Yet we hear lots of hype about "bad corrupt unions" but little about the astronomically larger and more destructive corporate crime--at least until some devastating scandal that can't be ignored, like Enron, happens and literally millions of people end up screwed.

And contrary to what your snake-tongued acquaintance siggy says, I never said any level of corruption or dishonesty or sell-outs in labour unions was OK. I specifically said it is not and I said it's up to the activists and members to knock it out. But what I did say is, sadly, it doesn't seem to be completely 100 per cent avoidable in any kind of organization, given the corporate capitalist domination over our economy and many of the values it imposes on our society.

quote:

---

But what I have been trying to point out here is that the crapola that goes on in various labour organizations is not something unique or extreme, and in fact is quite modest compared to other organizations, and especially corporate and state institutions.

---

Not extreme? Union Corruption Update

Not unique?
Union corruption is rare in Western Europe. The Mafia doesn't control any of the unions in Western Europe.

When was the last general strike in the United States? General strikes occur often in Western Europe, South Korea and Israel.

The Hidden Cost of Corrupt Unions

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:

Not extreme? Union Corruption Update

---

First of all, try to distinguish between the U.S. and Canada.

Second of all, your U.S. corruption link is interesting. From their mission statement:

quote:

---

We recognize that the bigger the government, the more opportunities for corruption; and the more intervention in the economy, the more reason for special interests to seek influence. We believe that the best way to promote ethics is to reduce the size of government.

---

quote:

---

You see, Reformer, in my case, I believe in bigger governments, bigger unions, bigger mass movements, bigger everything that can be used as a tool against the wealthy and powerful.

---

Approximately 30% of the union members in Canada are members of American unions. Governments, unions and mass movements are all bigger in Western Europe and union corruption is rare in Western Europe.

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Unionist points it out best:

quote:

---

Not extreme? Union Corruption Update
________________________________________
First of all, try to distinguish between the U.S. and Canada.

---

Three points:

First, dismissing the facts I posted and linked to about labour unions in Canada by throwing out reports from the US is just plain stupid and dishonest. The labour movement in the US is in far worse shape than in Canada, and is in fact in far worse shape than most technical-industrial economies (although the US is pretty much no longer an industrial economy since most of that was lost to Corporate America’s rape-and-run measures to Third World sweatshops).

That info I provided is for unions in Canada, not the US. If you can’t debate these matters honestly, with some degree of integrity, then go join the Freaky Domination, where you can exaggerate and invent all sorts of slander about unions. They’d love you for it, since honesty has no value there and anti-democratic corporate suck-holing means everything.

Second, the source you quote has no credibility is my eye what-so-ever. In typical US conservative/corporate dictatorship loving style, these types add a whole bunch of legitimate political activity, and open democratic disputes within unions as “corruption.”

The list they have is too long for me to go through in detail. But a quick scan of 25 of the cases they list show almost half are bogus charges by corporatist and conservative groups against unions spending money on legitimate political campaigns like fighting so-called “right to work” laws, donating to pro-labour political candidates and progressive democratic causes, like civil rights and public health care campaigns—things which the labour movement has traditionally supported.

They also list as “corruption” cases of disputes over results of various union elections by different candidates and factions. Yet there are no incidents of corruption (as in vote rigging, excessive spending etc.) involved.

In addition, they actually consider speeches by labour reps to various community and activist organizations calling for social consciousness raising and rebellion against authoritarian corporate and state institutions and calling for massive social democratic overhaul of the US economy as “corruption.”

This isn’t a conscientious group of people trying to help workers by cleaning up damaging corruption within labour groups. It’s a corporate backed anti-union scam by conservative flakes who openly celebrate support from corrupt lying frauds like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh.

If you want to quote more accurate sources of investigations of corruption within labour organizations in the US, try the US department of Labor, or the RICO archives (which actually show hundreds of times more corruption among corporations and businesses than among unions—and that much of the corruption within unions originates from corporate sources trying to buy off or intimidates union reps to sell out their members—something your flake group doesn’t obviously want to talk about).

Or better yet, the Association for Union Democracy,a pro-union group of activists promoting reform and revitalization of labour unions in the US via member activism and many of the practices I talked about earlier.

Third, even if all the cases these flakes of yours list actually were dealing with corruption, how does this rate compared to labour organizations and activities in the US overall?

According to the National Bureau of Labor Statistics,there about 27 million workers in the US who are members of some form of union—about 22 per cent of the work force (only about 17.5 million are in NLRB-certified bargaining units with collective agreements. Fishermen, most faculty associations, owner-operator groups, various staff associations, etc., are not certified but still are in cooperative associations and bargain collectively or engage in other common activity like any other union), in literally hundreds, if not thousands, of separate, independent organizations.

If we assume, as your flake group claims, that their list is the most comprehensive and updated one available, then it’s obvious only a tiny percentage labour groups and people within them are involved in some sort of racketeering or illegal behaviour.

So once again, the whole union corruption mantra turns into condemning everyone for the crimes of the few—a standard practice of corporate capitalist totalitarian politics, especially by conservatives.

quote:

---

Not unique?
Union corruption is rare in western Europe. The Mafia doesn't control any of the unions in western Europe.

---

Get a life, loser. You know damn well I never said unions in Europe were Mafia influenced. None of them are (although I’m sure you can find cases where the mob have tried and even succeeded by buying someone off or blackmailing or even killing people who didn’t go along—that again a reality we have to face in any capitalist dominated economy).

You also know when I said “not unique” I was clearly referring to the comparison between unions and other social and cooperative organizations IN CANADA, not unions in other parts of the globe.

There’s no disagreement here that far too many US unions have corrupt elements within them, and, I would argue, that’s one of the causes of why the US labor movement in so crippled and fractured compared to most other countries, and that activists must (and many are) fighting it.

quote:

---

There’s no disagreement here that far too many US unions have corrupt elements within them, and, I would argue, that’s one of the causes of why the US labor movement in so crippled and fractured compared to most other countries, and that activists must (and many are) fighting it.

---

Thank you.

I fail to see what corporate corruption has to do with union corruption - let me more clear - it doesn't! But since it seems to be the meat of your argument and because I don't want you to go away mad, let me lend the fallacy some weight in the debate. So in response to your - ...yadda yadda... 'it's to be expected'..."let's compare this to corporate crime in Canada..." - I say - one oppressor at a time.

(I will only agree that there is undoubtedly a connection but using one to minimize the other isn't it - another topic, another day).

You've created a long list of labour sponsored organizations. I'm guessing to impress upon us something or other. But that many arms, boards, branches, committees all feeding off one working peoples' pension could also become suspect, don't you think? Funneling for instance. You do see how that works eh.

Now don't go getting your knickers all in a big old knot. I'm not saying they're all bad or all good or all anything and - without checking into it first, neither should you! Bad medicine is as deadly as no medicine SA, try to remember.

And just so the thread doesn't get hijacked further - I'm going to point to just one of those organizations you listed and you can tell us what you think; concert properties (sorry, it kind of shakes out to 2 - concert properties and Working Opportunity Fund - but whatever)

Ok, now you're going to say it's all allegation, but here's the thing. Don't you think that, at this juncture in big labour's plummet from grace, addressing allegations would be far more prudent and/or beneficial than burying the asker(s)? I mean, the question(s) are already out there - what's to hide?

As for the snake tongue, I've not had it diagnosed but I heard one can get it from ingesting snake oil, which I don't. It has to be that in the right environment, it's highly contagious. In solidarity Steppenwolf Allende, in solidarity!

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: siggy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by siggy:

And just so the thread doesn't get hijacked further - I'm going to point to just one of those organizations you listed and you can tell us what you think; concert properties (sorry, it kind of shakes out to 2 - concert properties and Working Opportunity Fund - but whatever)

---

I happen to be a long-time opponent of these labour-capitalist venture funds etc., but god is that article lame. It's innuendo, guilt by association, wink wink nudge nudge, and a call for the "grass roots" to investigate and find out what the real horror story is (because the author has obviously come up short in proving some wrongdoing).

I'm afraid your take is also a bit lame:

quote:

---

Don't you think that, at this juncture in big labour's plummet from grace, addressing allegations would be far more prudent and/or beneficial than burying the asker(s)? I mean, the question(s) are already out there - what's to hide?

---

What in that entire article is there to answer?

It'll be 3 years soon since it was written, and more than 20 years since these funds were created (some of them anyway). Any indictments yet? Or are we talking about the smartest criminals the criminal justice system has ever encountered?

quote:

---

What in that entire article is there to answer?

---

Why the union supported Concert Properties Ltd. was a corporate member of the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (which encourages privatization) in 2005.

Public-private partnerships

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

I fail to see what corporate corruption has to do with union corruption - let me more clear - it doesn't!

---

And the dung pile gets higher. If you would bother to actually read some of the RICO reports I posted the link for above, you would see that about two thirds of the construction businesses and about the same amount of seaport and trucking firms on the US New England seaboard are either owned or influenced by organized crime—and its’ these types of creeps who are buying off or blackmailing elected union reps, or running stooges for office in union elections, and/or killing anyone who they can’t bribe or intimidate.

Nah, that’s not a connection, is it. Because, of course, you say so. What do the RICO folks know, anyway, right siggy?

quote:

---

You've created a long list of labour sponsored organizations. I'm guessing to impress upon us something or other.

---

One more shovel full. If you are following this debate at all, you would have noticed that I was asked to post some examples of innovative things some unions are doing in order to try democratize the economy—something you obviously don’t know or care about.

quote:

---

But that many arms, boards, branches, committees all feeding off one working peoples' pension could also become suspect, don't you think? Funneling for instance. You do see how that works eh.

---

And you drive a 20-ton truck and dump it all on the dung pile. This is an outright bald-faced lie—an idiotic statement made without any basis in fact or any connection to reality.

Concert Properties has never been “feeding” or “funneling” off anything. Rather, it was created after years of several unions fighting to get control of a tiny fraction of their hard-earned pension funds away from pilfering unaccountable money market managers and actuaries, who were investing them in sweatshops, child labour, ecological destruction and military dictatorships—not to mention scams like Bre-X, Savings and Loans, etc.

The decided to invest what they managed to get hold of (which, again, is a tiny fraction of what’s out there) and put it into secure and stable socially responsible development—namely housing and local projects. It’s done some pretty good stuff and has returned a good penny for the pension funds and worker shareholders.

The same is true for the Working Opportunity Fund. Here’s some of the Public Audits to show what I’m saying is the truth (not unsubstantiated accusations, factless assumptions and mean-spirited lies your kind here seem to expert at offering).

Now as to the article you posted, it’s out of date. First, Dave Haggard was voted off the Concert board in 2004 (selling out your members and joining the Liberals didn’t do him much good).

Second, the author clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The sleazy corporate scumbags (and that is what they are) sit on the board as business advisors—not because the unions want them, but because that’s what the law requires. That’s why Jack Pool & Co. are around—and these are the creeps that gave money to the BC Liars, not the unions..

Until the labour movement gets enough of its own sufficiently trained people that it can push the government to let the unions have their own business advisors, that’s what the law will require. But those types do not control the majority on the board, and as more labour people with these skills come around, these other corporate capitalist freaks are being shown the door. The only reason why Pool’s still around is because of his connections with the government on the Olympics, which Concert wants to build (now that we’re stuck with those stupid 2010 games, we should at least have them built by union labour so they don’t leak and fall apart like so many other non-union-built structures out there. Same goes for the RAV line).

Third, despite all it’s rantings about supposed “worker capitalism,” that article states quite evidently the fact that the Concert board voted NOT to pursue ANY P3s that involve privatizing existing government services or businesses or cause the layoff of any public service worker. It also agrees the basis for the formation of Concert Properties, the WOF, etc., is the fact that many union activists are seeking ways to democratize the economy (the main basis on which to build a socialist economy) and to protect working people’s hard-earned assets. Finally it admits there is NO EVIDENCE of any corruption or pilfering on the part of anyone involved there.

quote:

---

I'm not saying they're all bad or all good or all anything and - without checking into it first, neither should you!

---

Great advice. I would take it more seriously if hadn’t done what you claim you don’t do right in the same post you made.

quote:

---

Don't you think that, at this juncture in big labour's plummet from grace, addressing allegations would be far more prudent and/or beneficial than burying the asker(s)? I mean, the question(s) are already out there - what's to hide?

---

First, “big labour” has no meaning. It’s a slimy media smear to try to falsely equate labour unions with corporations. The two are not the same, do not share any equal powers or influence and have totally different structures and motives.

Second, I just proved to you there’s nothing to hide about the things I mentioned.

Third, you aren’t asking questions. You are repeating lies, factless accusations and malicious suppositions about people you clearly don’t even know. You also are promoting this stupid malicious destructive mantra that any time an organization of workers tries to do something even remotely socialistic, like getting control of the capital they create or democratize the economy in some way, it has to be corrupt somehow.

The fact is just because some labour unions have corrupt elements and reactionary leaders (mainly in the US) does not make the entire labour movement and everyone involved in it that way.

quote:

---

As for the snake tongue, I've not had it diagnosed but I heard one can get it from ingesting snake oil, which I don't.

---

quote:

---

For workers to thrive, big labor has to act as big business does: Go global, recruit without borders, unionize workers across entire economic sectors. - Andy (FOS) Stern

---

quote:

---

First, “big labour” has no meaning. It’s a slimy media smear to try to falsely equate labour unions with corporations

---

quote:

---

Concert Properties ...

...The sleazy corporate scumbags (and that is what they are) sit on the board as business advisors—not because the unions want them, but because that’s what the law requires. That’s why Jack Pool & Co. are around—and these are the creeps that gave money to the BC Liars, not the unions

---

quote:

---

I'm a construction worker,' Tony Dionisio says. But today, he's leading an all-out rebellion against one of the more litigious unions in the business. It's a hell of a fight, JOHN BARBER writes

---

quote:

---

The Ontario Labour Relations Board has released its written reasons for upholding the imposition of trusteeship on the Universal Workers Union Local 183 by the parent Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA).

While the basic judgment was released June 12, the written reasons are more detailed and essentially say the original report finding wrongdoing within the executive was the result of a fair process and that there was no need to retry or re-adjudicate the issues.

Dan Randazzo, counsel for LIUNA, said they were “very happy with the reasons.”

“He upheld the Keller report and said the process had been fair,” he said. “That’s what we said all along.”

In the 22-page document, OLRB vice-chair Norm Jesin said the issues between the warring factions of the Local and parent had already been dealt with.

Citing a principle of law, estoppel, which holds issues already adjudicated should not be retried over, Jesin ruled the internal finding of wrongdoing by Local 183 business manager Tony Dionisio and the executive and the subsequent Canadian Independent Hearing Officer’s report which upheld the imposition of trusteeship, were arrived at through a fair process.

Jesin, in effect, declined to be drawn into the controversies about what was done and whether it was reasonable or unreasonable.

He merely relied on the process which had gone on before and relied on its integrity, sidestepping the controversy.

---

Why the OLRB ruled the way it did - Board releases decision on Loc. 183 trusteeship (February 5, 2007)

[ 05 February 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

A week from today at the Ontario Labour Relations Board's University Ave. building, a hearing will take place that could have ripple effects across the province.

Specifically, a new union – the Canadian Construction Workers – will be seeking certification to allow it to sign up members in the province.

There is, of course, a story behind this story.

The Canadian Construction Workers union is headed up by Tony Dionisio, who until last year was chief of Local 183 of the Labourers International Union of North America (LIUNA).

Dionisio and his associates were ousted when LIUNA headquarters (based in Washington) imposed a trusteeship on the 24,000-member local, with the approval of the labour relations board.

The board upheld the finding of an independent investigator that there was sufficient evidence to justify a trusteeship, viz: lack of enforcement of collective agreements, failure to credit benefits to members, improper expenditures on surreptitious surveillance of employees of the local, and forgery of collective agreements.

At the board hearing last year, Dionisio and his associates tried to introduce new evidence to rebut these charges, but they were turned down.

Now they are retaliating the best way they know how: by starting up a rival union. Are they planning to raid Local 183 for members? "There's no doubt about it," says Dionisio. "The only question is how far we can get."

Backing him is the Canadian Auto Workers union, which advanced Dionisio and associates $1 million to get started. CAW President Buzz Hargrove says the trusteeship imposed on Local 183 was "a major insult" and adds: "As a Canadian trade unionist, that really bothered me."

Of Dionisio, Hargrove says: "I have a great deal of respect for him as a trade unionist and as a human being and a great deal of respect for his integrity ... I don't think he got a fair shake (before the labour relations board)."

Some other unionists are not nearly so charitable. Wayne Fraser, Ontario director of the United Steelworkers (USW), points to the labour relations board's findings of wrongdoing and calls Dionisio and his associates "a pack of crooks."

Given the circumstances, says Fraser, the decision to impose a trusteeship on Local 183 was "quite in order."

As this exchange suggests, the dispute over the trusteeship lies astride the Canadian labour movement's fault line between national and international unions.

---

quote:

---

In a move that could make construction sites across the GTA much noisier places in the coming weeks, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has granted status to the Canadian Construction Workers Union.

The board's decision, released this week, sets the stage for nearly six weeks of intensive work by the fledgling union, which plans to raid and recruit members of the Labourers International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 183.

"We belong under one roof with the Canadian flag flying proudly above us," said new union president Tony Dionisio, who was ousted last year as business manager from Local 183 after Washington-based LIUNA imposed a trusteeship on the 27,000-member local.

An arbitrator hired by the International found the local's leadership guilty of several offences under the union's constitution.

The arbitrator said signatures had been forged on collective agreements, hundreds of thousands of dollars of members' money had been spent on surveillance of members, and the local had failed to oversee the administration of pension and other benefits.

Dionisio insists the creation of a new union is not about getting back at long-time nemesis LIUNA, saying: "I'm not doing this out of a vendetta."

"I'm doing this because I believe in it – it's long overdue," said Dionisio yesterday, recalling that as head of Local 183, members often suggested it break away from the American parent union.

"It gives us the opportunity, and the right, to have a say in how our union is run, how our dues are spent and what we want as workers," said Dionisio, who is backed by the Canadian Auto Workers union, which advanced him a $1 million loan to start up.

Dionisio has only weeks to make his pitch and raid Local 183 in an effort to bolster his union's membership, the size of which he won't reveal.

Under provincial labour law, there's an open season at the end of a collective bargaining agreement during which workers have the right to sign up with another union. For Local 183, that period ends April 30.

The next open season will be in 2010.

---