babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » We Need To Change

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: We Need To Change
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 01 March 2005 12:54 PM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Many talk about the failure of the labour movement and the tendency is to blame the leadership but is that really the case?

The biggest failure in labour is the lack of solidarity, this is often caused by self interest over the interest of the whole.There are several examples of this which I will show a couple and explain how it has crippled the over all solidarity.

First the idea that only the more senior employees should enjoy job protrection. The fall out from this line of thought is crippling for years and can comeback to hurt those senior members. If you are a lower seniority member the knowledge that to someone else you are buffer between them and the unemployment line in the case of layoffs does little to encourage solidarity. This line of reasoning can also comeback to haunt them, how so?

We now live in a time when pensions are under attack and who is there to fight and negiotate to keep retired person pensions healthy? The same workers that these retired members saw as expendable in case of layoffs.By destroying the feeling of solildarity earlier the price you pay maybe a reduced or no pension.

The two tier contract is one of the greatest to enemies to the solidarity of a union, and there are two reasons these contracts are accepted by members. One reason being they are offered for the majority or existing members only, meaning many vote on a contract thinking only of themselves and not as the union as a whole.The other reason is lack of praticipation by the whole, if only those members who show up to vote are the ones benefitting then they will vote to accept it, all members need to show up at meetings and voice their opinions or vote.

If we do not change our ways of thinking and get back to solidarity soon we will be back to the working conditions of the 1900's.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 March 2005 12:59 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Blue Collar, I don't know enough about two-tier contracts -- can you enlighten innocents like me a little more?

I do know and am concerned about the vulnerability of retired members in each new contract negotiation.

And I can certainly applaud this thought:

quote:
If we do not change our ways of thinking and get back to solidarity soon we will be back to the working conditions of the 1900's.

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 01 March 2005 01:01 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is one resource for information:

www.NoMoreTiers.org

Welcome to the forum, Blue Collar and I look forward to hearing more from you.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 01 March 2005 02:55 PM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Two tier contracts are basically contracts by which employees are divided into 2 groups usually based on date of hire and the paid different wages and or benefits for providing the same service to the employer.

The group in the first tier will have a higher wage cap and the second group a lower wage.For example let us say a contract just sign today stated any employee employed by XYZ as of today shall be paid $20 and hour after 3 years of service, and any employee hired as of March 2 2005 shall be paid $15 dollars an hour after 3 years of service.

This in effect does 2 things one it breaks up the unity of the membership by creating jealousy and secondly after all tier one members retire it drives the overall wages down.

Multi tiered contracts are not to be confused with contracts that have wage progressions where everyone finishes at the same rate of pay or departmental or skill based contracts where you are paid depending on departments you work in or the skill level you have.

Hope this makes it clearer and thank you for the welcome.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jumble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7453

posted 01 March 2005 08:30 PM      Profile for Jumble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with you 100% Blue collar. Negotiated contracts should be the same for all employees regardless of length of service. Unions cannot hope to foster enthusiasm and union loyalty when they allow workers to be treated differently. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed/redressed.
From: Gatineau (Québec) | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258

posted 06 March 2005 01:26 AM      Profile for Freedom of Expression     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Blue Collar: Thank you for guiding me to this thread.

I live in a small community in British Columbia. Back in the 1990's, Loblaws (Safeway) and the UFCW union agreed to a two-tier wage system that substantially lowered the wage rates for workers. The effects were immediatley noticed - people communicate more freely in small communities.

Immediatlely after Loblaws and the UFCW union made this agreement, other retailers moved to town. They also offered employees the lower wage rates. The newcomers justified their lower rates with their need to be competitive with Safeway.

With all of the new competition in town, the local Safeway is lucky to still be in business. Rarely is there ever another customer in front of you at the till. The population can barely support all of the retailers.

Now, less than a decade later, almost all of the local Safeway workers work for the lower wage rate. Retail workers in general barely survive. The two-tier wage deal brought everyone down.

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]


From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 06 March 2005 01:47 AM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did you ever ask the a member why they would vote to accept such a deal?
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258

posted 06 March 2005 03:07 AM      Profile for Freedom of Expression     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apparently, the senior workers were more inclined to be in favour of the two-tier deal. I understood some of them had an opportunity to receive a large sum of money in exchange for their higher wage-rate job? I guess "greed" could have been what motivated them to accept the deal?

I don't really know all of the details. I just know how the Loblaws/UFCW two-tier wage deal affected the overall well-being of many families in our community. One of my fears is other corporations, outside of the retail industry, will strive for similar deals.


From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 06 March 2005 10:58 AM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
See when something like that happens, I tend less to blame the union negiotation teams, usually made up of a combination of union officiers and and members off the shop, but the the whole of the union from the president up to the last member to benefit from the from the first tier who accepts it, and any who do not show up to vote on their futures.

What you may start to see if more and more people blame the union officiers and are going to hold them accountable for the contracts then the union officiers will negiotate the contracts and the members from the floor may be less involved.

Us, the men and women on the shop need to make sure when we vote, we vote in the interest of all and not just ourselves. When we allow a class system to develop inside the solidarity movement we will never succeed.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 06 March 2005 11:13 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was in UFCW local 832 over 10 years ago and the negotiator and management worked out a 2-tier deal. If we had joined CAW that never would have happened. But I was a minority and lost the vote. Goddam business unionists.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 06 March 2005 11:16 AM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How can you say that for certainty, I have met many who are and were CAW members that had two tier wages.


Besides the majority voted to accept the contract do you blame your fellow workers also?

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Blue Collar ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 06 March 2005 11:26 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the time I discovered 2-tier contracts with the UFCW only. I guess it's possible that CAW signed such contracts as well.

Of course there were other reasons why I didn't want to affiliate with the UFCW.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 06 March 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Were you a RW member?
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 06 March 2005 01:09 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Collar:
Did you ever ask the a member why they would vote to accept such a deal?

A friend worked for Safeway and fought against two tier. He said there were alot of threats. Safeway can pull out of a small town and most employees were afraid the choice was sign or lose your job.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 06 March 2005 01:20 PM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So you still vote no and tell the union to become back with an equal and fair contract.

The employer may do 1 of 3 things pay the money asked, renegotiate with an equal pay scale for all which may mean a lower top end, or pay all the same while hiring less people and not filling vacant jobs.

You decide what works best for the whole.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Phil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 989

posted 06 March 2005 03:56 PM      Profile for Phil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Collar:
So you still vote no and tell the union to become back with an equal and fair contract.

The employer may do 1 of 3 things pay the money asked, renegotiate with an equal pay scale for all which may mean a lower top end, or pay all the same while hiring less people and not filling vacant jobs.

You decide what works best for the whole.


Unfortunately, the members of the whole who get to vote (assuming they bother showing up) are those least likely to be affected by the introduction of a two-tier system.

Two-tier wages (and benefits) are the most glaring example of how the labour movement has lost the war no matter how many tiny battles it wins here and there.

Until the big unions start thinking creatively about how to battle the erosion of workers' rights we'll continue this 30 year long slide into economic disaster that ultimately will screw over everybody except the CEOs.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258

posted 06 March 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for Freedom of Expression     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All too often, people only think of themselves - they can not see and/or care how their decisions may negatively impact others. This where leadership comes in - it is up to the leadership to inform the membership of possible negative consequences. Good leadership would discourage acceptance of any agreement where individual gains override the good of the whole. It is a shared responsibility.
From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 07 March 2005 01:44 AM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do you not think there has been times when the union officials have tried to explain things to the workers?
From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258

posted 07 March 2005 02:31 AM      Profile for Freedom of Expression     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are probably many good leaders in the UFCW union. But, from what I have seen, there are a few bad apples as well. Why would the UFCW union negotiate collective agreements that included a two-tier wage system in the first place?

I am not in the UFCW union. But many of the issues I have read about the UFCW union, resemble issues I have experienced within my own union (IWA-C/Steelworkers union).

In my experience, the union membership has been left completely out of the loop when it came to making many major decisions. Some of our local leaders often fail to communicate important information.

Not long ago, after being on strike for just over one week, our union leadership approached the BC Liberal government to help them find an end to the dispute. The membership were baffled. We were only on strike for one week - why the panic?

The deal the union leadership made with the government included legislated binding arbitration. Our union leadership completely removed the membership from all decision-making. It was a done deal and the membership had absolutely nothing to do with it.

There was no need to end the dispute with legislation - our union leadership could have easily requested an arbitrated end to the strike without involving the government.

Now, with our legislated self-imposed contract, in some operations, work hours have been extended to 10-12 hour days with all overtime pay removed.

I work in the forest industry. Our jobs are often physically-demanding and can be dangerous. Our safety could easily be compromised working within the boundaries of this new self-imposed contract and the worse part of it all is we brought it on ourselves. Our union leadership set us back 20-30 years. No one seems to care that the membership did not have any say in the matter.

I know this is not your issue but it may help you understand where I am coming from. From what I have seen, the UFCW union leadership is much the same. (Okay, maybe some of my union's leadership is a little worse.)

In fact, when the IWA-C union was looking for an larger union to merge with, the UFCW was one of the top contenders. From what I understand, the package the UFCW union offered to our union's leadership was very lucrative. Not so good for the IWA-C union members though. Some of our leadership thought the UFCW union would have been an excellent fit.


From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 07 March 2005 02:46 AM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am sorry things are not working out for you I will take sometime tomorrow to address your post at greater length, but I just had to respond to the merger part.

I am leary of mergers at times espicially in when a union like the IWA and the UFCW, the field of specialty is too diverse, I do not know the exact reason you went with steel but from what I remember reading it was most to help with the soft wood trouble so if it helped then it was a great move.

The reason I am leary though is most mergers are great for union officials but suck for the members. The RW in Ontarion merged with CAW it was great for the old RW persident who was inept he is now assistant to Buzz Hargrove although no one knows what he does now as no one has seen him since the merger. When the CAW raided/merged with the Canadian arm of the SEIU it was bad, the CAW had no idea what they were doing a few reps have admitted to me. None of the stratagies they had used in the past in the auto sector worked when in negiotations with care workers for instance. But again some SEIU leaders benfitted while the members had to suffer with negotiators who were without a clue.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 07 March 2005 09:16 AM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the past binding arbitration usually benefitted the union members as the both sides handed in their demends and the srbitrator looked at everything from the success of the business overall to outlook for the future.

Now though with average wage going down trade being interrupted it does not work as well for unions as the arbitrator feels the need to try and keep the business healthy.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258

posted 07 March 2005 01:43 PM      Profile for Freedom of Expression     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Blue Collar: You say "we need to change." I strongly agree.

From my perspective, we have to unload any leader that fails to include the membership in decison-making: any leader that fails to practice democracy.

I have found the leaders that do not practice democracy are the same leaders that interfere with the election process. It is nearly impossible to get these people out of office through proper democratic means - they are corrupt. Corrupt meaning "dishonest." This is why I speak openly about this issue - outside attention is the only thing that I know of that will force these people to either act within proper boundaries or risk publicity. These guys hate the media.

Then we have to elect new leaders that know how to bring democracy back to the organization. These new leaders must understand the membership needs them to provide information; access to one another; resources; trust; and follow-through. The most important thing a good leader will do is foster democracy. Leaders are not needed to make decisons for the membership.

I sense you are a leader. And the very fact that we are discussing this issue in a respectable manner leads me to believe you are a good leader and want to make an effective, well-run organization.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]


From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 08 March 2005 12:40 AM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freedom of Expression:
All too often, people only think of themselves - they can not see and/or care how their decisions may negatively impact others.

More likely, they fear the consequences to family. When I was young and single I had no problem telling a boss to stuff his job. When married with children and mortgage, I didn't have that luxury.

I have met and talked to some very alert union reps. They are in a minority. Most, in my experience, are still fighting 1950's industrial battles. That's a loser. The big corporations have big purses to draw from and time is on their side. Turning it all around means that unions are going to have to shift their focus.

Going after McDonald's and Walmart is a good idea. That's where the big gains are to be made.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 08 March 2005 12:56 AM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well I say thank you FOE for your kind words but I am just a guy off the shop floor, who is active in my union spending most of his time trying to educate members on solidarity.

I think democracy is very important but also I believe their should be safety nets in place, I have seen stewards, reps and local presidents all go and cut sweetheart deals for themselves to deliver members from one union to another, and this is very deteremental to the solidarity movement.

Tonight at work there was a discussion on the shop floor about the ineptitude of some of elected stewards, and I pointed out if the union steps and removes them appoints someone even temporarily they blasted for being undemocratic but if they leave the guy in place they are labelled as useless as a union, so it is a question of what to do now?


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258

posted 08 March 2005 01:37 AM      Profile for Freedom of Expression     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Blue Collar: You are "just a guy off the shop floor, who is active in [your] union spending most of [your] time trying to educate members on solidarity."

You are exactly what unions need most: Someone to openly question the status quo and seek the necessary change. You are a leader. I would vote for you.

In our union, we also have very ineffective local union representation. One thing that I keep asking my co-workers is, "Just what is their job anyway?" No one really knows.

I think a union reps job should be to:

-provide information - all information, except individual member's personal information;

-provide access to one another - not only through meetings but also through mediums like this one "an on-line members-only discussion forum";

-provide resources - all of the tools necessary for the membership to make well-informed decisions;

-to trust us in our collective decisions;

-and finally to follow-through - to carry out what we decide whether they agree with it or not.

We need our union reps to foster democracy - enable the membership. This way, all decisions we make are on our shoulders - not theirs. We will learn very fast how to make good decisions knowing that we are the ones that will be held responsible. Collectively we have far more ability than any union leader. We need to recognize our value.

You are probably one of the more valuable people in your union. You are doing what we all need to do: educating members. Knowledge truly is power.

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]


From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274

posted 08 March 2005 05:15 AM      Profile for Ethical Redneck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some good points, Freedom of Expression. But this is exactly what elected union reps have to do.

Now I wholly agree some do this better than others and that power politics and sometimes corruption exist within labour organizations that often sacrifice or compromise the democratic spirit of the labour movement and the collective rule of the members.

But this is largely the exception, not the rule, and the power politics in unions is no worse than in any other cooperative association (and far less than in the corporate and government bureaucracy worlds).

But I don't think we can entirely blame the leaders for this situation. Let's face it. We don't live in a very democratic society. The top-down corporatist "follow the leader/conform to the machine" attitude of our capitalist economy is pretty much dominant everywhere. And while our labour and cooperative organizations are intended to fight against such attitudes, they definitely are not immune from their effects.

For example, my union local, as well as the regional mining/industrial council, has very democratic structures, and most of the elected folks are pretty conscientious bunch.

Yet I often get frustrated at the take-it-for-granted attitude of so many people. The "we elected Joe and he can handle it" attitude is really wide-spread, as too many people seem to think democracy just means voting for someone every couple years and then they get to do all of their thinking for them.

This isn't just the case with my union. Our local credit union, the co-ops and community organizations I'm involved with and even our city council suffer from the same conditions to one degree or another. The only time people really get interested is at contract time, or if there's some hotly contested election, or some scandal.

There seems to be this mentality out there that says it's un-cool to care about your own economic interests. I think it's dangerous and I work against it. But it's there, nonetheless.


From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 08 March 2005 12:10 PM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is that attitude of wanting someone else to do all the work and worrying that has caused our problem.

Sometimes when others on the shop floor complain about the union and what they want from a union I get the sense that they still want to be bottle fed.The lack of self interest in their own welfare is mind numbing.

You are right FOE comminication is important it is another pet project of mine right now to try and make our local more member accesable, but communication is a 2 way street. Very often whae I ask a someone have they passed onto their concern to a steward or rep. I get a no for answer, if someone is not aware of the problem then no one can help solve it.

The other thing in communication is the way one communicates, no member likes it if they feel the nature of the communication is hostile. Likewise no rep or officier likes it when you get hostile with them before good communication can be established mutual respect has to develop. If your attitude towards your union rep is I pay your wages you work for me and therefore are here to do what I ask, your in trouble.

If your employer said the same thing to you how would you react?

Or how good of a job would you do?

If instead you say I need some help here can you help me the potential for solidarity is far greater.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258

posted 08 March 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for Freedom of Expression     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like the discussion we are having here.

The world I live in is far different fom yours. Late in 2003, I was nominated to run for president in a local election of officers. I accepted the nomination. At the time, I believed I belonged to a democratic organization. I had no idea what laid ahead.

Immediately after the nomination meeting, I approached the incumbent president to shake his hand. I wanted to wish him all the best. He refused to shake my hand and said to me, "if you do anything that I do not agree with I will take care of you." He was visibly angry. I took his words as a threat and told him to never threaten me again. This is how we practice democracy in my world.

My eyes were wide open now. During the election I documented many irregularities. I was astonished by the interference by current executive board members and their close associates. When the election was over and I was told that I lost by 130 votes, myself and another union member, appealed the election.

Still having a little belief in the system, myself and the other member who appealed the election, attended the next regular meeting to learn about any progress in the appeal. Knowing what we were up against, we recorded the event. One of the union executive officers said to the two of us, "If you take this appeal any further you are taking me on personally." He was showing us his fist as he spoke. There were many witnesses. It got worse than that. We sat there and did not say a word. We were sworn at, belittled, humiliated to a point where we were afraid to get up and leave the room: We didn't know if we would make it to the door without being physically attacked. This is the world that I live in - it is hostile.

All of this was published in the local media and since then the union executive officers have been very careful. Under the law we had to exhaust all internal processes before we could seek the aid of the courts. Our cases have been completely mishandled by the union. At this time, we do not have the tens of thousands of dollars needed to bring the issues into a court room. My biggest regret is I did not involve the RCMP.

Our worlds are very different. You people still have a chance - we don't. The sooner my world falls a part, the sooner we will be able to start all over. When you say "we need to change," I couldn't agree with you more. We not only need to change, we need to start all over again.

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]


From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 08 March 2005 06:21 PM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After reading you experience FOE, by the way I am sorry for what you are experiencing, we get a clearer picture of another problem affectin the democracy in unions.

The people elected are very often the ones who are the loudest and most outspoken and pushy people, what they are though in the end is bullies. See they are good when you are behind them but when you have to face them down it is something else altogether.

Dealing with things through the internal chambers is usually the way to go as it is usually prescribed in the constitution, do you have a national or international body to appeal to?

If I can be of any assistance let me know.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Negad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7863

posted 08 March 2005 09:46 PM      Profile for Negad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freedom of Expression:

Still having a little belief in the system, myself and the other member who appealed the election, attended the next regular meeting to learn about any progress in the appeal. Knowing what we were up against, we recorded the event. One of the union executive officers said to the two of us, "If you take this appeal any further you are taking me on personally." He was showing us his fist as he spoke. There were many witnesses. It got worse than that. We sat there and did not say a word. We were sworn at, belittled, humiliated to a point where we were afraid to get up and leave the room: We didn't know if we would make it to the door without being physically attacked. This is the world that I live in - it is hostile.

]



These conducts are not isolated at all and when many of us try to bring awareness about these issues the immediate reaction is you can get involved and change things. No, it is not that easy to get involved and change things and that is why we need to bring awareness about this issue and bring solidarity amongst those who do not want to put up with these bullies any more.

Freedom of Expression, all the power to you for speaking out. It takes more courage to stand up against oppressers and blowing the whistle against bullies than silencing people by bullying them and swearing at them. Swearing and violence doesn't require brain.

I bet most of them even sound like conscious people untill such a time that they realize that bully party is about to be over then they turn violent. Every act anti-oppression is a treat to them and brings fear to them and that fear is what exactly drives them to further perpatuate oppression and corruption and start to swear and show their fists.

I really see you as a courageous person for speaking out. Good for you.

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274

posted 08 March 2005 10:38 PM      Profile for Ethical Redneck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Once again, solidarity greetings and support for Freedom of Expression.

Holy Moly! If what you describe is true, then it's worse than just the apathy and centralized leadership roles you are experiencing. That's outright intimidation, and it flies totally in the face of everything the labour movement stands for.

quote:
The world I live in is far different fom yours.

No it's not! The situation you are dealing with is definitely VERY different. But you're not worlds away, since your organization recently voted to join mine (and we recently voted to accept you folks).

Our national office has a sort of Ombudsman office to deal with challenges to alleged election irregularities and other constitutional breaches. But I'm not sure if the IWA locals fall within its jurisdiction yet, since the merger isn't totally complete (another two years apparently).

Interesting that when we voted to accept you folks as affiliate members, many of us had our concerns. While the IWA locals around here have always been really great and open, some of the practices of a couple of the locals in other parts of the province, as well as some of the behaviour of the national IWA leadership, we felt were/are, shall we say, lacking.

In particular, the local 3567 and its corrupt president Sonny Ghag (and his big business brother), with his raiding of hospital workers, and attacking other IWA local members, and cutting back-room concession deals with his brother's corporate associates, doesn't bode well with us around here.

Also, despite our great relationship with the local IWA here, the local didn't want to join us, and instead was opting to go with the CEP. While it is sad they didn't want to join us, I could see their point that the CEP is the other main forestry union here. Joining them would make more sense.

The problem was it was an all-or-nothing vote. Either the whole IWA joined us or no one did. SO, we're stuck with some IWA locals we don't want, and others who don't want us.

In addition, a lot of us weren't too thrilled that our national office had to cough up $850,000 for the now-discredited ex-IWA president Dave Haggard's retirement package as part of the merger deal.

As far as I'm concerned he didn't deserve it at all. According to the local IWA folks here, he bailed out just in time to avoid a likely humiliating defeat in the upcoming IWA elections.

Apparently, he screwed up the negotiations in the coastal forest sector, which led to the strike, and then actually endorsed the BC Liar government's back-to-work order without any real guarantees. He also failed to rein in Sonny Ghag and his shenanigans, and failed to take a strong stand both against the US softwood lumber tariffs and against the BC Liar regime's policies that have damaged the very communities where most IWA members live.

He's supposedly now in line for most big shot pork chop federal bureaucracy position as his reward for quitting the NDP and running for the federal Liberals last election (which tells me he sure doesn't need our union's money).

Anyway, you might want to try talking with an actual Steelworkers regional rep (outside your local) to see if they can advise you on your situation. I don't know what they can do, since, as I said, much of the IWA's business isn't yet part of us. But give it a shot.

The other thing you might try is talking with someone at the BC Fed and CLC.

If there's anything else you want to try or talk about, just send me a private e-mail.


From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blue Collar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8349

posted 08 March 2005 11:08 PM      Profile for Blue Collar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"He's supposedly now in line for most big shot pork chop federal bureaucracy position as his reward for quitting the NDP and running for the federal Liberals last election (which tells me he sure doesn't need our union's money)."

Other union leaders were offered the same deal to run or deliver there members to the Liberal under the guise of strategic voting. I wonder if the NDP would have done a bit better if the union members that were told to vote liberal had voted NDP.

I am not a big supporter of the NDP but right on the federal scene Jack Layton has the most to offer Canada.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 08 March 2005 11:21 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethical Redneck:

In addition, a lot of us weren't too thrilled that our national office had to cough up $850,000 for the now-discredited ex-IWA president Dave Haggard's retirement package as part of the merger deal.

Holy crap! I did some research on Haggard and the IWA at one point. As far as I can tell, he didn't deserve eighty-five cents.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca