quote:

---

Buzz Hargrove's likely successor seen by some as a militant front runner to lead the Canadian Autoworkers is a high-school dropout who exhibits what has been called a Dr. Jekyl-Mr. Hyde persona.

---

I would just like to remind babblers that when the bourgeois media "reports" on labour issues they do not, as a rule, side with the most "militant" working class leadership. The Times Colonist "story" for example, managed to regurgitate the anti-union comments of some unnamed bourgeois "industry expert" who remarked that unions are, in any case, unnecessary.

When I read stories like this, with so much crap, I have an instinctive reaction to reach for my wallet and ensure that I'm not also being robbed at the same time. The bourgeois media will invariably try to play a negative role in whatever campaign takes place. And in the 132 posts in the previous thread, no one seems to have noted that.

Times Colonist: unidentified bourgeois source ... "the need for auto unions is disappearing"

[ 09 July 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Name me a union that does that? Name me a political party that does that?

---

I can't speak for other unions, but name a political party?

The NDP. The Liberals. The Conservatives. The Greens. The Republicans. The Democrats. The Conservatives. Labour.

I'm tired of typing -- how about you name a democratic political party that doesn't?

It is unheard of in democratic political parties for the executive of the party to endorse a candidate. Their respective executives are clearly neutral in leadership elections.

The Communists, for example, used to decide upon their leadership in a collective fashion and elect their central committee as a group. The CC would then pick a leader from among themselves. Due to electoral law and law relating to political parties in Canada, that isn't legal. A separate leadership vote has to take place. So the Communists do so, but there is typically only one candidate. The Communists probably hold the compulsory method in contempt.

Needless to add, when the bourgeois state, as in Canada, is in the habit of arresting the entire leadership and imprisoning them, then such an alternative democratic method of selecting leadership is entirely understandable. The Communists are, needless to say, not the only ones who think that collective leadership is a good idea.

Another interesting point of reference would be to look at elections in UK unions. I am not a close follower, but it is my impression that these are frequently contested and there is often turnover of officers. An example would be 2002 Amicus election when leftist Derek Simpson narrowly upset the heavily favoured Sir Ken Livingston.

[ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Earlier this summer, it looked like the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union was about to experience something truly unusual in its history – a contested campaign for national president. The last contest for the union's top Canadian officer was in 1960, a quarter of a century before the formation of the CAW and a year when Tommy Douglas was Premier of Saskatchewan and John F. Kennedy was running for President of the United States.

A transition in leadership was coming: CAW President Buzz Hargrove would turn 65, the agreed mandatory retirement age for union staff and officials, in March 2009. His handpicked successor was Ken Lewenza who, like Hargrove, came out of Chrysler's Windsor Assembly Plant. The succession also included anointing Peter Kennedy, the current Assistant to Secretary-Treasurer Jim O'Neil, to move up when O'Neil retired in August 2009. As Hargrove contemplated exactly when and how he would announce the timing of his retirement, two very credible candidates, both assistants to Hargrove, had declared their intent to run: Hemi Mitic against Lewenza and Carol Phillips against Kennedy.

The possibility of a break with tradition and an actual election did not come out of nowhere. During relatively good times, the absence of contested elections was commented on, but passively accepted. Now, with crises piling up in one sector in manufacturing after another in Canada (the state of the auto industry being the most publicized), a good number of CAW activists were increasingly frustrated and restless. It was in that context that rumors of an election began to circulate and the contesting candidates surfaced.

This was an opportunity that the union leadership should have jumped at. After years of growing demoralization inside the union, an election could have been a catalyst for union renewal, opening a space for membership participation in the crucial questions facing the union, and developing the candidates' own thinking. How could the union's dismal record in organizing new members be reversed? What changes in union priorities would an organizational drive imply and what commitments from the locals did it demand? The union's formal policy against concessions was contradicted by the reality on the ground. What was needed to return the union to its slogan that 'fighting back makes a difference'? International solidarity between unions is often discussed, but what could it concretely mean? The environment had emerged as a central issue that would transform everything about how we produce and live. Where did the candidates stand on the insecurities and opportunities this implies? The regional and sectoral composition of the CAW's membership base is today radically different than when the CAW was formed, but the union's structures have remained the same. What do the candidates have to say about how to take advantage of this potential, and what do the locals themselves want to put on the agenda in terms of structural change?

It was an opportunity as well to raise the issue of the CAW's relative separation from the rest of the labour movement (notably its continued absence from Ontario Federation of Labour), at the same time that the CAW drifted closer to the corporate and political elite (symbolized by the joint dinner with Canada's business and political elites in the middle of a CAW Bargaining Convention). Who are the union's friends and who are its enemies? Where do the candidates stand on union support for the Liberals? Can the union really expect to address the crisis in manufacturing jobs, the restructuring of private services, the commercialization of social services, or reverse free trade without rebuilding ties to the rest of the Canadian working class and mobilizing working class communities beyond its own?

A contested election might have reminded people why unions remain so important and brought more members into the active life of the union. That opportunity, in terms of the contest for the CAW presidency, was thrown aside. The union leadership seemed more concerned with ensuring executive control over the presidential succession and especially determined not to open debates it could not control and risk commitments that might hold future leaders accountable. In a phrase that may come to define his legacy, Hargrove expressed his impatience with an open electoral contest for the leadership of one of Canada's largest and most storied working class organizations in these terms: “We're not a political party, we're a union” (Globe and Mail, July 7, 2008).

---

Read the rest.

[ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by arm chair critic:
Cliff Pilkey ran against the incumbent Region Director George Burt in 1960. Pilkey was a member of the Left Caucus at the time and later went on to serve as President of the OFL.

---