quote:

---

The fiery leader of a powerful local of the Canadian Auto Workers in Windsor is among the three leading contenders to replace retiring national president Buzz Hargrove next year, but he may not want the job.

Ken Lewenza, president of CAW Local 444, has dodged questions about his interest in the top job for months by saying the union is dealing with too many other pressing issues to talk about personal leadership intentions.

"Buzz has got a full year left and there are too many problems that affect workers right now to think about a leadership contest," Lewenza said in a recent interview.

But union insiders say if the 53-year-old Lewenza, a hard-nosed Windsor unionist with a booming voice, decides to take the leap, Hargrove and the CAW's top leadership groups would probably endorse him before a national convention next year.

The endorsement, insiders say, would give Lewenza a major advantage over two other potential candidates, Hemi Mitic and Jerry Dias, who are two of five Hargrove assistants.
***
Insiders say other possible candidates include Hargrove assistant Carol Phillips, former assistant Peggy Nash, now an MP, and Peter Kennedy, an assistant to national secretary treasurer Jim O'Neil.

---

quote:

---

Hargrove has all but taken out membership in the Liberal party these days. At the press conference to launch Chrysler's new minivan last week, the two-hour event was less about the van than it was about politics.

It got embarassing, being a Canadian standing next to a dozen confused American reporters. "What's this about?" one of them asked me when the political grandstanding was at its loudest.

Between them, Hargrove and Local 444 president Ken Lewenza turned the minivan launch event into a two-hour-long excercise in Tory bashing and open campaigning for the Liberals. There was lots of loud applause and cheering from the union hardcore.

But when I looked around at the 1,500 union members gathered together on the plant floor, it seemed to me that at least half of the workers had their arms folded and their jaws set. I suspect a majority of CAW members won't be voting the way Buzz and Ken are trying to order us to vote.

Windsor Assembly is the plant that produces Conservative candidates -- and at least one MP so far. And of course, a lot of autoworkers were raised NDP and still vote that way, even if Buzz is on the outs with them and hangs with Liberals these days.

---

quote:

---

The first year we heard tributes from Mickey Warner, Sidney Cooke, Ken Lewenza Sr., Ted Bounsall, Howard Pawley, Joe Comartin MP, Mariano Klimowicz and citations from the Mayor Michael Hurst, NDP Ont. leader Howard Hampton, OFL president Wayne Samuelson, the Governor General & the Prime Minister.

The third year were delighted to hear our guest speaker Bob White former president of the CAW and CLC along with councilor Ron Jones, Brian Masse MP, Joe Comartin MP and councilor elect Ken Lewenza Jr.

---

quote:

---

Would have liked to see someone like Peggy Nash...

---

[ 27 June 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Why? She is an MP anD just got elected after two tries .I would instead like to see her lead the NDP .

---

It's not really my business, I realize. You're a member and you will live with the consequences. I just thought it would be nice to see some recognition that a leader can come from elsewhere than Local 444 (sorry...) and could even be a woman. Your union is close to 3/4 non-automobile and it seems to me its future lies in diversity.

But if Ken Lewenza is the best for the job, so be it.

[ 27 June 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Your union is close to 3/4 non-automobile and it seems to me its future lies in diversity

---

[ 28 June 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

[ 28 June 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

[ 28 June 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Ken Lewenza played a huge role in all of that and more and has also been CAW council president for the last 10 years as well as Chairperson of the Chrysler National Bargaining Committee.Also has been presdinet of one of the largest CAW locals in Canada Local 444, which has a long and proud history of community and social activism .As well Ken has beeen very vocal opponent of the iraq war since day one, which he took alot of public criticicism for especially after 9/11.You should also note Buzz became president of the CAW in 92 right in the middle of Rae's tenure,and he supported Rae up until the Rae days.

[ 28 June 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

[ 28 June 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
As well Ken has beeen very vocal opponent of the iraq war since day one, which he took alot of public criticicism for especially after 9/11.

---

quote:

---

Windsorworker:
At least the Liberals gave money to our plant to not only keep it open but to run three shifts still to this day.

---

The Liberals deserve absolutely no support from the labour movement. When they were in government we witnessed the signing of NAFTA, the end of the Auto Pact, the beginning of negotiations for "free" trade with Korea. If NAFTA was never signed and we still had the auto pact, these plants wouldn't be in this kind of trouble and thus needing corporate welfare to survive.

In opposition the Liberals have said they will support "free" trade with Colombia. In the biggest sign of their contempt for workers, they sided with the Conservatives to ensure the failure of the anti-scab laws.

Meanwhile in Ontario, McGuinty stood up on May Day and said his government will never support the card check certification process or other "far left" changes to the Labour Act (making him to the right of even Bill Davis).

Obviously the NDP have their faults and labour should be holding them accountable. The way to do that is to force them back to the left, if they refuse then support new leftist parties (like Quebec Solidaire). The way to not do it is by going in bed with right wing Liberals. The labour movement in the US has jumped so far up the Democrats arse that they have been taken completely for granted and have lost any political leverage.

Every time a union leader tells their members that the best they can ever hope to achieve politically is a neo-liberal government is another example of why the labour movement in this country is turning into the same disaster as their American mentors.

Canadians and Americans are the only people in the world stupid enough to think "liberals" are leftists. In every other country they are correctly viewed as a party and ideology on the right. Even in Canada, the Liberals are the last bastion of the elites as evidenced by BC, Quebec and Saskatchewan (Tommy Douglas had to defeat Liberals to win government).

quote:

---

Unless there is a serious re-think of labour's rightward shift, the movement will become ever closer to becoming as irrelevant as it is in the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Unless there is a serious re-think of labour's rightward shift, the movement will become ever closer to becoming as irrelevant as it is in the US.

---

Well, I have to side with windsorworker on this one. Of course there have been "rightward shifts", but that characterizes the whole spectrum - not least, the NDP.

My concern is not whether unions support the Liberal Party or the NDP (both roads lead to disaster - look at provinces where the NDP is in power and pressure is put on trade unionists not to demand to much of it). It is whether unions maintain their necessary feature of fighting organizations on behalf of workers. And that is a feature which is constantly being undermined from all directions and must be defended.

quote:

---

Windsorworker:
Well we helped create and supported the NDP for over 40 years,they have shifted right far more then the labour movement has. Unfotunately there is no true left party in Canada anymore.

---

The way to address that is not by getting into bed with the Liberals and giving standing ovations to Tory politicians at union conventions.

quote:

---

getting into bed with the Liberals and giving standing ovations to Tory politicians at union conventions.

---

Unionist, the silence over McGuinty's anti-labour stances on certification and Dion's backflips on anti-scab as well as free trade has been palpable from the "strategic" voting crowd.

Voting and supporting the "lesser evil" still leads to evil.

The only way to stop the rightward shift of our political spectrum is by creating a force on the left (like the NPI or Quebec Solidaire) not by applauding right wing politicians when they throw a few crumbs our way after signing away our long term viability through NAFTA and the cancellation of the Auto Pact.

Its time those who claim to be on the left end their politics of appeasement.

[ 29 June 2008: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Just because someone is your enemy's enemy, doesn't make them your friend.

---

quote:

---

Windsorworker:
Sorry but commending goverments when they do good is just as important as fighting and criticizing them when they don't.

---

So when will we see fighting and hear criticism of the Liberal's and anti-Harper neo-con's obvious anti-union biases on basic charter rights like the certification process and anti-scab laws?

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Unionist, the silence over McGuinty's anti-labour stances on certification and Dion's backflips on anti-scab as well as free trade has been palpable from the "strategic" voting crowd.

---

I agree - that's unconscionable. But not just on so-called "labour" issues. Dion's regressive stands on Afghanistan, the Middle East, the environment, social issues, shameless support for Harper on a host of questions (e.g. Durban II) - the list is endless. There is no point on which this Liberal party deserves support, even "strategically". I'm less familiar with Ontario politics, except on the school-funding question, where unfortunately all three "major" parties seem to want to keep having Catholic public schools.

quote:

---

Voting and supporting the "lesser evil" still leads to evil.

---

That's a silly statement, if you don't mind my saying so. Name me one party, one person, who is free of all "evil". Surely not the NDP, which sides with Dion on many (maybe most) of the issues I have named and which are frequently discussed on babble.

Anyway, because I have no high expectations of any political party, I tend to look at parties, and individuals, based on the stands they take on particular issues. If someone supports Canadian aggression in Afghanistan, for example, I will never applaud them, no matter how "pro-labour" they may otherwise be. But when it comes to compromises in daily life - lobbying politicians, making deals with employers - I will completely ignore issues like this one.

Is that evil?

That's why I asked windsorworker where Lewenza stands on Afghanistan, given that 82% of Canadians recently polled said they opposed the western war against Iraq. WW hasn't replied yet - maybe s/he doesn't know the answer.

quote:

---

Its time those who claim to be on the left end their politics of appeasement.

---

Well, to me "appeasement" means covering up crimes - pretending some position is progressive when it isn't - defending some individual or party just because of who they are rather than what they say or do. Your statement seems a bit too vague and broad to me.

When Bill Siksay and Sharon Carstairs broke ranks with the majority reactionary opinion in their caucuses and opposed Harper's "tough on crime" and "age of consent" legislation, I applauded them both - even though Carstairs is a Liberal and even though Siksay takes some positions I don't agree with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Gross:
On the question of potential candidates for CAW leader: has anyone suggested Scott Piatkowski yet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

Well, this has to rank as the wierdest idea I've read today.

---

quote:

---

So when will we see fighting and hear criticism of the Liberal's and anti-Harper neo-con's obvious anti-union biases on basic charter rights like the certification process and anti-scab laws?

---

quote:

---

No matter how you spin it, "strategic voting" is just another name for Liberal partisanship.

---

[ 30 June 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
So when will we see fighting and hear criticism of the Liberal's and anti-Harper neo-con's obvious anti-union biases on basic charter rights like the certification process and anti-scab laws?

---

Now that I think of it, LW, why are you singling out Libs and Cons here?

Manitoba has had mostly NDP government since 1969. Yet it has never had anti-scab legislation. And you need to sign 65% of cards to get automatic certification.

The federal, Québec and several other provinces require only 50% plus one.

On Afghanistan (you're right, the silence on that issue is deafening from Windsorworker), Layton has taken the most principled position of the major parties. Although it doesn't go as far as both of us may like, they have at least voted against and spoken out against much of the current libratory quest for Bushian brownie points.

Is it as far as we'd like: no. So in a way I too am guilty of appeasement and choosing the lesser evil by continuing to support the NDP.

At the same time, many activists are pushing for a major reform of the political system which would give us better political choices. Again, the silence of the "strategic voting" crowd on last fall's MMP referendum was deafening as they knew it would be the end of their Liberal fearmongering.

Unlike most blind partisans, I have weighed the balance of good versus bad when it comes to supporting parties and I walked away from the NDP in the middle of the Rae years when he turned on the public sector workers. This to me was the final straw and for 10 years I supported either minor parties or no party at all if there were no candidates in my riding. I even voted Liberal once but quickly realised what a mistake it was when I called my Liberal MP to discuss a labour issue and he replied that he would consult with the Chamber of Commerce on the issue.

When Layton was elected leader I returned as I saw new energy but am not blind to future right turns from the party and will speak out when it happens. In many ways I envy you living in Quebec with an option of voting Quebec Solidaire as this is a party that is causing waves on the left. This is what should be happening in Ontario.

At the same time when I read WW's posts I get the feeling of reading someone else's words everytime he speaks. Although he's great at listing problems with the NDP in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (both valid criticisms) but so too is his silence that it was an NDP government in Ontario that was the one that brought in the anti-scab law here (the Liberals voted against it).

The silence on labour issues that affect the workers in Windsor is also deafening. First off, it was the federal Liberals who backflipped on anti-scab and when they sided with the Conservatives last year they killed the bill in its third reading. Secondly, it was the provincial Liberals who rejected the NDP motion to bring back the card check. It was McGuinty who called it a "far left idea" that will never happen under his watch. It is McGuinty who has privatised all renewable energy projects in the province (only the NDP demanded they remain in public hands). The privatisation of all future renewable energy is something even the hardest neo-con can only dream of.

Yes the NDP aren't perfect, but to slam them and jump in with Liberals who continue to vote against basic labour pronciples is beyond the pale.

Finally, is WW's claim that they endorsed 40 NDP candidates. Most telling of all is his failure to mention the endorsement of the over 200 Liberal candidates.

What a shame that some of those who were the best and most effective critics of the third way are now becoming some of its biggest cheerleaders.

ETA: Unionist, I was directing those comments within an Ontario context due to windsorworker's location.

Also, although the NDP hasn't been great on this issue (especially Manitoba), I can't think of any example where the Liberals didn't oppose even those weak kneed moves or bring in something more progressive.

[ 30 June 2008: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

unionist:

Unfortunately, "pro" and "anti" labour can't be categorized by political parties. The enactment of such measures is much more a feature of the strength of the movement and the political dynamic and timing.

---

That's true but its also true that the only way the elites get nervous is when there is agitation for it, something that's very hard to do when you're handing out free jackets and endorsing over 200 Liberals.

Again, I'm not a blind NDP partisan and would have been 100% supportive if the many valid criticisms of the party would have lead to either a new political party or another attempt to move the NDP to the left, but all credibility was lost when they moved to the right instead.

quote:

---

That's why I asked windsorworker where Lewenza stands on Afghanistan, given that 82% of Canadians recently polled said they opposed the western war against Iraq. WW hasn't replied yet -

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
The current health minister Tony Clement won his riding by 25 votes over the Liberal candidate , while a 4 week vacationing during the campaign NDP candidate recieved 5000 .....Now tell me whats wrong with that picture ? Until the NDP run credible candidates inevery ridingacross Canada with the intentions of winning a majority goverment then there will always be a need for strategic voting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Sorry for missing your question , Ken is and has been against the war in Afghanistan since it started but he supports the Canadian troops who are there as well as thier families.

---

quote:

---

She offered to resign as candidate and her offer was turned down.

---

quote:

---

Do you know if Mitic is challenging Lewenza for the job?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
She came very distant third running in an election she had no buissness running in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Now we have Tony Clement as our frikin federal health minister.When is actually caring about Canada and it's future gonna mean somthing to politicians and the people running for elections ?

---

But on topic...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
Who's the Oshawa candidate? Or will there be one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Why would she run in an election where she would be missing 4 weeks of a campaign ? That not only tells me the NDP riding association in that area is incompetent but that the candidate herself is not credible. Like i said strategic voting is needed until the NDP takes getting a majority goverment seriously! She came very distant third running in an election she had no buissness running in. Now we have Tony Clement as our frikin federal health minister.When is actually caring about Canada and it's future gonna mean somthing to politicians and the people running for elections ? Either way you spin it Scott this is a complete joke .

---

No spinning here, except the spinning that you're doing. She had built profile and support over a number of elections (2003, 2004) and her name was well known. It was an eight week campaign that took a break over Christmas. Obviously, the riding association thought that they had a better chance with an established candidate, even if she had to be away for part of the campaign,
rather than one who was nominated at the last minute. My point, the one that you didn't address, is that the Liberals are looking for excuses for losing the seat to a pathetic, retread parachute candidate and they can't do any better than to blame the NDP. Using your "logic", disappearing during the campaign probably helped the Liberals come closer than they would have otherwise done. You should be thanking her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Whatever that has to do with the topic...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

I didn't start the thread drift. I just responded to it. As a potential candidate for CAW President (cough), I feel that it's my duty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Anyway, tell us what you would do in your first 100 days as CAW president. Seriously!

---

quote:

---

No spinning here, except the spinning that you're doing. She had built profile and support over a number of elections (2003, 2004) and her name was well known. It was an eight week campaign that took a break over Christmas. Obviously, the riding association thought that they had a better chance with an established candidate, even if she had to be away for part of the campaign,

---

quote:

---

My point, the one that you didn't address, is that the Liberals are looking for excuses for losing the seat to a pathetic, retread parachute candidate and they can't do any better than to blame the NDP. Using your "logic", disappearing during the campaign probably helped the Liberals come closer than they would have otherwise done. You should be thanking her.

---

quote:

---

BTW, how is the NDP ever to take winning a minority government seriously when you're urging people who support their policies not to vote for them?

---

[ 02 July 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

quote:

---

The Canadian Auto Workers union is heading for a showdown over who will replace president Buzz Hargrove.

Hargrove has called early meetings of the CAW's national executive board, top administrators and senior staff for next Tuesday to debate and endorse who will lead the union after he retires within the next year.

In memos to the union's executive board, department heads, area directors and about 150 staff representatives, Hargrove called two special meetings "to discuss and endorse the future leadership team of our union."

Sources say Hargrove will ask the board and the other groups to endorse Ken Lewenza, president of CAW Local 444 in Windsor, as the next head of the country's biggest private-sector union.

However Hemi Mitic, a veteran assistant of Hargrove, confirmed yesterday he will make a bid for support from the same groups at two separate meetings.

Insiders say an endorsement from the board and staff would be a huge boost toward winning at a national convention of more than 800 delegates. No one has won the top job in the union's history without first securing the high-level endorsements.

However, Mitic said even if he doesn't get the key endorsements, he will run for the $150,700-a-year job of leading about 250,000 workers in industries ranging from autos and airlines to railways, mining and fishing.

Hargrove, who has led the CAW for 16 years, turns 65 next March, the union's mandatory retirement age.

---

quote:

---

Lewenza to seek CAW presidency
Local 444 president looks to succeed Buzz Hargrove
Grace Macaluso, The Windsor Star
Published: Thursday, July 03, 2008
Standing before an enthusiastic crowd of union officials and rank and file, CAW Local 444 president Ken Lewenza made his bid to replace national chief Buzz Hargrove official Thursday.

"I'm going to notify Buzz Hargrove that I would like him to consider me as part of his recommendation to the national executive board next week to succeed him as the president of the Canadian Auto Workers Union," an emotional Lewenza said.

But his candidacy is conditional on receiving the endorsement of the board, which meets Tuesday morning in Toronto.

"I support the historic process of my union that if I get the endorsement of the national executive board, the elected members from one end of the country to the other, I will obviously run for the presidency of our union."

Earlier in the morning, Lewenza, met with the presidents of CAW locals from Windsor-Essex and Kent Counties, who pledged their "unanimous support" for his candidacy.

---

[ 03 July 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

quote:

---

What I want to know is whether any of the contenders to succeed Hargrove would be more of less likely to rescind Hargrove anti-NDP stance and take the CAW back to be supportive of the NDP.

---

It's not a simple question, so there are no answers as straightforward as Stock's question. Here is how I characterise it.

Unions officially supporting the NDP was never as simple or as cut and dried as many people think it was. And it has got less so.

That support, nationally appears to be still pretty straightforward and internally uncontroversial for a few unions- especially Steel and UFCW. But I think its safe to say it is becoming less the rule.

I think the simplest answer to the question would be, that in my opinion, I don't see in the forseeable future the national CAW ever going back to being as officially supportive of the NDP as it was. I'm inclined to think there are lots of good reasons for that- not that my opinion matters.

It's highly unlikely that any potential succesor would go so far as to repudiate Buzz's political games. I think the range would be on one extreme to continue it; the other extreme being to simply drop the Buzz approach, but without even implicitly repudiating it.

Curious to see whether windorworker in particular would more or less agree with that surmise. [Edited To Add: to be explicit, I have always thought Buzz was a diletante lighweight when it comes to politics, and not just because he does not favour the NDP... but that isn't the question. The question is about what a new leader is likely to do, the range of possibilities of that.]

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

What I want to know is whether any of the contenders to succeed Hargrove would be more of less likely to rescind Hargrove anti-NDP stance and take the CAW back to be supportive of the NDP.

---

quote:

---

I have always thought Buzz was a diletante lighweight when it comes to politics, and not just because he does not favour the NDP...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
It's highly unlikely that any potential succesor would go so far as to repudiate Buzz's political games.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
The NDP needs to make some serious changes before that will ever happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Like i said strategic voting is needed until the NDP takes getting a majority goverment seriously!She came very distant third running in an election she had no buissness running in.

---

Actually, what is needed is a fair, proportional voting system that ensures that every Canadian voter can cast a vote that elects someone and that the government issupported by the majority voters.

quote:

---

Terminal thread drift alert!

---

Agreed.

Bottom line: it's not about the NDP. Or: what a new Pres might propose viz the NDP is not even close to a central issue within the CAW.

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Well many do not , in fact Buzz is one of the first people the media seeks out for comments about politics.The fact is the leader does not make the CAW it is the 250 thousand members THAT DO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Why would she run in an election where she would be missing 4 weeks of a campaign ? That not only tells me the NDP riding association in that area is incompetent but that the candidate herself is not credible.Like i said strategic voting is needed until the NDP takes getting a majority goverment seriously!She came very distant third running in an election she had no buissness running in.Now we have Tony Clement as our frikin federal health minister.When is actually caring about Canada and it's future gonna mean somthing to politicians and the people running for elections ? Either way you spin it Scott this is a complete joke .

---

Personally I would like to thank Windsorworker for this passage, particularly the phrase "an election she had no buissness running in."

When read in the context of Scott's explanations of the actual background and circumstances, and the fact that the election in question was a somewhat unpredictable one in terms of timing, the notion that certain people are supposed to just shutup and get out of the way reveals a certain set of attitudes and values with regards to elections and the democratic process. It is, I am assuming, the attitudes and values that prevail among the CAW's cadres of activists and careerists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Speak for yourself. Why are you being so rude? Try giving your opinion. There has been no hostility in this thread and none is needed.

---

I am assuming you're directing this at me.

I am not being rude at all. I am more than a little bit insulted by the really silly idea that we're supposed to accept on faith the notion that a MSM which we are normally more than a little bit suspicious of is always giving us a good steer when it comes to selecting certain spokespersons from labour or the left to appear on TV or the other media. That's really a bizarre idea, to put it as politely as possible.

That's pretty scary about the mandatory arm-twisting caucuses. How is that a free vote? I'm not CAW but my husband is, they heard about this yesterday and all the guys in his shop are totally disgusted.

I like this member's "autocratic" comment:

quote:

---

Circumventing Democracy --

As a member I'd like to see elections for Leader of our Union to be Democratic not Autocratic(ruling without checks and limitations)with no pun intended(Auto!). Anyone who wants to run for the position shoulf be able to do so with some financial assistance from the National Office. Platforms disclosed and political beliefs revealed. Minorities should be encouraged to run for the positon as well. I personally would like to see a more "Participatory Union" in which more responsibility in the day to day operations of our Union is decided by the membership. Read "PARECON" by Professor Michael Albert.

Posted by "Max" at 8:06 AM Friday, July 04 2008

---

quote:

---

The answer is quite simple , first of all Buzz Hargrove made no decisions on his own about CAW support for the NDP, IT WAS A DECISION MADE BY THE PARLIAMENT OF THE CAW which is CAW council and the NEB.

---

It is very naive to say that the decision to support in the last election was not Buzz's alone. The fact is when Buzz made his recommendation the space on the page written by his secretary was blank. Prior too, he was musing to many about a blanket endorsement for Mcguinty and his entire slate of candidates.

The NEB did not vote on a course of action. The NEB has never voted against a single proposal from Buzz in 16 years.

I'm not suggesting Ken Lewenza would be a bad president. I consider Mitic and Lewenza to be the only viable candidates. However the 444 loyalty over the rest of the union disturbs me and many others. For years local 222 was derided for disaffiliating from the NDP by local 444 delegates at provincial councils, etc. When they were throwing Buzz out at council it was Local 222 members who took a pounding warning of the fallout while all the Windsor delegates stayed home.

They all lined up to support Magna though they wanted the ability to strike and democratically select their own leaders for their Magna unit. Too bad for everyone else.

quote:

---

I stongly suspect that Windsorworker, like Buzz himself, is a Liberal, and that he knows what I can only surmise, that the reason the media goes to Buzz for commentaries is for that very reason.

---

[ 05 July 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

quote:

---

And then there is this:
CAW candidate slams Hargrove succession plan

---

quote:

---

in fact Buzz is one of the first people the media seeks out for comments about politics.

---

quote:

---

That is the reason the media seeks him out.

---

That is actually past tense.

They saught his opinion when he was catagorized as 'gadfly within the NDP'. Now Buzz's words are just reported because of his obvious profile.

To be fair, that difference may have a lot to do with the fact the CAW is more internally politicized... seemingly with at least some vocal dissent on everything major.

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
It's funny that Carol comes out now against a system she has supported and participated in for a very long time.Like Buzz says if she was the one being endorsed for the position of treasurer she would be singing a different tune.

---

You have an uncanny ability to regurgitate the official line of His Buzzness. But then again, seeing as how you are seemingly on a first name basis with Comrade Phillips, I could be wrong; maybe your opinion is grounded in an intimate knowledge of her character based on years of close and personal contact and not on your aptitude for mimicking the official line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lev Bronstein:
You have an uncanny ability to regurgitate the official line of His Buzzness. But then again, seeing as how you are seemingly on a first name basis with Comrade Phillips, I could be wrong; maybe your opinion is grounded in an intimate knowledge of her character based on years of close and personal contact and not on your aptitude for mimicking the official line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
I think that's Buzz baiting, not Red baiting.

WW does indeed seem to be essentially defensive of the official position.

---

"Baiting", in this sense, is attacking someone for belonging to an organization, or parroting an official line, etc. Mr. Bronstein didn't say what of WW's opinions in particular he disagreed with, nor did he state his own. He said, in effect: "Ah, you just sound like a typical Liberal/Catholic/Commie/Buzzite", choose your descriptor.

That's how McCarthyism operated. It's also called "ad hominem". But Bronstein's reference to "Comrade Phillips" etc. carried a somewhat more repugnant connotation.

quote:

---

You have an uncanny ability to regurgitate the official line of His Buzzness. But then again, seeing as how you are seemingly on a first name basis with Comrade Phillips, I could be wrong; maybe your opinion is grounded in an intimate knowledge of her character based on years of close and personal contact and not on your aptitude for mimicking the official line.

---

quote:

---

i find it curiously funny to have someone like Carol come out and all of a sudden question the way things are done in the CAW ? She of all people being appointed herself has no right in my opinion to criticize election procedures in the CAW.The system was never criticized by her before until it worked against her.

---

Oh Windsorworker; Where do I start?

There were commitments made following bargaining in 2005 on how the process would work. The process I refer to is picking the next President and Treasurer. The goal posts have been moved several times. Commitments were made to have all interested meet with Buzz in private to see if a consensus could be reached. Next thing you know Jerry Dias is appointed Assistant to the President although there was no new opening. As well Jim O'Neil gets a new Assistant in Bob Orr. The Treasurer has only ever had 0ne. Now Two? It appeared that Buzz was picking the new team. This is something that the new administration should do. I think Carol and Hemi as well as others are quite justified in their problems with how everything has unfolded. Again, broken commitments on how the transition process would work. With the exception of the retiring Bob Chernicki and the newly appointed Dias, Buzz's Assistants have disconnected from most of Buzz's recent decisions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Was there a particular issue surrounding the CAW leadership that you wanted to address, or did you just pop in to red-bait?

---

Unionist,

Actually, yes. But first, I must apologise to all the Babblers out there for my prior post. I recognised the MO of someone I am familiar with and wanted to confirm my suspicions.

On the point of redbaiting, by no means was I using the appellation 'comrade' with any disrespect intended. Buzzite baiting? Without a doubt. This Buzzite in particular I am familiar with and know that the force of the better argument is of no use against him. Habermas would have a stroke. Having said that, I do not intend to further bait this individual now that my hunch has been confirmed.

As for the CAW leadership race and the article on Carol Phillips, I think that there is one point made by Buzz in particular that needs to be addressed. Despite the pretence of the national leadership's position that the candidates will be allowed to make their case to the staff union and NEB, it is a moot point as the decision has been made and the preferred candidates chosen. Buzz all but admitted this in dismissing Phillips as having sour grapes for not being one of the Chosen Ones prior to the staff meeting having taken place

In the way that the succession is playing itself out -- as noted by some here already -- we are seeing precisely the same circumvention of the already-weakened democratic structures that we saw with the introduction of the ‘Framework of Fairness’. This has been written about previously on the Canadian Dimension website. Then it was CAW Council, this time it is next year’s Constitutional Convention. In both cases, the union's leadership is doing everything in its power to cajole and intimidate the future delegates by bringing the local and national leadership into the fold en mass (no doubt with Soviet Union-like approval ratings) allowing them to brand dissenters as disloyal for ignoring the will of the 'membership'. For Buzz, solidarity is not a means to develop the independent capacity of workers to articulate and take responsibility for their collective futures; instead it a way to enforce the decisions made by the union leadership by and for themselves in the name of the rank-and-file.

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
You can suspect and guess all you want , you don't know me . I am an NDP supporter have voted and worked for the NDP during elections since i was a kid (i am now 42). ...

---

Yes, it's true, I can suspect and guess all I want, just as you can. From my POV it's real nice to hear that you're still plugging away for the NDP, but I seem to be getting confused.

Didn't you say earlier that the NDP had to make major changes before you'd consider supporting them again? I thought you said the NDP had no business even running a candidate in ridings where they're not strong enough to actually win the seat. So it's very surprising to hear that you're still a New Democrat activist and supporter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
With Buzz he is always speaking on issues of the day other labour leaders do not want to tackle. He is and has been forefront as a labour leader while some others say and do nothing. That is the reason the media seeks him out.

---

quote:

---

I think the media come to Buzz because he's a Liberal, until recently pretending to be a militant socialist on the far left of the NDP, and they knew that if they came to Buzz they'd be guaranteed to get something that would make life more difficult for the NDP.

---

A complicated hypothesis that does not hold water against the straightforward one. The media has always liked commentators identified with a party who are known to not just parrot the party spin of the moment. Like Kinsella for the Liberals, Hugh Segal for the Conservatives, and before 2006, Buzz Hargrove.

And you are ignoring the fact that despite what windsorworker says, the media rarely, if ever, come to him any more for general political commentary.

[ 06 July 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Didn't you say earlier that the NDP had to make major changes before you'd consider supporting them again?

---

quote:

---

There were commitments made following bargaining in 2005 on how the process would work. The process I refer to is picking the next President and Treasurer. The goal posts have been moved several times. Commitments were made to have all interested meet with Buzz in private to see if a consensus could be reached. Next thing you know Jerry Dias is appointed Assistant to the President although there was no new opening. As well Jim O'Neil gets a new Assistant in Bob Orr. The Treasurer has only ever had 0ne. Now Two? It appeared that Buzz was picking the new team. This is something that the new administration should do. I think Carol and Hemi as well as others are quite justified in their problems with how everything has unfolded. Again, broken commitments on how the transition process would work. With the exception of the retiring Bob Chernicki and the newly appointed Dias, Buzz's Assistants have disconnected from most of Buzz's recent decisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
I said the CAW not me personally. But if Joe Comartin was not my MP in my riding then it could be a different story for me personally as well.

---

Well, I guess that means your NDP attachment level is pretty low, and that you too think the party needs really major (unspecified) changes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
A complicated hypothesis that does not hold water against the straightforward one. The media has always liked commentators identified with a party who are known to not just parrot the party spin of the moment. Like Kinsella for the Liberals, Hugh Segal for the Conservatives, and before 2006, Buzz Hargrove.

And you are ignoring the fact that despite what windsorworker says, the media rarely, if ever, come to him any more for general political commentary.

---

Buzz's currency may have been depleted through over-utlization in 2004 and 2006, and now because of his impending retirement.

I really don't notice the media in general picking commentators who will do a complete denunciation of what is, ostensibly, their own party. I really don't follow Warren Kinsella's ramblings so I don't know where he's at right now in his "vote for X" recommendations, though it's been apparent for the last couple of years that he didn't much like the Martinites and is not entirely ill-disposed towards Harper. However, when do I hear or see Kinsella on CBC? Never.

quote:

---

Please tell me what appointing a new assistant has to do with Lewenza ,Metic and Collins running for president .Again it's amazing to me past appointees would have a problem with new appointees.

---

Why would you appoint people to assistant positions that NEVER EXISTED when you are preparing for a leadership transition? Windsorworker, if you are in support of the tradition of the CAW/UAW then this breaks the mould. All new administrations got to pick their new team not get stuck with new appointments from the outgoing administration. Unless they are so confident that they put their people in place ahead of time. It is just bizarre and left many people scratching their heads.

quote:

---

Why would you appoint people to assistant positions that NEVER EXISTED when you are preparing for a leadership transition?

---

quote:

---

All new administrations got to pick their new team not get stuck with new appointments from the outgoing administration.

---

[ 06 July 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kim Clout:
It's obvious that this site is filled with people who think the NDP is the 'Be all and end all', and that Hargrove may infact be Satan himself, ...

---

As you well know, no one has said "satan" except you. I just think Buzz is obviously a Liberal party hack, and I am glad the Ontario NDP revoked his membership. As long as he was officially an NDP member, he was able to create substantial trouble for the party with his media interviews and phoney "vote strategic" recommendations. Now everyone knows what side he's on and the damage is minimized.

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
It's funny that Carol comes out now against a system she has supported and participated in for a very long time.Like Buzz says if she was the one being endorsed for the position of treasurer she would be singing a different tune.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I think it's pretty sad that Phillips talked to the Star about this, and equal sad that Hargrove appears to have replied in the media.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
As for "arm-twisting", it sounds like exactly what happens in my union, only more formalized. In the final analysis, we have a secret ballot, so I'm not sure how you can "twist" that. I assume the CAW president is chosen by secret ballot at convention? That's how it is with us. I know some unions (notably IAM) have secret full-membership ballots for all positions, even international president.

---

quote:

---

I'm a little unclear about the CAW process. Who votes in the "secret ballot"? I didn't think there was one at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
In the caucus meetings it is and has been done by a show of hands but when the convention is called the vote IS done by secret ballot .

---

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

The CLC caucuses elect their reps using a secret ballot. Or they did this year.

The plus side of a show of hands is that it forces people to put their money where there mouth is. The down side is if people feel intimidated they won't vote their conscience.

quote:

---

CAW President announces retirement for this September
TORONTO, July 8 /CNW/ - CAW President Buzz Hargrove announced his early
retirement this morning at a meeting of the union's national executive board,
the rank-and-file leadership body of the union. The board is meeting this
morning to endorse candidates for both the national presidential and
secretary-treasurer positions.
Hargrove will step down following a constitutional convention to be held
mid-September at the latest. At the convention, 800 delegates from local
unions across the country will vote by secret ballot on Hargrove's successor
to lead the CAW.
Details of Hargrove's retirement will be released during this afternoon's
press conference.

<<
Today: 3:30 p.m.
Kenora Room, 2nd floor
Sheraton Centre, 123 Queen Street West
Toronto, ON
>>

---

To answer your question Unionist, we vote by secret ballot.

Reuters: CAW Executive Board Endorses Lewenza

quote:

---

TORONTO, July 8 (Reuters) - Canadian Auto Workers union executives endorsed local leader Ken Lewenza for the job of national president on Tuesday, making him the front-runner to replace outgoing head Buzz Hargrove.

Lewenza, who for the past 14 years has been president of CAW Local 444, which includes the Chrysler minivan plant in Windsor, Ontario, will now run for election at the union's constitutional convention later this year.

"I'm proud to announce that Ken Lewenza is the candidate," Hargrove said at a press conference.

The CAW represents more than 250,000 workers across several industry groups, including about 60,000 in the auto sector.

---

quote:

---

when a CAW local elects a president or other executive officer, is it show of hands at a meeting, or secret ballot

---

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Mycrofytthe executive does not decide the convention decides.Anyone can still run if they so choose.And yes it was unanimous.

---

If the other candidates have withdrawn then the convention will decide from a list of one.

quote:

---

If the other candidates have withdrawn then the convention will decide from a list of one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
So is this the first time in democracys history that someone has ran uncontested in an election

---

Not the first time. It's only 50 years since there was last an acclamation to the House of Commons.

You have to admit, it would be more democratic if, on the occasion of an old leader stepping down, the membership had the opportunity to choose between serious contenders with different ideas. It would have been more democratic had the NEB decided not to "endorse" anyone but thrown it open to the membership.

Willie Lambert tried to run against Buzz last time and you'd think that with all the upset within the union with the leadership's policy changes it would have been a good opportunity for a debate and a vote but not one person had the guts to stand up and agree to nominate Lambert. No one even was willing to nominate him out of a desire for a healthy democratic debate even if they weren't going to support him. To me that suggests that there is a great resistance within the CAW to rocking the boat and going against the leadership lest ye end up being frozen out. I don't think that's very healthy.

Look at the Magna debate where, despite the massive SEIU-type sell out only a handful of people were willing to stand up at the convention and say what they thought.

And what about this mechanism of stopping debate at large meeting by basically forcing individuals to abide by the majority decision at the smaller caucus meetings? This means that a minority view will be silenced and never make it to the floor even if it represents a substantial number of union members.

It's not a conspiracy theory to say that the CAW leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to healthy democratic discussion and decision making.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
At suppertime CTV's Dan Matheson asked Buzz if the rumours were true, that he's going to run for politics, and Buzz said, "no, I'm a socialist, and no one has asked me to run for them".

---

quote:

---

You have to admit, it would be more democratic if, on the occasion of an old leader stepping down, the membership had the opportunity to choose between serious contenders with different ideas. It would have been more democratic had the NEB decided not to "endorse" anyone but thrown it open to the membership.

---

quote:

---

So who wants to bet that Buzz will have a seat on Magna's Board of Directors within two years?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
At suppertime CTV's Dan Matheson asked Buzz if the rumours were true, that he's going to run for politics, and Buzz said, "no, I'm a socialist, and no one has asked me to run for them".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
So is this the first time in democracys history that someone has ran uncontested in an election ?Like i said someone could be nominated at the convention or can throw thier hat in the ring in the months leading to the convention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

So who wants to bet that Buzz will have a seat on Magna's Board of Directors within two years?

---

quote:

---

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

---

Who did the NDP executive endorse to be its leader prior to the 2003 leadership convention? Oddly, I thought the party left it to the members to decide. I wasn't aware that the federal executive had whittled down the contestants to one and then let the members "decide".

As for unions, I believe the Teamsters had contested elections in which the rank and file actually cast ballots and chose between candidates. I also recall a contested election to be head of the USW in Ontario.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
That question was put to Buzz at the press conference , if he would take a job with a corporation ...he emphatically said NEVER.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
despite the massive SEIU-type sell out

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
?? I'm confused about this comment. Don't derail the thread but what are you refering to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
the executive does not decide the convention decides. Anyone can still run if they so choose. And yes it was unanimous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Long thread! Start anew.

---

quote:

---

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

---

Smokey Thomas, David Rappaport and Nancy Pridham ran to succeed Leah Casselman as OPSEU president - the executive didn't endorse anyone and the election was decided at convention on the second ballot.