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   » Labor bosses don't share workers' pain

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Labor bosses don't share workers' pain
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 16 August 2007 06:04 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Michigan's biggest unions represented 60,000 fewer workers in 2006 compared with 2002. While membership plummeted 14 percent, jobs at union halls remained safe, dropping less than 1 percent.

Labor bosses don't share workers' pain


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 August 2007 07:17 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So? What's your point?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 16 August 2007 07:22 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is not sustainable.

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 August 2007 07:45 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The article is interesting. The union movement in the U.S. is on its knees, yet the gap in earnings between top leaders and average members seems vastly greater than in Canada, where unions represent about twice as great a proportion of the workforce. From the article:

quote:
The University of Maryland's Morici believes most top union officials are working hard for organized labor, not themselves. He pointed to John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, the labor umbrella organization which has nearly 10 million members. His total compensation topped $291,000 last year, including a salary of nearly $250,000. A CEO with similar responsibilities would typically make several times that amount.

"You can say what you want about these people, but they're not greedy," he said.

Then, he suggested a caveat for organized labor: "Nobody should make more than John Sweeney."

Nationwide, more than 100 others did. In Michigan, only Mabry and Battaglieri reached Sweeney's pay grade. But more than four dozen make more than $150,000, including three Teamsters, eight from the UFCW, 12 from the UAW, and 18 from the MEA, the state's largest teacher union.

Labor Notes' Brenner recently suggested a $100,000 salary cap for union officials, saying unions could save millions of dollars that could be better spent on organizing.


I'll check the Labor Notes reference. I have tremendous respect for that newsletter and its work over many years.

You have to compare apples with apples. Base salary isn't a good enough comparator, because union staffers don't generally get paid overtime. On the other hand, union staffers may receive taxable benefits that are just as good as income. But the bottom line is that any union which pays its leaders five times as much as the average member is looking for trouble.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 August 2007 07:48 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree about the wages. But what I don't get is, why should we be resentful about staffing levels? Surely you can't cut union staffing levels by the same percentage as membership, can you?

I wasn't reacting to the pay scale. I agree that union leaders should not be making many times more than the workers.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 August 2007 08:34 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I agree about the wages. But what I don't get is, why should we be resentful about staffing levels? Surely you can't cut union staffing levels by the same percentage as membership, can you?

Oh, I agree with you completely. That wasn't the focus of the article at all, although it was the part that CUPE_Reformer chose to highlight. Sorry, I missed that totally until you mentioned it - I went straight to the link.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 16 August 2007 09:40 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure why we need to discuss what is happening with union leaders in a foreign country. As a staff rep with a uion, I am a member of my own union and we bargain a collective agreement with our employer.

If there's something wrong with that, tell me what it is CR.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 16 August 2007 10:39 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by munroe
quote:

I'm not sure why we need to discuss what is happening with union leaders in a foreign country. As a staff rep with a uion, I am a member of my own union and we bargain a collective agreement with our employer.

If there's something wrong with that, tell me what it is CR.



munroe:

What happens to labour movements in other countries can affect the labour movement in Canada.

I support staff unions.


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 16 August 2007 11:29 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe staff unions are the right answer however those agreements do not generally cover the leadership of the union because they are in fact management. Unfortunately it leads sometimes to members of unions being pissed that the people who work for them get paid more than they do for similar work. I have always thought that unions should strive to be the best employers so of course their employees should be at the top of industry standards.

The article seems to be talking more about renumeration to elected officials rather than staff. I think that a leader of a union should receive the equivalent salary and benefits of the top classification and category in the collective agreements they are reasponsible for and no more. Many of our unions do use this as a measure for renumerating elected officials.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 August 2007 11:48 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I think that a leader of a union should receive the equivalent salary and benefits of the top classification and category in the collective agreements they are reasponsible for and no more.

I agree for elected officials, with possibly a premium to compensate for average lost overtime, depending on the norm in that sector. In my experience workers get no pleasure out of seeing a union leader earn less per year than they do. Nor do they want them to approach CEO status.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 16 August 2007 03:41 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Most of the elected leadership I deal with are "booked off" for their time (ie same wages etc.). The full-time people have their wages decided and voted on by Convention. The Convention is grass-roots and democratic.

What is the problem here in Canada? Why are issues from a foreign country invading a perception of unions?

Look, I'm a professional with decades of experience who could sell my soul to the employer for many times my pay. My bosses are not gold diggers and chose to be part of their class at a price.

Importing shit from the US about a movement hat is in trouble is without any merit.

How can I say this as directly as possible - this is not the US, the culture is totally different, reps are union members who negotiate conditions and elected leaders are compensated through democratic forums.

This is a non-issue in CANADA - where we happen to live.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 16 August 2007 04:13 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hear Hear Brother
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 16 August 2007 06:25 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So what I get here is that union leaders make a pile-o-money from union membership dues, paid by people in well paying jobs. All well and good. When's the last time we heard of a union extending their umbrella into areas of the workforce where people toil in servitude conditions, with no tenure, benefits, or representation, against mega profit industries. Unions struggled greatly for what they have, but can it be that comfortable complacency shields union leaders from the sight of people within their own in communities that work for companies that hold all the cards.
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 17 August 2007 12:54 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:
So what I get here is that union leaders make a pile-o-money from union membership dues, paid by people in well paying jobs. All well and good. When's the last time we heard of a union extending their umbrella into areas of the workforce where people toil in servitude conditions, with no tenure, benefits, or representation, against mega profit industries. Unions struggled greatly for what they have, but can it be that comfortable complacency shields union leaders from the sight of people within their own in communities that work for companies that hold all the cards.


Hardly fair - I've seen a lot of attempts to unionize workplaces like that, some successful and others not. I've also been involved in a lot of union funded advocacy and other work for higher minimum wage, better working conditions etc. (Make Poverty History, among others)


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 17 August 2007 05:02 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by munroe
quote:

This is a non-issue in CANADA - where we happen to live.



munroe:

Similar words can be written about the following popular babble topic:

SEIU, Allies Ponder Split from AFL-CIO


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 August 2007 05:06 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
Similar words can be written about the following popular babble topic:

SEIU, Allies Ponder Split from AFL-CIO


Indeed. As predicted, two years later, the much-touted split in the already dysfunctional U.S. union movement has had no visible impact in Canada.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 17 August 2007 08:42 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:
When's the last time we heard of a union extending their umbrella into areas of the workforce where people toil in servitude conditions, with no tenure, benefits, or representation, against mega profit industries.

McDonalds Saga Squamish

Walmart's Anti-unionism
Starbucks Too?

I guess you missed some of these campaigns.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 17 August 2007 09:29 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:
When's the last time we heard of a union extending their umbrella into areas of the workforce where people toil in servitude conditions, with no tenure, benefits, or representation, against mega profit industries.

The UFCW and other unions, including the IWA, having been unionizing tourism industry workers in BC for years now.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 17 August 2007 11:30 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But the bottom line is that any union which pays its leaders five times as much as the average member is looking for trouble.

Surely, though, the size of the union is important too? I mean, $150,000.00 is the salary of a mid-level government bureaucrat, and a lower-middle level managerial person in private industry.

If someone is making strategic decisions for tens of thousands of people, why should they make only 5% of what CEO's make?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 17 August 2007 11:32 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Because one of the things most leftists decry is the fact that most CEOs make obscene amounts of money compared to their workers. Why would we want to emulate that in our labour movements?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 August 2007 11:40 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Surely, though, the size of the union is important too? I mean, $150,000.00 is the salary of a mid-level government bureaucrat, and a lower-middle level managerial person in private industry.

If someone is making strategic decisions for tens of thousands of people, why should they make only 5% of what CEO's make?


jeff, I never used the figure $150,000. I said 5 times the average member's salary. As for the CEO issue, Michelle's post is right on.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 17 August 2007 12:22 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think labour leaders should make the same as CEO's because I agree that CEO's make too much.

But I think the leaders of big unions should make at least as much as members of Parliament, at least. They are elected officials with huge responsibilities.

A basic MP's salary is $147,000, plus quite a lot of perks and tax free benefits.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas Hughes
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14342

posted 17 August 2007 11:51 PM      Profile for Nicholas Hughes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can only speak of my union, the Brewery, Winery, Distillery Workers' Union, Local 300 -or more rightly the union I was ousted from earlier this year (after some 37 years); it seems the president, Roy Graham doesn't appreciate me raising concerns such as the exhorbitant amounts of membership money being funneled into the pockets of the union's representative law firm.

Nonetheless, it was recently revealed to me by a member close to the union that our former Business Agent, Chuck Puchmayr, on his last day in office had purchased a brand new set of tires for his truck -billed, of course, to the union.

That's what I would call 'milking it' for all it's worth, extracting every last nickel to be had from the members' hard-earned dues. Good one, Charlie!

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Nicholas Hughes ]


From: Out In Left Field | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 18 August 2007 08:43 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I haven't looked at this thread for a few days, but two questions require comment.

First, the wages of fulltime elected people in B.C. (with whom I am familiar) are not close to $150,000 a year.

Secondly, where the idea that unions are not organising amongst the most exploited comes from is a mystery. The union I am employed by last year organized about 2000 workers, the vast majority of whom I would put in that category. The best example is amongst call centre workers toiling near the minimum wage, many of whom were casuals.

There are many low wage ghettoes out there that need attention and building to "critical mass" in any industry is very, very tough particularly given the right-wing orientation of the current law. I am just constantly amazed at the commitment of staff, activists and elected officials who put their hearts and souls into making a difference.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 19 August 2007 04:13 AM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The union I am employed by last year organized about 2000 workers, the vast majority of whom I would put in that category. The best example is amongst call centre workers toiling near the minimum wage, many of whom were casuals.

Interesting. Can you spell Bangalore?

[ 19 August 2007: Message edited by: abnormal ]


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 August 2007 04:30 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by abnormal:

Interesting. Can you spell Bangalore?


I can: B-A-N-G-A-L-O-R-E.

Yeah, munroe, are you sure your union's on the right track here? Maybe instead of organizing call centre workers, we should be lobbying to reduce the minimum wage so that we can be more competitive internationally.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 19 August 2007 04:43 AM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nah. You should just lobby to move all minimum wage jobs out of Canada.

All sarcasm aside (and I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment) but the likely result of unionizing call centre workers is to see those jobs moved outside the country. Classic example of the law of unintended consequences.

[ 19 August 2007: Message edited by: abnormal ]


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 19 August 2007 07:34 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The UAW president earned just more than $156,000 in total compensation that year; Potter, in his last full year as president of UFCW Local 951, made $305,000.

Pay gap divides labor chiefs


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 August 2007 07:42 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by abnormal:
All sarcasm aside (and I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment) but the likely result of unionizing call centre workers is to see those jobs moved outside the country.

Businesses that can't function with unionized workforces, or who can't be viable by paying the minimum wage, should be driven into bankruptcy or relocation. I'd leave them the choice.

Same with businesses that can't turn a profit if they're forced to obey safety and environmental laws, or forced to pay women the same as men for work of equal value.

Canada has high standards. If we need to tolerate a little bit more unemployment for a while in order to defend those standards, I'm quite confident we'll manage.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 19 August 2007 08:28 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's worth noting that the unionised call centre I referenced continues to operate, now under the terms of a collective agreement.

The greatest problem right now in B.C. is with contractors in sectors that can't leave - health care in particular. Thanks to a gap in the Labour Code and grace period allowed by the SCC in the Bill 29 case, private operators of long term care homes have been cancelling contracts for services with operators if they are organised and handing the contracts to non-union companies. About 800 workers have been displaced.

CUPE R would be doing us a service worrying less about the pay of labour leaders in the States and more about the need to publisize the gross mistreatment of workers by "entrepeneurs" and their right wing governments.

For Abnormal, are you suggesting the labour movement SHOULD NOT organize workers if there is a chance the companies will flee off-shore? If so, we have a very big disagreement.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 19 August 2007 10:49 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by munroe
quote:

CUPE R would be doing us a service worrying less about the pay of labour leaders in the States and more about the need to publisize the gross mistreatment of workers by "entrepeneurs" and their right wing governments.



munroe:

I have already done that.

Compass cancels contracts over arbitrated settlements


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas Hughes
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14342

posted 19 August 2007 10:46 PM      Profile for Nicholas Hughes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
munroe wrote:
quote:
The union I am employed by last year organized about 2000 workers, the vast majority of whom I would put in that category. The best example is amongst call centre workers toiling near the minimum wage, many of whom were casuals.
Hey munroe, can you let me know if that's the same outfit (somewhere in Surrey?) that's represented by the BCGEU? If so, can you put me in touch with them? I'd be interested in that type of work. Post it here or PM me if you can provide me with some info.

Thanks.


From: Out In Left Field | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 20 August 2007 03:27 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You missed the real issue CR. Glad to see you picked up a bit, but here's one article and there are many more. The HEU website is outdated, it misses another 100 in the fraser valley at "Eden" retirement home.

If you'd keep your eye on the real issues and forget trying to disparage unions in Canada or incorporate foreign info as our burden, it would be really useful.

Seems to me Unionist has your agenda down pat. Has your sub to the Western Standard expired?


http://tinyurl.com/3az

[ 20 August 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 20 August 2007 09:14 PM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by munroe
quote:

If you'd keep your eye on the real issues and forget trying to disparage unions in Canada or incorporate foreign info as our burden, it would be really useful.

Seems to me Unionist has your agenda down pat. Has your sub to the Western Standard expired?



munroe:

I am subscribed to both CUPE Today and the Hospital Employee's Union Newsletter e-mailing lists.

I want to make unions stronger by reforming them. The right-wing wants to weaken unions.

[ 20 August 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 21 August 2007 01:31 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I accept your position to a point and on its face, but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating.

I've only been around for a few months, but all I've seen is posts about human foibles by union elected leaders. The most recent had no application in Canada. Further nothing you post with but, "see here" stuff without comment, analysis or any identification.

I don't believe for a moment you're tring to "reform" anything. If you are prove it with discussion.

[ 21 August 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 21 August 2007 08:22 PM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by munroe
quote:

I've only been around for a few months, but all I've seen is posts about human foibles by union elected leaders.



munroe:

I am trying to convince people that unions need to be reformed. I don't have all of the answers. Union reform is usually uncharted.


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 August 2007 02:40 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't "labour bosses" or "union bosses" a key phrase of neo-cons? It certainly was during the Mike Harris nonsense revolution.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 22 August 2007 04:07 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is and it always has been and it certainly predates the neo-cons. It is a favoured trick of the media propagandists which is to apply a little Orwellian newspeak to subject upon which the media has great disdain. So, union leaders, representing workers in front of employers, become the very thing they are not: bosses, Union Bosses.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443

posted 22 August 2007 04:52 AM      Profile for 1234567     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why not have revolving union bosses? In a union, everyone should know what's going on, what the goal of the union is and so why not make it so that everyone who chooses and has the ability can also be a union boss. Now that would be a true union.
From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 August 2007 05:03 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 1234567:
Why not have revolving union bosses? In a union, everyone should know what's going on, what the goal of the union is and so why not make it so that everyone who chooses and has the ability can also be a union boss. Now that would be a true union.

No, it would be a social club without any life-or-death business to keep it busy. Unions are more important than that. People have different skills and levels of dedication. Workers should participate actively and elect the best for the job.

The question of how leaders are accountable to the members between elections is one that definitely should always be on the agenda, and forms explored to make that effective - as is the case for society as a whole. But simply throwing out leaders once they're trained isn't a satisfactory solution.

Ask any union member if she would like the person sitting next to her in the lunchroom to be the leader of fighting for her rights and interests. She will either say "yes" or "no" - depending on who it is. And so it should be.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443

posted 22 August 2007 09:09 AM      Profile for 1234567     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I get it. I know some people who aren't into politics etc at all, they are mostly women, mothers who don't have the time and energy. But they are grateful to be in a union.
From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 22 August 2007 11:06 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
1234567,

Just a brief note on your "revolving" leadership question. Either the Confederartion of Canadian Unions (CCU) or some of its major affiliates had "term limits" at one time (may still, I'm not sure). The theory was that it was good for the leadership to go back to the "tools" from time to time. I know leaders in the Carpenters who have voluntarily done this as well.

There are, in my opinion, both strengths and weaknesses to this approach. I think Unionist has provided a good analysis. I would add that labour relations has changed in the past decades and become much more complex and "legalistic". I am not defending this evolution (devolution?) but it is a fact of life.

Perhaps we should have heeded Shakespeare and killed all the lawyers. Always handy to have a scapegoat, though.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  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