Second, we should not be raiding each other, or wasting our resources in fighting with each other. There are so many unorganized workers out there that every Union could be very busy for a long time trying to organize them, rather than raiding each other. When Unions fight with each other over workers who are already organized, the only winners are the companies that are not organized as we are too busy fighting to help thier workers form a Union.

Lastly, the above does not apply to CLAC, as they are not a Union, they are an employer ploy to keep real Unions out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by shitdisturber:
I would like to inform all the CAW workers who believe they can or could do a better job in the food industry that they should view the film "Roger and Me". Just goes to show what a cowardly union could do for all those unfortunate members in Flint Michigan. Good job guys.

---

Um, you know that the auto workers in Flint were represented by the UAW, not the CAW, right?

Michael Moore, the director of "Roger and Me," has been a strong supporter of the CAW over the years.

EYE Magazine: Michael Moore & the CAW

I am not sure what any of this has to do with the food industry, though. Or the UFCW. Perhaps you could explain?

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

I am not sure what any of this has to do with the food industry, though. Or the UFCW. Perhaps you could explain?

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by slimpikins:

Second, we should not be raiding each other, or wasting our resources in fighting with each other. There are so many unorganized workers out there that every Union could be very busy for a long time trying to organize them, rather than raiding each other. When Unions fight with each other over workers who are already organized, the only winners are the companies that are not organized as we are too busy fighting to help thier workers form a Union.

---

quote:

---

When Unions fight with each other over workers who are already organized, the only winners are the companies that are not organized as we are too busy fighting to help thier workers form a Union.

---

The above organized workers might obtain significantly better union representation. Union members are not the property of unions.

Why does Loblaws want many of its employees to be members of the UFCW?

[ 26 August 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
Originally posted by slimpikins
slimpikins:

The above organized workers might obtain significantly better union representation.

---

They might, or might not.

That said, do you dispute that union organizing efforts generally would be better aimed at organizing and recruiting new workers?

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Well, the CAW did merge with the 22,000 member Retail Wholesale Canada union in 1999.

---

quote:

---

That said, do you dispute that union organizing efforts generally would be better aimed at organizing and recruiting new workers?

---

Yes I do. Union organizing efforts generally would be better aimed at organizing/mobilizing the more than 3 million Canadian and 13 million American union members. When Canadian and American unions are significantly more democratic tens of millions of non-union workers will join them.

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

For those of us who live in poverty because of our provincial wcb's wsia we will learn how to find the supports we need for workers. We can do nothing else. I had hoped to find it here, but unfortunately it was ridiculed. Real Life,Real Living, is apparently not a part of this forum. Only the Big Unions have a speaking space, but those of us who were once covered under the Unions, Cupe, Caw etc., were left without any voice for our injustitices.

---

Advocate finds specialists WCB reinstates injured worker

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
When Canadian and American unions are significantly more democratic tens of millions of non-union workers will join them.

---

On what do you base this assumption? I see no evidence that workers are not joining unions because they're concerned about "union democracy". Most folks that I've met who've never belonged to a union have no idea how unions operate in the first place. (Nor would they - it's not like that stuff is taught in highschool.)

EDIT: Furthermore, raiding other unions will not assist in "democratizing" the labour movement in any event. Do you believe the CAW is an inherently more democratic union than the UFCW, for instance? (Or any other union?) Do you believe that changing representation will assist in making either the decertified union or the newly certified union more democratic?

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burns:
And by "merge" you mean raid.

---

quote:

---

On what do you base this assumption? I see no evidence that workers are not joining unions because they're concerned about "union democracy".

EDIT: Furthermore, raiding other unions will not assist in "democratizing" the labour movement in any event. Do you believe the CAW is an inherently more democratic union than the UFCW, for instance? (Or any other union?) Do you believe that changing representation will assist in making either the decertified union or the newly certified union more democratic?

---

Democratic unions are more effective than undemocratic unions. The more effective unions are the more non-union workers will join them.

Competition in the marketplace usually benefits consumers. More unions competing for union members can benefit union members. The corrupt and ineffective unions will be replaced by the democratic and effective unions.

I believe that the CAW is inherently more democratic than the UFCW.

CAW Public Review Board

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

No, workers are not the 'property' of thier Unions. The Union is the property of the workers. And as a Union member, I would much rather see my dues dollars go toward organizing the unorganized in my industry to help push up wages and increase benefits and better working conditions. This is a much better thing to spend resources on than going after workers who are already represented, regardless of what I think about the Union that represents them.

It just now struck me about the title of this thread. The whole mindset of worker versus worker is the problem here. A much more productive thread title would be 'Unionized workers vs. anti-Union corporations'. That is the real battle.

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: slimpikins ]

quote:

---

And as a Union member, I would much rather see my dues dollars go toward organizing the unorganized in my industry to help push up wages and increase benefits and better working conditions. This is a much better thing to spend resources on than going after workers who are already represented, regardless of what I think about the Union that represents them.

---

How do you feel about your union dues being spent to sue UFCW reformers?

MFD Sued by 'Voice for Working America'

UFCW Local 1518 2003 Elections

UFCW Local 1518 Election Results (2003)

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

As for sueing MFD, I have absolutely no problem with my dues going to that worthy cause. As a matter of fact, I would happily write a check for that purpose.

I stumbled on MFD once, and registered and posted there for a while. Let's just say that I was fooled by the 'democracy' part of the name. Any time that I said anything good about my Union, I was attacked by most people there, including someone with the nick CUPE Reformer. Same person? Probably, but who cares?

Without getting into a long, drawn out discussion about MFD (if anyone cares, go to the site. I won't post a link to that crap here), let me just say that it is the only 'Union' site where the moderates want to weaken Unions and the militants want to abolish them.

[ 26 August 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Gir Draxon: I would leave my congregation the day I find out my minister signs a union card

---

Uh, Gir, ... this forum is for people who are sympathetic to working people. "Discuss work and economic issues from a pro-worker point of view" is how it is described. And unions are an inseparable part of the history of working people, from the time unions were treated as criminal organizations to today when unions represent millions of working Canadians in their relations with their employer(s). So please leave your obvious antagonism to self-defence organizations of working people at the door, OK?

Seriously, though, I think Gir had a point with his post. The CAW represents a very wide range of workers. Some seem to have nothing to do with the auto industry, while some seem to be in a bit of a conflict with it.

For example, the bus drivers at TransLink (the Lower Mainland transit authority) were on strike for four months in 2001. They're part of CAW. Isn't there a bit of a conflict in a union whose members predominantly build cars also representing people who drive buses?

"Uh, okay, maybe it's a bit inconvenient for transit users in Vancouver, but we notice auto sales are up a bit, so there's not really any rush for you guys to resolve your labour dispute. Take your time!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

I often am puzzled when large unions like CAW start getting members from completely unrelated industries, such as United Church clergy (fortunately, only a few have signed cards. I would leave my congregation the day I find out my minister signs a union card). Where does "auto worker" figure into their job description?

---

quote:

---

obscurantist: Well, I would leave my union the day I found out that the shop steward had joined the United Church.

---

Why would you discriminate against a union/union officer over a matter that it is illegal to discriminate against were you an employer? That's an astoundingly poor understanding of unions. Besides which, many unions in Europe, for example, are religiously founded unions.

quote:

---

Seriously, though, I think Gir had a point with his post. The CAW represents a very wide range of workers. Some seem to have nothing to do with the auto industry, while some seem to be in a bit of a conflict with it.

---

A union is not a business even if there are some unions criticized for being "business" unions. Unions are democratic organizations and are perfectly entitled to look wider for members to represent. Those who are opposed to increased union membership, of course, want no part of that.

quote:

---

For example, the bus drivers at TransLink (the Lower Mainland transit authority) were on strike for four months in 2001. They're part of CAW. Isn't there a bit of a conflict in a union whose members predominantly build cars also representing people who drive buses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by obscurantist:
Well, I would leave my union the day I found out that the shop steward had joined the United Church.

---

I meant that as a joke.

quote:

---

Gir Draxon: I would leave my congregation the day I find out my minister signs a union card

---

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

quote:

---

MFD isn't a 'reformer' group. It is blatantly anti Union, specificaly anti UFCW. I often check the site out to have a good laugh. It is what would happen if the National Enquirer and the Republican party had a baby.

Without getting into a long, drawn out discussion about MFD (if anyone cares, go to the site. I won't post a link to that crap here), let me just say that it is the only 'Union' site where the moderates want to weaken Unions and the militants want to abolish them.

---

Sharyn Sigurdur (MfD candidate for UFCW Local 1518 Secretary-Treasurer) received 1122 votes in 2003. I have never seen any criticism of Communist led or radical unions, in the MfD forums.

[ 23 November 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

obscurantist: I meant that as a joke.

---

[joke] blah blah [/joke]

or you could do this:

blah blah [/joke]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shitdisturber:
CAW/UAW (Same thing, as both their dues reach the same office)

---

That's just not true. The CAW quite famously broke from their US counterpart 20 years ago. Sam Gindin wrote a comprehensive history of the CAW, which is worth reading. You might particularly check out Chapter 8, which is titled "Breaking Away."

The CAW is also currently celebrating the anniversary of their independence with a Member's Photo Journalism project, which is prominently linked from the front page of the CAW website.

quote:

---

Originally posted by shitdisturber:
feeble attempt [by CAW] to take over our existing warehouse in Cambridge Ontario.

---

I don't really understand a whole lot about the issues at your warehouse (Maplegrove, I presume). I do recall hearing on another thread that you held a vote last year, which the UFCW won. I usually have faith in the democratic decisions of workers, so I would like to believe there must have been some good reasons why you chose to stay with the UFCW rather than switching to the CAW. Although from what you've said so far, I am not sure how much you guys really knew about the CAW before you made your choice.

Also, I still am not sure I really understand what you are getting at with your posts here, s-d. I thought the members at Maplegrove had voted on which union they wished to belong to. Are the CAW supporters organizing for a new vote?

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shitdisturber:
For those of you that were wondering about my comments regarding the CAW/UAW (Same thing, as both their dues reach the same office),

---

No, they really don't.

EDIT: Snark removed, as Robbie (as always) says things better and more diplomatically than I can.

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

Herman Rosenfeld, "Reflections on on the Birth of the Canadian Auto Workers," LABOR NOTES (August 2005)

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

1. CAW does a good job at organizing and abandoning. They promise you the world, then fail to deliver, but only after they have you down as an affiliate.

2. I believe also that the CAW doesn't use the term "raid", I believe it talks about "liberating" people. They've done a great job in the warehousing sector in the lower mainland.... of bringing the wages down to McDonald's and other fast food chain levels. They've achieved this largely through "liberating" warehouses from other unions, or signing friendly "voluntary recognition agreements" allowing companies to undercut good paying contracts. Once again I can think of 2 to 3 separate instances in the Lower Mainland where this has occurred. They also do a good job at keeping the union to a "workplace" level, not really letting people know what's going on at the local, provincial or national level, unless you ask alot of questions, no one's going to tell you anything.

3. MFD, isn't just specifically anti UFCW, its actually anti any international union. One of its biggest contributors is a gentleman by the name of Hugh Finnamore. Google that name sometime and look at the damage he did within the grocery sector, and to people employed within it. As a matter of fact, on the MFD website is a few of his writings on various subjects, and I believe an interview with him. Makes you cringe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by keglerdave:
Sorry, I almost forgot, I thought that Retail Wholesale are affiliated with the ILWU (International Longshoreman and Warehouseman Union). At least out here on the west coast I believe they are.

---

Yes, I forgot about that. On the west coast there is another Retail Wholesale Union which is affiliated with the longshore workers, rather than either the CAW or the UFCW. What happened is there used to be a much bigger international union called the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) which split up into several pieces in the mid to late 1980s. Oddly, the majority of the members of the old union actually wound up in the UFCW. But most of the eastern Canadian workers ended up joining the CAW (after a brief affiliation with the steelworkers), and the western Canadian workers joined the ILWU. There was also a bunch of New York health care and pharmacy workers who joined the SEIU. I've been looking around the web for a comprehensive history of how this all went down but I haven't found one yet.

quote:

---

I believe also that the CAW doesn't use the term "raid", I believe it talks about "liberating" people. They've done a great job in the warehousing sector in the lower mainland.... of bringing the wages down to McDonald's and other fast food chain levels. They've achieved this largely through "liberating" warehouses from other unions, or signing friendly "voluntary recognition agreements" allowing companies to undercut good paying contracts. Once again I can think of 2 to 3 separate instances in the Lower Mainland where this has occurred.

---

Are you sure that's the CAW-RW you are referring to, and not the ILWU-RW? I realize that keeping track can get confusing when there are so many unions using similar names. Also, can you give a specific example where one of these undercutting contracts exist? The ILWU have a reputation for being very militant here in the US, and I have trouble believing either they or the CAW would accept such concessionary deals.

[ 26 August 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shitdisturber:
Attention Robbie Dee: Think of the whole ladder that membership dues climb. After the local, where do they go? To the international of course. Think about it. When locals strike or have educational courses offered, the international funds them for it. Are you suggesting that the CAW wouldn't draw from their international brethren? Of course they would.

---

quote:

---

For example, the bus drivers at TransLink (the Lower Mainland transit authority) were on strike for four months in 2001. They're part of CAW. Isn't there a bit of a conflict in a union whose members predominantly build cars also representing people who drive buses?

"Uh, okay, maybe it's a bit inconvenient for transit users in Vancouver, but we notice auto sales are up a bit, so there's not really any rush for you guys to resolve your labour dispute. Take your time!"

---

The CAW also happens to represent folks who build buses.

And no I don't think its a conflict. The CAW along with many other unions have been enthusiastic supporters of the Kyoto protocol. I do recall that when the Scarborough GM Van Plant shut down in the early 1990's that the CAW campaigned to get an environmentally friendly vehicle produced in the plant...that's a decade before Honda and Toyota beat GM to the punch with hybrid vehicles.

There has been quite a bit of merger activity amongst private sector unions over the past decade or so. The CBRT&GW (Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport & General Workers) was one of the unions that merged with CAW and that would explain them representing the bus drivers in your neck of the woods.

The old "UE" (United Electrical Workers) was another, "CALEA" (Canadian Airline Employees Association) another ... along with most of the unions that were formerly affiliated with the small labour central known as the "CCU" (Confederation of Canadian Unions). I believe the west coast fisher's union UFAWU also merged into CAW. RW is one that folks have already mentioned.

I know that the United Rubber Workers and the Furniture Workers Union merged into the Steelworkers...as did RW for a very short time until they decided to go to the CAW. There are some rail unions that are part of steel too.

CEP is basically a polyglot of a number of smaller unions that were in the communications, broadcast, print media, energy, paperworkers and electrical/electronics manufacturing sectors.

These are just the union mergers I can rattle off the top of my head...I'm sure I've forgotten a few.

Anyway just because a union is called "autoworkers" or "steelworkers" doesn't mean that they can't represent anyone else...its just a name.

BTW the UAW has one local left in Canada...in Wallaceburg, Ontario. When the CAW held the referendum on splitting away from the U.S. union, the Wallaceburg local voted to stay with the UAW.

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

The CTCU and CASAW, formerly affiliated with the CCU I know are now part of the CAW...not sure about what happened with other CCU affiliated unions.

The Independent Canadian Transit Union as I understand was originally formed by dissident members of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

Anyway, there are alot of union mergers taking place both in Canada and in the U.S. I think that on the whole that it's a good thing. There are too many small unions that are easily crushed by large aggressive employers.

In Europe (excluding the UK) there tends to be a smaller number of very large unions, bargaining is much more centralized, strikes tend to be shorter and there tends to be a much better social safety net.

[ 31 August 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

A list of mergers with the CAW can be found here:

http://www.caw.ca/whoweare/mergers/cawmergers.asp

As you can see, alot of CANADIAN unions joined the CAW-as the trend over the last couple of decades has switched to National unions rather than International unions.

KeglerDave, could you give the "2 or 3" examples concerning the CAW that you mentioned?