quote:

---

People who sit around whining about how bad union leaders are make me faintly nauseous. The plain fact is that those bad union leaders are more popular among workers than the geniuses who whine about them. Stop whining - start overthrowing - but win the workers to your viewpoint, or leave me alone.

---

I won't bore you with the details, but the international worked with the local to help insure there would be no election: In spite of what the federal law requires. It was shameful at best and criminal at worst, but that's another story for another day.

You can and will tell me that's the American system; or maybe you will tell me it's the ufcw and it doesn't matter. Neither wash. What happens anywhere in labor impacts the entire house. Especially when the "good leaders" watch in silence. I can match story for story the ufcw American experience with the Canadian ufcw experience.

The fact is the ufcw makes up a substantial portion of the organized workforce in North America. Way too many guys have adopted your ideology of "leave me alone," and hence the outcome is a dieing archaic structure.

Oh, and if the structure won't allow their "overthrow", you get the workers the hell out of that union. I've done that twice.

So you've done it too. Good. So what exactly is your point?!

But I have also witnessed whiny prissy little people who weep about the union and its leaders and how "the union" won't do anything for them. Really, what they mean, is that their fellow workers are sick and tired of their self-serving whining and doing sweet-f-all for themselves, and certainly nothing for the collective. To such whiners, the union "owes" the legal duty of fair representation. Nothing more.

Oh incidentally, I think the UFCW sucks in many ways, and I can't really fathom any Canadian workers in the 21st century wanting to continue belonging to a U.S.-based union - which no doubt is why the percentage of such workers in Canada is declining steadily over the years.

But complaining about the UFCW - in this country, in this day and age!?? Just get rid of it! Look what 10s of 1000s of SEIU members did in Ontario! It's easy - if the workers are truly dissatisfied. Easier than getting a divorce.

quote:

---

Now, any comments about the rest of my post, or do you just want to pick and choose the most offensive parts of what I write? Christ, the way I write, you'll find no shortage of the offensive bits. I went to a good school.

---

In reading your comments unionist i see any number of positives. I think you get it, we can't stay the course or we are dead. My contention has been Stern's concept of bigger unionism will only exacerbate the matter, not fix it.

Having lived in Minnesota my whole life, i always admired the Canadian labor movement. It seemed more vibrant, more about workers. The problem was as i got closer to it, saw the similarities (at least in the ufcw), i began to question how much of it was real.

Your points on how and what they are obviously are based on having seen some of the same things. That said, isn't the CLC insuring the status quo be maintained? That all the same players stay in the game?

Of course the other thing is, picking flyshit is easier than debating the real problems. Consequently, when you do revert to the horseshit i do hone in. I think it is counterproductive to the whole point of all of us trying to fix the mess we are in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Pearson:

That said, isn't the CLC insuring the status quo be maintained? That all the same players stay in the game?

---

The CLC is useless and impotent, unfortunately. It neither preserves nor threatens the status quo. It has no impact whatsoever, zero, on the internal affairs of unions. Its no-raid protocols have no particular impact on workers who want to rid themselves of a useless union.

The Ontario SEIU experience showed that in clear terms. Even expelling the CAW meant nothing. Workers in unit after unit held secret government-supervised ballots and voted to join the CAW. The CLC then had to let the CAW back in - total surrender. The workers won. Does that mean they have a great union now? No, but they dumped their old one and got a new one. If the CAW treats them like shit, they know how to do it again.

quote:

---

Given your experiences, don't you see the system, the structure changing to become less democratic? If so, doesn't that concern you?

---

Absolutely not, just the opposite. When I was young, we were part of an international "brotherhood" where change was impossible. Service was non-existent. We destroyed all that.

Ask me this: "Can you think of a situation where workers say, oh, so-and-so would make a better leader, but she doesn't stand a chance because 'they' will never let her get elected?" Answer: No.

ETA: Example: Lots of people on this board were pulling for Willie Lambert. I don't believe they were CAW members. I had no preference, because it's not my union and not my business. My impression was that these people just hate Buzz Hargrove. Well, Willie couldn't get nominated. Why? Threats of rape and pillage? Concrete overshoes? Destroy his local union? I think the truth is simpler. He had no support, and realized it in the crunch. Of course, everyone waited for Willie to speak his mind and explain all afterward. He never did. God, the power of the union bosses...

[ 06 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

I do know that I can have an impact on the system even from outside, and that I can encourage others to try doing the same. What I see shoring up the system is a corrupt legal regime and I happen to believe I know how to expose and challenge that corruption. It seems that my confidence and determination with that agenda is taken as a personal threat by many of the people who claim to have achieved so much in the labour movement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuddy:
It seems that my confidence and determination with that agenda is taken as a personal threat by many of the people who claim to have achieved so much in the labour movement.

---

When I moved here from Ontario eighteen years ago I knew nothing about this province, and I knew nothing about unions or the labour scene until I fell under it’s wheels in 1999. Now I’m trying to understand both: the labour relations story and B.C.’s history. Many people are aware that this province has an unusually bad record in labour relations. I am trying to understand to what extent that explains the bizarre politics and the corruption that I have encountered.

quote:

---

It seems that my confidence and determination with that agenda is taken as a personal threat by many of the people who claim to have achieved so much in the labour movement.

---

Know what your problem seems to be? You place way too much importance on yourself. You seem to think that legions elected union reps—most with more they can handle on their plates—are dropping everything to pay attention to what you’re doing or saying. I think through, you realize that just ain’t the case.

That's why you responded to my last post on the other thread where I actually offered you some support and congratulations, despite your union-bashing paranoia, that I think your case might actually have some merit, with insults and dismissals.

My question for you was simply why you are targeting the union local for back-pay when it wasn't the party that canned you supposedly unjustly. You couldn't answer it. And don't give me the BS that you don't know who I was referring to when I said your "former colleagues." You know I meant the members of the union local whose dues money is going to pay for all the expenses they will have to incur if you sick a bunch of lawyers on them.

quote:

---

That’s one of the reasons why those of us on the outside simply don’t trust the labour community. We conclude from your behaviour that you really do have a lot to hide.

---

First, who's "we?" So far all this has been about you.

Second, show me where anyone has anything to hide. I have read the info you have posted, and I don't see where anyone has tried to hide anything from you, other than the bosses who still won't seem to say why they didn't take you on as a permanent staff.

Third, there are an estimated 300 or more labour organizations of various kinds in BC consisting of around 700,000 people--about 45 per cent of the work force--that operate in the black and above board (with annual independent audits to prove it).

Don't talk to me about all this supposed vast corruption and secret collusion between corporate bosses and union leaders that exists practically nowhere other than your own specific claims about your own specific situation.

Fourth, I don't know (or care) what labour historian you talked to. But it's clear you know very little about the labour movement or working class politics in general. You don't need an historian to help you with that. Any library is loaded with union history (written by actual union activists), or sign up for an introductory labour history course (two day course, I think) at Capilano college.

quote:

---

I've repeatedly admitted there are lots of good leaders; lots of good locals; lots of good folks inside of labor. That said, their silence in the face of the hogs at the trough, the misdeeds, nepotism, stupidity, greed and back room settlements is unacceptable. It's time for the good people to start standing up and speaking out. It's time for them to try and save a dieing movement.

---

quote:

---

I have no problem with offensive posts, i lived most of my life being an asshole and i was good at it.

---

Really? Hate to tell you this, but by some of the standards on this site, you come up rather short.

quote:

---

That said, just dismissing people with the wave of hand tends to turn some folks off.

---

But isn’t that part of what it takes to be a good effective asshole?

quote:

---

Of course the other thing is, picking flyshit is easier than debating the real problems.

---

I thought that was something else assholes are supposed to do.

quote:

---

Consequently, when you do revert to the horseshit i do hone in.

---

But as a good asshole, aren’t you supposed to drub up a lot of horseshit and well as honing in on everyone else’s?

When i retired i promised my wife i would try and change; stop being an asshole. God that's hard. Sadly, i also told her i would get away from the labor stuff that consumed me. That's proven even harder. Not so much the day to day stuff; but watching as labor and workers continue down the path of self destruction.

Even while working i loved and used the internet as a communication tool. Our local ran multiple websites and came to see it as a means of outreach and organizing that was far more advanced than standing at a plant gate trying to pass out handbills while freezing your ass off. I loved the ability to talk to workers while they were in the safety and privacy of their homes.

My on-line demeanor was far different than how i found myself existing from day to day. I have found it far easier to be respectful of our differences when debating or discussing labor in forums or message boards.

That said, there have been instances where i have reverted to just cutting to the quick and calling people out for what they are. Some of the trolls, the management plants and the goofs from the National Right To Work Committee soon expose themselves for who and what they are. At that point the blade comes out and my theory is simple, let the carving begin.

I don't see c_r or gb as anything remotely close to those kinds of folks. Their points are valid, at least from the standpoint of how we need change. The good old boys club of unionism has to be broken down. Members have to be built up and encouraged to get active and involved. Taking on the system shouldn't be necessary; it should be a members right to see, know and understand the inner workings of their union.

Unfortunately too many of the organizations and their leaders act like they have squatters rights to how things work. Members are on a need to know basis, and my experience is often the bigger they are the less the leadership thinks they need to know.

It has been interesting to read the comments from this thread. Almost to a person, that has been the common theme. Workers/members need to get involved and be part of the solution. Since retirement, in trying to help activists understand the system, to have a chance, i am finding just how undemocratic some of these unions are. Just how protective some of the leadership is in keeping theirs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
My question for you was simply why you are targeting the union local for back-pay when it wasn't the party that canned you supposedly unjustly. You couldn't answer it. And don't give me the BS that you don't know who I was referring to when I said your "former colleagues." You know I meant the members of the union local whose dues money is going to pay for all the expenses they will have to incur if you sick a bunch of lawyers on them.

---

Secondly you would not leap to the conclusion that I am suing my former union colleagues. I never said I was and you ought to know that in our legal regime it can’t be done. As far as I know in B.C. no member or former member has ever been allowed to sue a union. The courts will send you back to the LRB every time, where you will get the royal runaround followed by the royal shaft. If anyone is aware of an exception please let me know.

For the record here’s the list of defendants exactly as it appears on the writ and the statement of claim:

WALLY OPPAL AND MICHAEL DE JONG AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF B.C. AND B.C. MINISTER OF LABOUR AND JOHN DOE AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA