[Editor’s Note: The following interview with a long-time labor activist is meant to spark dialogue and debate about the role staff unions play inside unions.]

Paul Krehbiel has been active in the labor movement since 1968, first as a rank-and-file member in an auto parts factory in Buffalo, and later as a full-time union representative. In 1998, he went on staff at Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 660 in Los Angeles, and helped organize stewards councils at the two largest L.A. County hospitals.

Krehbiel was also president of his staff union, United Union Representatives of Los Angeles (UURLA). He was one of 15 staff workers terminated by SEIU in February 2007 when Local 660 merged with six other southern California SEIU local unions to form Local 721.

Guillermo Perez: Let’s start by talking about the very idea of union staff having a union. The attitude from many progressive labor activists, including some active with Labor Notes, is that union work is a form of social/economic justice activism and therefore a staff union would be inappropriate for people engaged in such work. How do you respond to that?

Paul Krehbiel: First, let’s be clear: a worker is a worker. If you are a worker and are subject to the authority of an employer, or his or her agent, and you are given work assignments, can be disciplined and fired, you should be in a union.

While many unions do treat their staff fairly, unfortunately, this is not always the case. I have spoken to L.A. county workers, who are members of Local 660, who came off their county job temporarily to work for Local 660 as temporary staff, and who told me that they were treated worse working for Local 660 than they were working for the county.

quote:

---

While many unions do treat their staff fairly, unfortunately, this is not always the case. I have spoken to L.A. county workers, who are members of Local 660, who came off their county job temporarily to work for Local 660 as temporary staff, and who told me that they were treated worse working for Local 660 than they were working for the county.

---

I hear lots of stories like that, mostly in the form of "My aunt works for the XYZ Union and ..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:

I doubt the fact that the employer is a union makes much difference.

---

I think it's probably true that many unions aren't very professional in dealing with their hired staff (whether office staff or business agents, etc.), and often this expresses itself as unfairness, even exploitation. Unions tend not to think of themselves as businesses - but that's no excuse not to deal with employees in a business-like fashion.

quote:

---

posted by unionist:

...employees need unions...And that includes when their employers are unions.

---

[ 02 October 2007: Message edited by: Jabberwock ]

My Employer, a very good union, employs people with various skills and experience. Some believe we are "experts" in our area. They also "mirror" the major employer with whom it has contracts, both in the contracts and in how it structures collective agreements.

The union struggles against how its chief employer treats "auxiliaries"; we struggle against how the union treats "temporaries".

As an employee of the union I struck with my comrades against my union/employer in part on this issue, as the union held to its employer's position with us.

I believe we made some improvements, but the system was not altered in a way all workers would want.

Tell me that striking for a good deal for "temps" was wrong. As a regular, I have few complaints.

Putting myself on the line was never been an issue...making room and giving opportunity to others; now that is worth the struggle.

[ 02 October 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

[ 02 October 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

I am not sure if you misconstrued what I said? I was not attacking the CEP job action. Not sure if you were upset by my statement or merely requesting that I elucidate
I was very upset with how the BCTF handled the situation with their CEP employees. They engaged in what can only be called contract stripping, and did not, in my opinion, bargain in good faith with the union.
I know that CEP members have supported the BCTF in their own labour struggles; some even lost their jobs for taking time off work to walk the line with the teachers.
The dispute made labour look bad, and gave the BC gov't ammo to strip when the next negotiation for the teachers rolled around.
What appeared to happen was that teachers got wind that the BCTF employees made a higher wage than teachers (which, I believe is a fairly common practice). They were outraged and demanded redress. The BCTF reacted to the public relations disaster by stripping elements of the CEP contract (but not wages) and presenting these concessions as non-bargainable and outside the scope of the collective agreement, which is ridiculous.
Anyway, it was a sore subject between me and some of my teacher friends; the BCTF spun the concessions as responsible governance, but they signed onto that negotiated contract in the first place.
Anyway, I am ranting.

[ 03 October 2007: Message edited by: Jabberwock ]

The question for trade unionists is do you treat your employees like you would like to be treated by your employer or do you demand that if you get hammered in contract talks by your employer that your staff get hammered as well.

I'm non-clerical staff but could never do my job without my "partners in crime". My work is totally dependent on the workers who do what I suppose is "grunt" work - never thought that way - I thought they were the "finishers" who ensured my work passed expection. Without my secretary, or assistant or whatever you think is appropraite - I'd be completely lost. Personally, I prefer "secretary", because in my mind it is a term of respect and status. "Assistant" is much more "heirarchical" because my assistant is a really, really important part of the process.

Enough rambling, workers are workers; fairness is fairness. There are good employers and bad, but EVERY worker needs and deserves a union.

I make damned good money as the employee of a union. I make no apologies as I struggled for it. I may also note that most of my job is "legal work". I recently lost several months for health reasons and much of my work went to outside lawyers. The cost was twice my annual salary for 25% of the work.

All I have to say is the people I work with, who work for unions, do so because they are TRUE BELIEVERS. Did anyone check, but union reps suffer earlier deaths then the average?

Thank whoever that I have an early retirment programme!

A lat word - contract stripping is contract stripping, whether it applies to professionals or anyone else that may not be considered "professional". Class is defined in strange ways.

[ 03 October 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

In the case of the BCTF, these were the professional employees- mostly teachers on leave who fulfilled communications roles, as well as legal advisers, accountants etc. I would argue that that is the reason that they are paid more- as an enticement to teachers to take leave to serve the union, and to professionals who may otherwise depart for greener pastures in the private sector. One of the reasons the CEP fought the contract stripping so hard was that they were concerned about the clerical staff, whose contract was about to expire and who are represented by a third
union, and didn't have teacher's jobs to go back to.

I'm an OPSEU member, and our staff belong to a different union. I have always thought that in some important ways this sets them up in opposition to the OPSEU membership. I'm not sure that it's a good faith position for a union activist to be in, or that those conflicts can somehow be managed or mitigated.

Steelworkers staff on the other hand are elected from Steelworkers and as far as I know, they retain their seniority and can return to their jobs on the shop floor if they burn out or don't want to do it anymore.

It does not breed conflict on policy (unseen in other workplaces??); it ensures respect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
I work for a union and am a member of a different union. I can't imagine it being any other way -- how do you bargain with yourself?

---

Okay, I do see your point. But -- the membership you're serving is not your employer...

Speaking from the unpaid side of the union ledger, I just wonder if another kind of relationship might be possible, that would make a little more room for altruism than this opposing union system seems to allow.

Not saying staff reps personally are not altruistic -- but it's almost like it's often against your own interests as members of that separate union.

quote:

---

Originally posted by munroe:
As with most workers, I take pride in my work and doing the best for those who pay my wages. Doesn't mean I always agree with the leadership those people elect or can be confident they will treat myself and my comrades "right". I'd actually find it rather strange being in a "company union" while struggling against the very idea.

---

Thank you for this clarification. I didn't realize that union staff see the union members you serve as your actual employer.

This helps to explain the dynamic I referred to earlier.

Take an example (though fairly extreme): control of the work. Union staff have a clear and present need to ensure that the demand for their services is not eroded, for example, through downloading these capabilities onto the membership. Right?...

So that's why I say that a staff union's interests can be fundamentally in conflict with the interests of the membership they serve, in a way that doesn't really happen with crown employees and the public.

And it can't help matters that with the current setup, union staff can't go back to their former jobs; it's awfully hard to move forward into a non-union staff job or so I'm told; and it's also hard to go to another union because for those jobs are often filled out of that other membership. So it's like a system of indentured labour almost. That certainly wouldn't improve my sentiments towards my employer!

I'm just wondering if there is any way for staff to belong to the same union as all their actual brothers and sisters that they are paid to act for, just as non-paid union staff (rank and file activists, stewards, H&S committee members, labour relations committee members, local executive members etc etc) all belong to the same union. I have the impression that CAW and Steelworkers do it like this -- am I wrong? If not, how do those folks take care of managing their staff, and do their staff have any meaningful opportunity to exercise union rights?

quote:

---

V. CONCLUSION
92 I confirm the earlier ruling in BCLRB No. B354/2000 that Hollingsworth's Section 6(1) and 38 applications are withdrawn. I find that Local 213 to the extent that it acts in its bargaining relationship with the Employer is an employer influenced organization within the meaning of Section 31. As a matter of law, that conclusion on the status of Local 213 in this context results in the agreement between them being deemed not to be a "collective agreement". As there is no arbitration award arising under a collective agreement, the Board does not have jurisdiction under Section 99 to review the award
of Arbitrator McDonald. By agreement between the parties, and by operation of law, the Section 12 complaint filed by Hollingsworth is also moot as a result of the Section 31 finding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
If a union is your employer (in other words, your boss), then when you have a conflict with your employer, or when you're negotiating wages with your employer, you don't want your employer being your union representative as well.
...
Kind of goes against the whole idea of collective bargaining.

---

That is definitely the point of view most often expressed on this issue (most often by paid staff). I'm just asking if this is necessarily correct. Is there any other way of thinking about this, that would resolve the ironies or conflicts that some of us here in the rank & file perceive in this formally oppositional relationship.

I am concerned that it goes against the whole moral foundation of trade unionism when you have the majority of people paid to work in the movement benefitting personally and directly by, for example, keeping essential knowledge and responsibilities out of the hands of the membership that they are working with.

Anyone read The Republic?

Not that we get too many labour board pronouncements on collective or class interests or morality, but if we look at DFR rulings I believe this would be a prominent underlying theme.