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   » CLC Convention in Toronto, May 25-30

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: CLC Convention in Toronto, May 25-30
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 29 May 2008 07:02 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anybody here attending the convention?

For good socialist reports and analysis, I recommend Roger Annis's blog.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 29 May 2008 10:49 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was interested in this entry from day three of the blog:

quote:
Constitution and structure of the CLC
A lengthy discussion was held at the end of the day on a proposal by the Executive Council of the CLC and Constitution Committee of the convention to establish a commission to review the constitution and structure of the Congress. What follows is a short summary of an issue that, admittedly, I understand only partially.

Two issues concern the initiators of the proposal—stronger measures within the CLC are needed to prohibit raiding of affiliates of the CLC against one another; and stronger powers are needed for the CLC to deal with “rogue” unions, that is, unions acting in violation of basic union principles such as respecting the right to strike. The second-largest affiliate of the CLC—the National Union of Government and General Employees—is not attending the convention out of protest against the inability of the CLC to discipline another affiliate that raided one of its components. So the issue is of some urgency.

This was easily the issue that had the sharpest disagreements among affiliates. But the debate was respectful and genuine. There were strong pro and con opinions of the proposal. Smaller unions and labour councils feel they will have too little voice in a review process. They also want important issues such as funding of smaller labour councils to be addressed, and the CLC leadership is perceived as insensitive, if not opposed, to this concern. Many delegates are also concerned that the right of workers to democratically choose to change their union affiliation be respected.


Anyone know the back story to this?


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 May 2008 11:26 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, there's a bunch of issues out there.

NUPGE had to beat off a raid of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union (whose president long ago was Gary Doer!) by the Teamsters.

Also, when the CAW was expelled and then reinstated to the CLC when thousands of Ontario health-care workers voted to leave SEIU and join the CAW (about 5 years ago?), Buzz Hargrove announced the CAW's policy that all groups of workers should have the right to change unions via secret ballot if they can't see eye to eye with their own union, and that the CAW would not try to prevent that happening with its own locals. That announcement did not warm the hearts obviously of certain unions which have pockets of dissatisfaction.

Then there was Hargrove's support for Tony Dionisio's breakaway local from the U.S.-based Labourers' Union and charges that it was raiding (someone, can't remember whom...).

So there's a pretty clear difference of opinion between those who think workers should have full freedom to switch unions at will, vs. those who think that raiding is destructive to the labour movement under all circumstances, and every shade in between.

I personally never understood why there needed to be more than one union in a country - call me innocent in the ways of the world - so long as full inner democracy reigned, including local and regional autonomy, right to elect all decision-making positions, etc. Then the foolishness of "don't raid my members!!" would be gone once and for all.

I've always thought it more important that an organization be loyal to its members than that the members should be loyal to the organization. That includes political parties.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 29 May 2008 01:33 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suppose it's not very responsible to throw up your hands about raiding or whatever you want to call it.

But in a big way, the stories of the moment don't matter. Whatever inclination you take on the question, should you decide it needs dealing with- there is absolutely no end to it.

Barring the one big union this will be with us forever. It's a wonder that there always people able to convince themselves they can build rules that will bring peace and better behaviour.

It's so obvious that unions can game any rules. And if there is enough at stake, unions will time and time again accept dissafiliation as the consequence for having their way.


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

posted 29 May 2008 01:38 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I do agree that when a majority of workers in a bargaining unit wants to switch unions, they should be as free to do so as if they were switching which party they felt like voting for or switching shirts or socks. The motivations of the union leadership interests me far less than the legal straitjackets that are used to limit workers' rights. Freedom of association is pretty basic. I've always found the word "raid" to be pretty hilarious - considering that workers get a secret ballot to make their decision.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 29 May 2008 02:04 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For what its worth, this is what I have observed from being close enough from the beginning to feel the heat of competition for workers support.

What I have seen- and one of these cases is 35 years ago in the US- they look reasonable and civil enough up until the vote. If the new union loses the vote things stay that way. If the new union wins, civil war breaks out.

If that is generally true, then it might even tell us something besides the obvious- that it is only the upsetiing of the status quo that gets people riled up. But nothing else comes to my mind.

There are also the wholesale movements of locals or chunks of a union that are not put to votes of the members. But those are by nature sprung on everybody except a very few insiders. And those leave lots of wounded of course.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 29 May 2008 03:39 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When the CAW raided SEIU - SEIU dropped all of their new organizing efforts and put all of their organizers in the field to work trying to convince their members to stay with their union and work on the reform process. The CAW put most of their Ontario organizers to work trying to convince people who already had a union to join their union (using arguments like "SEIU puts all of their money into organizing new members and not servicing members like you.")

When the CAW-backed CCWU signed a sweetheart deal with management at Hallmark and derailed the SEIU's Justice for Janitor's campaign (details) some of the lowest paid workers in Toronto saw their best chance at getting a raise put at risk.

This, at best, is a mind-numbing waste of resources in a labour movement that's aleady foundering.

I support workplace democracy and there's a process under the CLC's rules whereby workers who are unhappy with their affiliation can disafilliate from their parent union and affiliate to a new union. The CAW opted not to use it. Under Hargrove, the CAW likes to hide behind arguments of "workplace democracy" but I think it's transparently obvious that the real motivation behind these raids is to stop the hemhoraging caused by the implosion of the Big 3 and their total failure to organize the rest of the auto sector.

I don't think the workers involved in either schmozzle are well-served by raiding wars and the misleading propganda they entail, or by sweetheart deals, or by the weakened labour movement that didn't organize thousands of workers because they put their organizers to work raiding instead of organizing the unorganized.


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 29 May 2008 03:41 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I personally never understood why there needed to be more than one union in a country - call me innocent in the ways of the world - so long as full inner democracy reigned, including local and regional autonomy, right to elect all decision-making positions, etc. Then the foolishness of "don't raid my members!!" would be gone once and for all.
That would be really really good. People tell me this is somewhat the case in PQ. C'est vrai?

From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 May 2008 04:30 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
That would be really really good. People tell me this is somewhat the case in PQ. C'est vrai?

Unfortunately no. There's lots of rivalry between FTQ and CSN unions, with raiding and counter-raiding, despite various protocols entered into from time to time. There's perhaps far less than there used to be (in the days of construction raids and the CSD breakaway from CSN). But I really see that as a minor issue. When the Château Champlain (Marriott) for example decertified from CAW and joined a CSN union, the workers there were looking for better service. They have every right to go shopping until they find the best product. Only union leaders who know they're no good spend more time fighting raids than fighting the employers and governments. My 2 cents anyway.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 May 2008 04:39 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
When the CAW raided SEIU - SEIU dropped all of their new organizing efforts and put all of their organizers in the field to work trying to convince their members to stay with their union and work on the reform process. The CAW put most of their Ontario organizers to work trying to convince people who already had a union to join their union (using arguments like "SEIU puts all of their money into organizing new members and not servicing members like you.")

Yeah, but the vast majority voted to join CAW. That's their right, no?

quote:
When the CAW-backed CCWU signed a sweetheart deal with management at Hallmark and derailed the SEIU's Justice for Janitor's campaign (details) some of the lowest paid workers in Toronto saw their best chance at getting a raise put at risk.

I'd be very careful quoting Sharleen Stewart on this subject. She's the one who got the CAW kicked out of the CLC. Not exactly an unbiased source.

quote:
I support workplace democracy and there's a process under the CLC's rules whereby workers who are unhappy with their affiliation can disafilliate from their parent union and affiliate to a new union.

Can you name any workers who have successfully used this process? The process is designed to create every roadblock possible, to maintain the affiliates' turf. Why should workers be able to just wake up one morning and say: "We're voting; we're leaving?" Good strong union leadership doesn't need to fear that, do they??

quote:
I think it's transparently obvious that the real motivation behind these raids is to stop the hemhoraging caused by the implosion of the Big 3 and their total failure to organize the rest of the auto sector.

Perhaps, but the SEIU business was a few years before the implosion of the big 3, and with more than 250,000 members, auto even including auto parts is significantly less than 1/3 of the union.

I totally agree that any union that puts its organizers into the field raiding instead of organizing the unorganized should have its head examined. But you have to say the same thing about a union that puts its organizers into the field defending against a raid. No?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 29 May 2008 05:02 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The CAW has grown through organizing the unorganized and through totaly transparent amalgamations of smaller unions far more workers than have entered via raids.

And while I am critical, organizing in the auto industry has been boulder rolling since long before the implosion of the Big Three. Has ANY union been successful in matured manufacturing industries?


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 29 May 2008 05:15 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I totally agree that any union that puts its organizers into the field raiding instead of organizing the unorganized should have its head examined. But you have to say the same thing about a union that puts its organizers into the field defending against a raid. No?
Sure. But, as in foreign affairs, I think the biggest crime is a crime against the peace. And that's part of the problem with raiding. Much as every invading country claims they've been invited in by opressed citizenry, every raiding union claims they're doing it for the workers.

In the case of many "raids", the workers are so eager to go that the "raider" doesn't have to do much beyond getting their name on the certification ballot.

However, when a sweetheart deal is struck, or when organizers go into the field to organize the organized. That's bad news.

If the CAW was genuinely concerned about the CLC process for disafilliating, if they found it cumbersome and unfair, why haven't they made any effort to change it? I think the case could be made.


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 29 May 2008 05:17 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
When the CAW raided SEIU

I don't think raid is really an accurate term here. A number of SEIU Canada leaders decided they wanted to leave the international because an increasing portion of dues were going south and because the international was becoming increasingly undemocratic. After weighing CUPE vs CAW they decided to join CAW. In other words, they approached CAW, not the other way around. I don't think it can be called a raid when a group of people approach your union and say they are unhappy with their current one and want to join yours.

It's been what - four or five years now since this all happened and my understanding is Sharleen Stewart *still* hasn't actually been elected to the position she holds.

[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 May 2008 06:06 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
In the case of many "raids", the workers are so eager to go that the "raider" doesn't have to do much beyond getting their name on the certification ballot.

Which is the best evidence that condemning "raids" is equivalent to imprisoning workers in many cases.

quote:
However, when a sweetheart deal is struck, or when organizers go into the field to organize the organized. That's bad news.

And that's one in exactly one million. I have no clue about the CCWU thing you mentioned, but can you actually give another example? This is a little on the exaggerating side. I don't know of a single "raid" where workers were eager to change unions so they could have "labour peace" and a yellow deal. This is not Canada we're talking about here...

quote:
If the CAW was genuinely concerned about the CLC process for disafilliating, if they found it cumbersome and unfair, why haven't they made any effort to change it? I think the case could be made.

Absolutely and utterly impossible. None of those unions will agree to make it easier to disaffiliate - inconceivable. The Sharleen Stewarts of this world have no hold on their members except the difficulty of leaving. I'm no expert on Ontario, but my understanding of the SEIU story is the same as aka Mycroft's - except I wasn't aware of the CUPE option being there as well. The workers were desperate to get out, and they got out. If the CAW has now negotiated yellow-dog contracts for them, that may be - but I've never heard that.

I've been through a change of unions (about 15 years ago), and it was difficult but it happened. Our members have never looked back. We're nowhere near heaven, but I'll tell you one thing: Our "new" union doesn't take our allegiance for granted.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 29 May 2008 06:42 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some points:

- The CCWU signed a yellow-dog contract with Hallmark. Widely seen as such. That's my only example. Not trying to make a broader point. Sorry if I seem to be exagerating.

- The SEIU just had their national convention and, to my knowledge, Stewart was uncontested for her position. So she hasn't won election in the same way that, say, Buzz Hargrove has never won election. Or Ken Delaney. Or whoever. Etc.

- I suppose we can argue semantics but I think it's fair to use the term "raiding" when the CLC declares it so. Otherwise, the term has no meaning.

- Competing versions of the SEIU/CAW war are (still) available online here and here. Buzz and the SEIU Presidents he was working with certainly claimed that the international was being dictatorial, that servicing was not up to snuff, that money was being diverted into organizing - and that the local Presidents who wanted to join CAW had a mandate to do so. Stewart and others still with the SEIU argue that the international had just worked with Ken Brown to address problems, had granted the Canadian section new autonomy, that the funds diverted into organizing were well spent - and that the presidents who approached the CAW were far more interested in the staff jobs that CAW was offering them.

Either way, on all sides, the exercise was not the best way to spend several million dollars.


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 May 2008 06:46 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mercy, all these debates back and forth, all the mud each side slings at the other, are swept away by the simple medium of a free and secret ballot. Workers may make the "wrong" choice, but they must have the choice. That's why when you said "Otherwise, the term [raiding] has no meaning," you are most likely correct. It's about as objective a term as "terrorist" or "freedom fighter". Let the workers choose.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 29 May 2008 07:28 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Reaching out to the social movements and organizing previously unorganized workers is the sort of thing I'd like to read about in this thread. Or, why the CLC Convention isn't discussing these things.

The working class, despite the horrific atrocities and job losses of recent years, continues to grow. But the percentage of young workers organized is much lower that that of their parents' generation. What is the labour movement going to do about that?

The Communists have the right idea:

quote:
Organize, renew ties with the social justice and fight-back movements, build new relationships with every street level group grappling with the effects of poverty and exploitation. Set up massive campaigns for housing and full employment, shorter work weeks and longer holidays.

But most of all, organize the un-organized. Re-learn how to talk to the working poor ... [etc]



From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 May 2008 07:40 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Easier said than done, unfortunately. But yes, necessary, no doubt, in our spare time when we're not warding off attacks, closures, division, betrayal, sellout...
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 29 May 2008 07:52 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the CLC doesn't do such things at a Convention, when Delegates have the leisure to look back/forward to assess things, then when will they look beyond defensive struggles?
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 29 May 2008 07:56 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A propos of this.

See this.


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 May 2008 07:57 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
If the CLC doesn't do such things at a Convention, when Delegates have the leisure to look back/forward to assess things, then when will they look beyond defensive struggles?

Locally, on a smaller scale, or regionally, when particular campaigns are there to be waged, or within a particular sector, or... Even sometimes in Québec through the CSN or the FTQ (thinking of support for the demos after Charest was first elected, and the student strike movement, but not much happening there either...).

Just not through the CLC. It's essentially a waste of space. I don't think it can change. And the proprietary instincts of the big affiliates (as seen in the inward-looking nonsense over raids) are a big brake.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 29 May 2008 08:00 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know, I listened to Georgetti's speech for about a minute and then got ill. He should take that fucking big pork chop out of his mouth.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 29 May 2008 08:08 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK, that was a little extreme. I wish we could import some labour leaders from countries where they grow 'em with more of a fighting spirit. What a sorry lack of leadership ...

ETA: That's a useful piece from J. Cartwright, Mercy. Thanks for that.

[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 30 May 2008 01:13 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The fourth day of the CLC convention began with two sessions on climate change. CBC Radio personality Jian Ghomeshi hosted a one-hour panel presentation of three guests — Clayton Thomas-Muller of the Indigenous Environmental Network, Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation, and Jeca Glor-Bell, president of the Sierra Club of Canada....

I found the panel discussion was novel and informative.The panelists gave informed opinion on matters such as carbon taxes and emission-trading regimes that allow polluters to purchase the right to continue their destructive practices. Dale Marshall said he supports carbon taxes; Thomas-Muller and Glor-Bell said that taxation of fossil fuels can only be a useful tool if tax revenues are directed to assist society, especially its poorest members, to adjust to change, eg by significantly expanding affordable public transit.

Thomas-Muller explained that environmental issues are issues of fundamental human rights, including Indigenous peoples’ rights and sovereignty. He called for building a popular movement to oppose climate destruction and forge an alternative path for society.

A good discussion was held on the Alberta Tar Sands. Thomas-Muller said Canadians are being “held hostage” by current and future Tar Sands projects in northern Alberta. Workers in the zone are being poisoned, “ethnocide” is being perpetrated against the Indigenous population, the rapid rise in price of Canada’s currency is causing significant losses in manufacturing employment, and the unions face a difficult challenge in defending the rights of tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers being brought to Canada to work in the Tar Sands or work the jobs the Tar Sands workers leave behind as they move north.

A delegate asked if “clean coal” exploitation or nuclear power offer an alternative to oil. “No such thing” as clean coal, replied Thomas-Muller. It’s a dirty fuel, and the suggested “carbon capture and storage” technology is a ruse — the technology simply does not exist. As for nuclear power, he explained there is no way of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Indigenous territories are more often than not the dumping ground of such waste.

It was a good exchange, but two limitations were evident. One, the only rational response to the Tar Sands debacle is to SHUT DOWN TAR SANDS EXPLOITATION AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE. And, two, the political dimension of the climate crisis was not sufficiently described. The environmental challenge is so vast, and the resistance to change is so deeply embedded in the current economic order, that it is illusory to posit that climate calamity can be avoided by tinkering around the edges of the capitalist order. Only a government radically committed to social justice can undertake the vast reorganization of society required to avert climate calamity. It’s no accident that only one country in the world today—Cuba—is anywhere close to achieving harmony with the biosphere. It is thanks to Cuba’s nationalized and planned economy that this has been achieved....


Roger Annis

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 May 2008 04:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If anyone wants to hear what Ken Georgetti, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine, or Dr. Henri Morgentaler had to say to the CLC Convention, you can hear their speeches here.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 June 2008 05:46 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dr. Henry Morgentaler receives Canadian Labour's highest reward.

quote:
The Canadian Labour Congress today gave Dr. Henry Morgentaler its highest honour, the Award for Outstanding Service to Humanity, for his contribution to the cause of equality for women.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lev Bronstein
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14746

posted 02 June 2008 12:33 PM      Profile for Lev Bronstein     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was at the convention and my objection to the whole raiding debate was twofold. First, in that it was highly connected with a number of resolutions supporting the right to strike, it was a thinly veiled attempt to embarrass the CAW over the Magna Swindle by a group of international unions with whom the Autoworkers have longstanding issues. Second, given the track record of those self-same unions -- many of whom were complicit in the raiding that prompted the NUPGE boycott of the convention -- I found it highly hypocritical

As for the action plan, aka., the Three Pages of Fluff, the document put forward by the CLC bureaucracy on Friday was a bold-faced attempt to appropriate the language of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council's plan while gutting it of any action. It lacked any concrete plans on how the CLC would attempt to pursue the dozens of 'priorities' identified by the paper: with no money and no dedicated organizers all we offered were more words. Instead, it was a grab-bag of face-saving proclamations designed solely to allow the union chieftains to go back to their fiefdoms and say that the labour movement as a whole supported their particular cause. However, we could not even deliver on this front as the document was not approved by the convention due to the ‘loss’ of quorum (which I doubt we even met on Friday).

One thing I was surprised about the paper was that buried in the Three Pages of Fluff was a call for the abrogation of NAFTA. However, we weren't able to press Georgetti on this point as his impatience with those delegates who believed the convention was the forum where they were the decision-makers led to the abrupt end of the convention.

By Friday, the union bosses had released their mike muffins to enjoy the sophisticated pleasures of the Eaton Centre, freeing the mikes they had hitherto dominated to the Action Caucus. Georgetti was visibly irritated by the direction and tenor of the discussion and called the question on the paper. When he was called on a point of order, he declared that we had lost quorum, even though our numbers had not appreciably changed over the course of the previous hour or so, let alone in the previous minutes. When another delegate rose to question how quorum could have been lost between his decision to call a vote to end debate and his decision to end the convention, he paused, clearly looked at the delegate that wanted to speak, then turned his back and strolled off to celebrate another successfully stage-managed convention with his labour aristocracy chums.

LB


From: Durham | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 02 June 2008 02:09 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
You know, I listened to Georgetti's speech for about a minute and then got ill. He should take that fucking big pork chop out of his mouth.
Roflmao

He's just another example of a "worker's" leader who never worked. Many from our union leadership are people who have been making upper middle class wages and benefits all their working lives. Oh and I doubt Ken would eat many pork chops because they are too plebeian for his tastes.

I was at a labour caucus meeting a number of years ago at a BC NDP convention. Ken chaired and the meeting was quick and efficient. All the people I sat with were impressed with how good Ken could run a railroad.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 19 June 2008 09:56 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
John Peters, Poli Sci Prof. at Laurentian U has a few remarks about the Convention over at The Bullet of The Socialist Project. His title is ‘Dare Anyone Say a Word?’

One remark of his that is noteworthy; while giving an award to Henry Morgentaler is great and all, the Convention was in lockdown mode and contributions, discussion, etc. were prevented. That pretty well sums up this Convention, that "adjourned at 11:45 am, earlier than planned because so many delegates had left that the required quorum (delegate attendance) was lost." Expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian trade unionists were effectively silenced, as their delegations were denied guest status, and the big shots played on their blackberries.

Go team Go! Good grief.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 27 June 2008 06:00 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sam Hammond, Chairperson of the Central Trade Union Commission of the CP, has a brief report on the CLC Convention over here. Hammond noted the Action for Change unions that "advanced a loose program that in general wanted more militancy and accountability, a more programmatic approach to fight back on NAFTA, opposition to privatization, prevention of raiding, less collusion with employers, and stronger ties with people's movements."

Perhaps an emerging left despite the dissent-silencing, stage-managed Convention is in the cards for the CLC.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 10 July 2008 09:27 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Roger Annis has a report and analysis on the convention HERE.

His conclusions:

quote:
So what kind of political program is needed today in the labour movement in Canada? Here are some ideas offered in the hope that the discussion begun in Toronto will continue and deepen.

• The CLC and the labour movement need a forceful policy of international solidarity that supports trade unions and popular movements fighting for social justice. Unions in Canada must offer meaningful solidarity to peoples in countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia that are fighting for new societies, and to peoples in Haiti, Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan who are suffering directly the consequences of imperialist war and occupation. The Canadian government and ruling class are a predatory force in the world. For that reason, the union movement should reject the illusion that Canada and its armed forces, as presently constituted, can be a "peacekeeping" force in the world.

• The CLC needs to base its action plan on a strategy of unity and mass mobilization. There is a vast, untapped reserve of strength and creativity among the millions of working people (unionized and non-union wage earners, students and youth, farmers, the unemployed, Indigenous peoples etc.) that the unions must find ways to reach and mobilize.

• The sovereignty struggles of Indigenous peoples are growing in importance and must be actively supported by the union movement. The CLC should bring the weight of its affiliates to bear to fight against the criminalization of the Indigenous rights movements by federal and provincial governments.

• Finally, unions and working people need to fight for a government that will join the worldwide struggle for social justice.

The New Democratic Party was founded in 1961 for just that purpose. The CLC was at the center of that founding, and it remains central to the party today. But the NDP has never risen above minority status in the federal Parliament. There are two reasons why. The party has a timid and pro-capitalist program that discourages working class participation in politics and rejects mass mobilization as a means to confront capitalist rule. And it has historically opposed the national rights of the Quebec people, making it a minor force in political life in Quebec and condemning it to permanent minority status in the federal Parliament. A wide-ranging discussion on political strategy is required if the labour movement is to transcend the limitations of a simple pro-NDP electoral strategy for political power.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 11 July 2008 10:01 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Barry Weisleder has posted a short response to the piece by Roger Annis over here.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 11 July 2008 12:41 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's not actually a "response" since it was mostly written previously and doesn't actually refer to any of Annis's statements or opinions.

I'd have to study them both a lot more carefully to determine where the differences of opinion occur, but I'm not inclined to make the effort.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 11 July 2008 02:04 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Damn good thread, folks. It's not easy for a New York guy to get this level of detail about Canadian Labor by clicking links from a Google search, ha!

Thanks.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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