Babbler said that she preferred Local and National unions to bigger and International unions. I see her point, but I have had a much different experience. I belonged to both CUPE and the USWA at different times when I lived in Canada. In CUPE, I belonged to a small local in a small town that was run very much like an old boys club, with very little oversight from the National. I have heard a lot of good things in theory about autonomous local unions, but I have never been convinced. As a young woman, I had very little representation by my predominantly male local leadership. And with local autonomy, I also didn't have anyone to appeal to. There was very little communication between the National and the individual members.

In the Steelworkers by contrast, although once again being in a predominantly male industry, I was frequently made aware of aware of the Larger Unions interest in addressing womens issues, (ie Women of Steel.) The Local itself was much better too, but I feel that even if it hadn't been, I would have been connected to something larger anyway. As individual members, we were constantly being informed by both the Local and the International. For this reason, I really feel that centralization is often better than de-centralization.

I also think the fact that it was an 'International,' rather than 'National,' offered specific benefits. The nature of the Steel industry is that the product is sold in a continental, if not, global market. For this reason, I think International Solidarity is very important. Information, resourses, ideas and strategy are all shared across borders. In a highly globalized economy, this is going to apply all kinds of work. Labour should be breaking down borders, not building them up.

One more thing - Because of my connection to an International Union like the Steelworkers, when I decided I was ready to become a full time union activist for my career, I was able to get a job in the States with the AFL-CIO. It was like we were all part of the same extended family.

[ 15 November 2003: Message edited by: Skye88 ]

A common dichotomy is the service model vs. the organizing model although several hybrids also exist.

Other things that need to be factored in may include the sector, geography, culture and history. So I don't think there's an easy answer.

For the service model, I don't see why an American union couldn't do as a good a job providing services to union members. With this model members have no ownership of the union. They pay dues like they pay for hydro and rent. As long as decent collective agreements are negotiated and enforced, the union has "delivered" and few questions are asked. The members can be militant when it comes to protecting their interests.

With the organizing model, there's a strong political component informing the empowerment of members to take responsibility for their union and for the wider issues in society.

We are in Canada so are politics should be specific to our situation. Can (and should) U.S. based international unions and AFL-CIO effectively calli the shots for Canadian workers? I don't think so.

I think there is also more overall accountability with Canadian based unions.

One concrete problem - access to the organization and participation in conventions and the like can be impacted by U.S. immigration, foreign policy and security concerns. The U.S. government can and does ban Canadians from entering the U.S.

The more political the union the more likely activists are to be targetted. In the post-9/11 world, Arab and Muslim activists in particular face additional barriers at the border whether they're political or not.

As a Cape Bretoner, the loss of the Steel plant, the mines, the heavy water plants... they were not real helpful.

That having been said, I think there is something to be said for not letting a union get too big. Anything that gets big tends to become unwieldy, as some of the bonehead moves pulled by "conglomerates" will attest.

Too small is another problem altogether. As has been pointed out, unions should be able to call on the resources of nearby locals if need be, which can't happen if the union in question is limited to one shop.

quote:

---

We are in Canada so are politics should be specific to our situation. Can (and should) U.S. based international unions and AFL-CIO effectively calli the shots for Canadian workers? I don't think so.

---

I don't think that this is the case with most International Unions. Canadian branches of International Unions are very independant when it comes to making political decisions for their union. I think that the perception that someone down in the U.S is calling the shots is inaccurate. There are, however, occasions where it would make sense to have greater solidarity on certain issues,( like globalization etc) and on those it makes sense to colloborate.

quote:

---

I think there is also more overall accountability with Canadian based unions

---

Why do you think this? For myself, I had far greater accountability and democracy within the USWA than I did with a national union like CUPE.
In the Steelworkers almost every position was elected. Because of this I had far greater representation and accountability from Chief Stewards who were handling my grievances. (They were always very militant when it came to dealing with management.) In CUPE, many of the reps that handled grievances were not elected are accountable to anyone. On one occassion, I was completely sold out by my rep, in a grievance and there was very little I could do about it.

[ 17 November 2003: Message edited by: Skye88 ]

quote:

---

We are in Canada so are politics should be specific to our situation. Can (and should) U.S. based international unions and AFL-CIO effectively call the shots for Canadian workers? I don't think so.

---

I definitely agree that it would not be appropriate for D.C. to "call the shots" in its Canadian branch. But some international unions seem to have worked out an accomodation whereby the Canadian office preserves a fair degree of political autonomy, while still being ultimately linked to the larger body. It seems to me that if they could make it work, that would be a better arrangement. Obviously the politics of the two countries are different. But there are a lot of shared concerns, too.

To return to the USWA example, there is currently a global crisis of oversupply in the steel industry. It hits Canada and the US particularly hard because the two countries are home to higher-cost manufacturers with a common, older capital stock. It seems to me that it is better to have a common, coordinated union response to this. For example, when the U.S. imposed its steel tarriffs last year, it included an exception for Canadian made steel. I think that was largely due to the lobbying efforts of the USWA.

Compare this to the softwood lumber situation. The unions in the Canadian forestry industry are predominantly national, not international - the IWA Canada and CEP. Still, according to this recent press release, they are finally beginning to seek a continental solution: U.S./Canadian Unions in Common Front.

A second point I wanted to touch upon:

quote:

---

I think there is also more overall accountability with Canadian based unions.

---

I wonder if this is true or not. Certainly, accountability was one of the main motivations for the CAW/UAW split. But to return once again to the USWA, the American bureaucracy seems much more accomodating to the Canadian's interests. The current president of the USWA is even a Canadian - Leo Gerard from Sudbury, ON.

One particular thing I was curious about - in the U.S. internal union democracy is signficantly regulated by the Landrum-Griffith Act of 1957. This law grants union members the right to free speech in their unions, the right to vote for officers, and on local union dues increases, and the right to information on how the union is managing its finances. It was not introduced as "pro-labour" legislation, but retrospectively, I think it has offered some important benefits. Canada has no comparable legislation.

What I was wondering is if American unions' obligation to comply with Landrum-Griffith in the U.S. carries over to affect their behaviour in Canada, since both Canadian and American branches would be governed by the same union constitution. This could be an important source of accountability, but like I said, I don't know much about how it plays out outside of the U.S.

EDITED TO ADD: Wow skye, we were thinking about the same thing at about the same time! Shows you we've been married for a while.

[ 17 November 2003: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Babbler/dabbler wrote:

quote:

---

My husband has almost always worked unionized and it has been a mixed experience.
As a Cape Bretoner, the loss of the Steel plant, the mines, the heavy water plants... they were not real helpful.

---

I think this is particularly relevant since Skye and I have been using the USWA so much as an example. I don't know much about what happened with Sydney Steel, or what role the union played in it. My impression of the situation was that both the federal and provincial governments had been involved in helping prop up the industry for quite a while, but with neoliberalism and cost-cutting in the 1990s, they decided it wasn't worth it anymore so they cut the workers loose. I don't know what the union was doing at that point, or whether they could have done anything different. I would be interested to learn more, though?

[ 17 November 2003: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

What I was wondering is if American unions' obligation to comply with Landrum-Griffith in the U.S. carries over to affect their behaviour in Canada, since both Canadian and American branches would be governed by the same union constitution. This could be an important source of accountability, but like I said, I don't know much about how it plays out outside of the U.S.

[ 17 November 2003: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

---

quote:

---

I belong to a large, international union. Recently, the question of how we elect delegates to the International Convention went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They ruled in a certain fashion, and all locals, including the ones here in Canada, had to comply. Since the union is chartered in the States, we know whose rules are supreme. Needless to say, many of us were not impressed, but that is what you get when you're in an international.

---

My understanding was that U.S. law provided for more union democracy that Canadian law, which takes a largely laissez faire approach to unions' internal governance. Unions in either country can, of course, adopt procedures that go above and beyond the minimums that Landrum-Griffith provides. But U.S. law remains a backstop against abuse by Internationals, where no such fall back measure exists for Canada-only unions which can adopt highly undemocratic internal procedures if they wish.

I may not be fully informed about the current status of Canadian law, or about your specific case. I would be interested to learn more, if you'd be willing to explain further.

[ 17 November 2003: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Back in the 19th century the Canada/U.S. border was alot more "fluid" with it being relatively easy to work on either side of the border.

The early AFL craft unions set up shop in Canada, and with their union card Canadian workers could easily obtain work in the U.S. and vice versa.

When the CIO was setup in the 1930's to organize workers in mass production industries, the CIO unions also spilled across the border.

There had been other attempts to organize mass production workers by other union organizations but they pretty much all ended in failure.

Most of the "national" unions emerged in the public sector in the 1950's and 1960's. Many of the provincial government unions and federal unions like the PSAC emerged out of old civil service "staff associations"...early "company unions" that transformed over a period of time into real unions.

There was a nationalist upsurge in the labour movement beginning in the early 1970's which pretty much culminated in the Canadian members of the UAW forming their own union in the 1980's.
Unions like CEP are made up primarily of the Canadian membership of a number of U.S.-based "international" unions in the forestry, energy, communications and media sectors.

The response of many of the U.S.-based unions which continued to operate in Canada was to increase the level of autonomy of their Canadian sections. Some posters have referred to the Steelworkers...and from what I've seen over the years is that they've probably gone the furthest in this regard.

I suppose what's also helped the Steelworkers is that they've had two "international" presidents who've been from Canada i.e. Lynn Williams and Leo Gerrard. I can't think of another international union where the international president has been Canadian.

I really think that it depends on the individual unions. There are some good national unions and good international unions. There are also some bad national and international unions.

Within international unions, some are more progressive on the Canadian side of the border while others are more progressive on the U.S. side.

I've been a member of a national union and I'm currently a member of an international union...and I might say the international puts more money into Canada then the Canadian members pay in dues...so in at least our case, we get the better of the deal.

quote:

---

There was a nationalist upsurge in the labour movement beginning in the early 1970's which pretty much culminated in the Canadian members of the UAW forming their own union in the 1980's.

---

I don't remember it as being as much a nationalist urge as much as it was a repudiation of the direction the UAW was taking in response to the recession.

The Reuther brothers had a truly internationalist vision for workers, and while control of the UAW was in their hands, there didn't seem to be a marked difference between the way Canadian and American worker's rights were protected and promoted in the workplace.

To the Reuthers, workers were workers.

Not so the current UAW, which, in response to the recession of the 80's circled the wagons around the U.S. border to perserve American jobs-- at any cost to workers rights on both sides of the border.

But much of what came out about this plant was rubbish and was uncontested in any public forum by the union.

As for the overall international vs national theme, radiorahim pointed out the origin of most international unions in Canada was relatively open immigration early on in this country's history. I'd add that it also probably made sense with the development of the branch plant economy.

The 1960s and 70s were a high water point for Canadian economic nationalism. I get the impression that the drive for separate canadian unions in the private sector was also rooted in that period, although it didn't culminate until the CAW split in 1985.

One thing I am interested in is whether free trade changes the logic, to make international unions a more appealing prospect once again. We don't have to agree with free trade, and I know most unions both Canadian and U.S.-based did not. But now that it's a reality, it means we have a much more integrated economy, and it seems to me, that might call for a more coordinated strategy by unions between the different countries. I'm inclined to wonder whether the current drive by U.S. unions to organize immigrant workers regardless of documentation (a 180 degree shift from those unions' previous position) may be a precursor to extending union representation across the Mexican border.

I know the situation in Mexico is very different than that in Canada. Particularly because most Mexican workers are 'organized', however it is under government-dominated, undemocratic unions. However, of several unions, particularly the UE, have attempted to build bridges with the small independent unions such as FAT. See e.g. this site: http://www.ueinternational.org/

I did a little poll of 9 folks in unions. They said uniformly that a union is necessary for decent wages and safe working conditions. There was less agreement on the effectiveness of unions in terms of ability to have input on agenda items, job security and individual representation.

quote:

---

But now that it's a reality, it means we have a much more integrated economy, and it seems to me, that might call for a more coordinated strategy by unions between the different countries

---

The coordination does happen to some small degree...but certainly not enough though the various international trade union groupings i.e. Public Services International, the metalworkers international and the chemical workers international.

The Europeans do have a central trade union organization in the EU.

The ICFTU does have a regional Americas-wide organization called ORIT ... but for example the ICFTU-affiliated labour centrals in both Mexico (the CTM) and in Venezuela (the CTV) are totally corrupt and rotten.

In fact the PRI-dominated CTM came out in full support of NAFTA. The CTV has allied itself with the business elites who oppose Chavez in Venezuela.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

My understanding was that U.S. law provided for more union democracy that Canadian law, which takes a largely laissez faire approach to unions' internal governance. Unions in either country can, of course, adopt procedures that go above and beyond the minimums that Landrum-Griffith provides. But U.S. law remains a backstop against abuse by Internationals, where no such fall back measure exists for Canada-only unions which can adopt highly undemocratic internal procedures if they wish.

I may not be fully informed about the current status of Canadian law, or about your specific case. I would be interested to learn more, if you'd be willing to explain further.

[ 17 November 2003: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

---

Our local, and many in Canada, have a meeting requirement before being eligible for any position within the union, including being a delegate. That is, if you hadn't attended 50% of general meetings in the past year, you are not eligible to run for any office. Some locals in the States also had this rule, and in one local it was challenged, went up to the Supreme Court, and they said that type of eligibility clause isn't allowed, and the ruling is binding on all locals and throughout the entire union.

I'm of mixed opinion about the ruling itself. On the one hand, having the meeting requirements should mean that whoever runs has cared enough to come out to the meetings and has been involved in some way in the running of the union. No Johnny-come-latelys allowed. On the other hand, if the members wish to elect a newby to represent them, what's wrong with that? I do have a problem with the fact a decision made by nine old geezers in the States has the ramification of forcing us to change our bylaws all the way up here in Calgary. I believe there is merit to your comment about the States providing more democracy, but gee, if our bylaws are produced in an open and democratic manner, why isn't that good enough?

I have that Labour site now and am getting some good info. Thanks. I have to say my ignorance here is almost total.

As this thread grows, I don't think there is nearly enough general knowledge and the thread that talks about the trades paper that is so short of cash, it has to watch what is says to keep union funding may be at least part of the problem.

If I were in a union, I would want a "free press" on union issues. If the unions are serious about their message and purpose, they have to be open to constructive crititizm. Maybe that is something that union members need to take on. As it is, it's the same as working for a nonunion company, you know if you don't go with the company propaganda you'll soon be kicking your lunchpail down the street.

If you are still looking for books on labour, too, you might want to check out the reading list Labour Start has been putting together here: Labour Start Bookshelf

Nam - I wonder if you are referring to this case: Court strikes down Transit Union rule.

I am sure that similar situations have arisen in many unions, anyway. I think you summarized the issue really well when you wrote:

quote:

---

I'm of mixed opinion about the ruling itself. On the one hand, having the meeting requirements should mean that whoever runs has cared enough to come out to the meetings and has been involved in some way in the running of the union. No Johnny-come-latelys allowed. On the other hand, if the members wish to elect a newby to represent them, what's wrong with that? I do have a problem with the fact a decision made by nine old geezers in the States has the ramification of forcing us to change our bylaws all the way up here in Calgary. I believe there is merit to your comment about the States providing more democracy, but gee, if our bylaws are produced in an open and democratic manner, why isn't that good enough?

---

Whenever the government gets involved in telling unions how to run their internal business, controversy is bound to result. Obviously, the government hasn't always been unions' best friend. Any kind of government intervention in union affairs is going to look suspicious to anyone who remembers that once upon a time unions themselves were against the law, that police officers and the army were used to break strikes, and that even to this day the government has jailed public sector leaders for leading "illegal" walkouts.

But on the other hand, some unions have developed very undemocratic tendencies, and without some outside body to set some baseline rules, where else is a member to turn? The U.S. decided to pass a "union members bill of rights" in the form of Landrum-Griffith. No Canadian jurisdiction has yet seen fit to do the same. So I guess where you come out on this issue depends in part on whether you think this "bill of rights" is ultimately a good idea, and if so, whether you are comfortable enough being bound by another country's protective laws when your own country hasn't seen fit to pass any.

One more thing. Speaking of constructive criticism, as several of us were above, I did come across this critical piece on Labour Start about the Steelworkers the other day. I guess it was on Rabble "in cahoots," too. I don't know if I agree with it, but I thought I would throw it out there since we've been talking about the union a lot already:

How Not to Organize a Strike (New Socialist Group)

The article contrasts a Steelworkers local strike to one held around the same time by Mine Mill/CAW. Does anyone think the difference in national union vs. international union cultures played a role, or was this just a question of two different local leaderships?

[ 22 November 2003: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

The article contrasts a Steelworkers local strike to one held around the same time by Mine Mill/CAW. Does anyone think the difference in national union vs. international union cultures played a role, or was this just a question of two different local leaderships?

---

The article makes no reference to the international union at all, so don't think that's a factor...it seems to be local union politics ... the local union leadership has become more conservative since the heyday of the late 1970's.

[ 24 November 2003: Message edited by: Skye88 ]