Deailing with the Mayor Miller Problem

Buzz Off Basil

... but as I think about it, tieing a political party wanting to represent all Canadians to one side, does not make sense.

This is like the Liberal party in Ontario taking the side of either the Police Board of the City of Toronto or the Police Association as they are negotiating a contract. It wouldn't make sense. Arms length is needed.

Plus, a party with parliamentary power that gives preference to only a fraction of their electorate is doomed to fail.

I put it to you that unions are there to act in the interests of their members, no one else, not society as a whole, nor the community. They selfishly protect their workers' rights and only come together with other unions when interests coincide.

quote:

---

"Our members will vote how they'll vote," said James Clancy, president of N.U.P.G.E. National Union of Public and General Employees or the United Food and Commercial Workers union.
"They're too smart, and I don't need to tell my members how to vote. They're going to make up their own minds."

---

The following shows how silly the pursuit of union endorsement has become:

quote:

---

Layton told the crowd at the brunch event that he was proud to sign the declaration, adding that being able to join a union "is a basic human right that goes together with freedom of expression and freedom of association that is fundamental to a democracy.”

The competition between the Liberals and the N.D.P. for union support has also come down to fashion. The image of Martin sporting a C.A.W. jacket was mirrored by Layton donning two C.A.W. bomber jackets and a N.U.P.G.E. coat over the past few days.

Despite their leader’s endorsement, some C.A.W. members rallied around Layton at an event Friday night in Windsor, but it still isn’t clear just how much of an effect Hargrove’s love of the Liberals will have on the N.D.P. at the polls.

---

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: lonewolf2 ]

quote:

---

I put it to you that unions are there to act in the interests of their members, no one else, not society as a whole, nor the community. They selfishly protect their workers' rights and only come together with other unions when interests coincide.

---

Bullshit! Absolute bullshit!

The labour movement has been involved in just about every single struggle for change in the history of this country...whether it be the struggle for medicare, pensions, women's rights, abortion rights, gay rights, anti-racism, peace and disarmament, international solidarity, human rights at home and abroad etc.

However, what I have seen and experienced with today's unions is that they are very selfishly in the interests of their own members (not a bad thing).

Getting more than a few unions to be involved in coalition campaigns for the greater good is not today's reality.

quote:

---

If it were - we wouldn't see unions backing away from supporting the NDP as they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Neutering unions from the NDP would effectively produce another Liberal party that campaigns on the left and governs from the right.

---

quote:

---

However, what I have seen and experienced with today's unions is that they are very selfishly in the interests of their own members (not a bad thing).

Getting more than a few unions to be involved in coalition campaigns for the greater good is not today's reality.

---

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

quote:

---

Come to Windsor and see what we have done for our community

---

Exactly.

Much as I might disagree with Buzz's actions this past week, the CAW has made enormous positive contributions to both the labour movement and the community at large.

I'm not talking about charitable endeavours.

Non-union corporations and rich individuals (philanthropists) have a history of donating to worthy causes like MRI's, hospital wings, etc. There are tax incentives there and it is a good thing.

I am talking about POLITICAL SUPPORT for parties like the NDP and also for grassroots protests like when OCAP in Toronto campaigned to maintain special diet monies for the poor and hungry.

As long as the NDP is seen as the 'lackey of labour' (as right-wingers and even some moderates would say, it will never be a truly universal and mainstream party.

I KNOW it has its roots in labour. But changinfg with the times and new political realities might not be such a bad thing.

Drop the "New" and call it the "Canadian Democratic Party". Don't give such special membership breaks to unions. You can still campaign for UNIVERSAL workers' rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the bard:

Unfortunately, the NDP has quite a history of doing this at the provincial level.

---

So lets hear how the damage in Ontario caused by 42 consecutuve years of conservative party rule, and then eight with liberals, was supposed to be undone by four years of NDP.

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: the bard ]

I'd love to say "social contract" but that's too easy. So how about the government's inability to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples, opposed by such "progressives" as the Fantino-loving George Mammoliti and the crooked Tony Rizzo. It's a great example of running left, governing right. And certainly this can't be attributed to the worst recession since the 1930s or to transfer payment issues.

What are the Rae government's greatest legacies? Casinos, the 407 and private labs. Not exactly what you'd expect from a social democratic government.

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

A Harper majority government, even a minority one would ban donations to political parties by corporations and unions. Only individuals could donate and that would be limited to $1,000 per person.

quote:

---

However, what I have seen and experienced with today's unions is that they are very selfishly in the interests of their own members (not a bad thing).

Getting more than a few unions to be involved in coalition campaigns for the greater good is not today's reality.

If it were - we wouldn't see unions backing away from supporting the NDP as they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
Or how about not even being able to go as far as moderate NDP governments in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC by bringing in public auto insurance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tory Spelling:
A Harper majority government, even a minority one would ban donations to political parties by corporations and unions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Maybe what unions should do is take back our party since many of us sit on riding associations.

---

[ 12 December 2005: Message edited by: Left_Wing_New_Democrat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
"Take back our party?" Unions 'own' the NDP? How very inclusive.

---

Makwa makes a good point here.

Buzz Screws Nash

Also another thread on "INCREASING Union Support" reports:

quote:

---

A recent poll of voting intentions by The Strategic Counsel suggests the NDP enjoys only marginally more support among union members than Canadians in general. The Nov. 24-27 poll of 1,500 Canadians identified 326 labour union members. Of this group, 23 per cent said they planned to vote NDP (compared with 17 per cent among the general population); 19 per cent would vote Conservative and 30 per cent would vote Liberal.

---

Then there's this blog report Give Buzz the Boot

quote:

---

Giving the Boot to Buzz
The NDP released their TV ads today, and one involves a Christmas present falling from the sky (corporate tax cuts for Liberal friends), a piece of coal (for the rest of us), and a boot (presumably for the Liberal Party). So when NDP leader Jack Layton landed in Windsor after CAW President Buzz Hargrove gushed about Paul Martin for the second time in a week, one reporter asked him if he wanted to "give the boot to Buzz too?"

Layton tried to run away from the question all day, not wanting to be dragged into an insult match with the union leader. Hargrove may be a card-carrying member of the NDP, but he certainly isn't doing any favours for his party.

It must be something about Fridays, because last Friday Hargrove gave Paul Martin a union jacket and told members to vote for the NDP in ridings where they are leading, and vote for the Liberals everywhere else.

"It's not creating confusion," Layton insisted."If you vote NDP you'll get an NDP MP." Hmmmm.

Then this Friday, Hargove did it again. Appearing at an event with Martin at the Daimler-Chrysler plant in Windsor, Hargrove said, "We have two NDP members in town and I've been instructed in advance not to hug you (Martin), even though I feel like hugging you."

Let's just say when Layton landed in Windsor several hours later he didn't feel like a group hug with Hargrove. In this campaign Stephen Harper has Ralph Klein, and Jack Layton is discovering he's got Buzz.

---

[ 12 December 2005: Message edited by: lonewolf2 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
So lets hear how the damage in Ontario caused by 42 consecutuve years of conservative party rule, and then eight with liberals, was supposed to be undone by four years of NDP.

---

In fact the NDP was faced by a Perfect Storm, and got battered pretty badly as a result.

The issue about unions is more about their shrinking base rather than the alliance with the NDP per se.

The "selfish" behaviour of some (public sector unions especially) indeed has to be offset by looking as working Canadians as whole rather than strategically circling the wagons to protect a set of workers against the interests of others. However, this is not the unions' fault, but how capitalism works. Pretty elementary really.