Members for Democracy Archive

Dear Brother Fraser,

I must say that my original optimism in learning of your visit to our web site was short lived, and I am at a complete loss as to the worth of your correspondence. You chastise the MFD for both publishing, and referring to published works on the UFCW in various newspapers--you mistakenly claim to owned and operated by Conrad Black. You even go so far as to accuse the MFD of being anti-union for doing so. You refer to the " boycott " of Mr. Blacks companies and subsidiaries, yet you have failed to grasp the fact that it is Mr. Black who owns Canada.com, your e-mail service provider ! In light of this, it would appear to me that your " boycott " is one of convenience and not of true substance. I put to you sir, that in actual fact what your office is truly opposed to is the airing of UFCW's dirty laundry, and the public scrutiny it so richly deserves.

I am at complete loss as to your justification of the 64 % wage increases of the executive officers of local 1977. Never in the history of UFCW has this union ever secured such a lofty raise for it's members, and I question the credibility of anyone who would use the feeble argument that " they had not had a pay increase for almost 6 years ! ". It appears as though, like the aforementioned incident regarding Conrad Black, you again have failed to recognize that the double standard. The very executives who felt they deserved such an enormous raise, had the unmitigated gall to recommend a six-year collective agreement that secured virtually nothing in terms of increased job security, and benefits, and brought about what amounted to a six-year wage freeze. Surely sir, you are not suggesting that our dues paying members are not entitled to the very same considerations as those of the UFCW executives you so vehemently defend?

You go on to so boldly pronounce that the MFD, " by attacking the hogs at the trough, we "...are literally weakening the UFCW and the Canadian labour movement." Precisely how does accountability to the membership that foots the bill weaken the movement? I put to you sir that if a rift is developing within the labour movement, it is due to the pork-barrel patronage so many of Canada's C.L.C. affiliates sequester to, and the ever growing gap between the executive officers of these unions and the members who make up the rank and file. Like pigs to the trough, you have dipped into the pockets of millions of unsuspecting members and betrayed their trust, and that sir is what is weakening the Canadian Labour Movement!

You say, "I do not support your fight for democracy " I expected nothing more from an individual, such as yourself, who was not elected by the rank and file members of UFCW to his current post. What do you know of democracy in UFCW when you were given a patronage coronation to the highest-paying, most influential UFCW position in Canada. Perhaps your memory has once again failed you. We are the very group of members who had to resort to filing a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of British Columbia against UFCW Local 1518 and UFCW International, for several voting irregularities, including ballot tampering! Lets see you put your position on the line and turn the election procedure over to an independent accounting firm, run against the likes of me and let the rank-and-file membership vote and perhaps then, sir, you can boast of democracy within the UFCW!

Lastly, you have accused our web page of being "incorrect and repetitive" if the truth repeated bores you, then don't waste your time reading the truth. However, since we are having this chat, I'd like to take this opportunity to formally requesting an up to date copy of the Local 1518 local business agents and support-staff collective agreements so that I may comment on them and provide our viewers with fresh reading material. Likewise, I'd like to request your pay and other monies paid from all UFCW sources including Local 175. Did you receive $180,000 in severance and a car when you left to take on the Canadian Director's job? What are the severance terms for Local 175 leaders? I ask because leaders and "media consultants" have boldly stated that any member may request and receive this information, and I am formally doing so now. I want to also extend to you the opportunity to refute in writing any inaccuracies on our web page. It is not the intent of the MFD to bare false witness against any individual, and we wish to address any inaccuracies immediately.

I look forward to our continued correspondence and dialogue in the best interests of all UFCW members coast to coast.

With Kind Regards

Scott Mcpherson
UFCW Members for Democracy, local 1518

I apologize if I didn't make myself clear in comments posted elsewhere on this site, but in response to the above, please allow me to try to explain this once more.

The comments attributed to Michael Fraser and referred to in the 'open letter' quoted above were not made by UFCW Canada Director Michael Fraser. They came from a canada.com e-mail account of, as far as I know, yet-to-be determined origin. Due to this electronic communication incorrectly identifying him as the source of these comments, Michael Fraser opted to not use e-mail as a means of communication. The fact that his e-mail address continued to appear on the ufcw.ca web site was an oversight on my part which has been corrected, with thanks to sleK for pointing it out. Michael Fraser remains available for communication by any other means, including snail mail, fax, and telephone. Once again, I hope you have actually mailed or faxed the above letter to Michael Fraser if you expect him to respond to you directly.

Finally, as to your curiousity about my wages and benefits, I can tell you that I am compensated at a level commensurate with my experience and abilities and with regard to nature of the job and the workload involved, and relatively in keeping with my peers in labour communications work, and less than that considered the norm in the corporate world.

I understand that your curiousity in this matter is not idle, but I hope you will appreciate that I work very hard for what I earn and that I work as hard as I do from a commitment to the membership of UFCW Canada. Regardless of what you might read in these pages, I also believe, from personal experience, that others who are criticized here labour even longer and harder, and from a dedication to the cause that burns even stronger. That may sound unnecessarily flowery and emotional, but it is the truth.

What a bunch of bullsh*t! The MFD has growing support? Who? Why doesn't the MFD post a list of its members or at least the amount of members?? The MFD is nothing more than a diminishing, cash strapped, weak little organization. From what I have seen, you have done nothing but whine and complain about little problems. Only 9 people have posted on this web site in the last 24 hours and half of them have been UFCW staff and activists. Do you call that a growing support?

Nobody takes you guys seriously because instead of criticizing the leadership, you pick on innocent members who devote their time to this union and its members.

Thanks again,

Nash Huntley

Mike is a lifer at the Rexdale office. For a ball-park figure you might look at $70,000+ per year, plus benefits. Mike is well paid for his skill level even against corporate standards. I'm not knocking Mike's potential because he has lots of it, it's just he can't get the type of experience he needs to advance by stagnating in the Rexdale office. He's stuck in an intermeiate-level communications position. If he worked in Washington, he'd get more experience and would be better able to leave for a higher-paying job. But Mike's salary shouldn't be the issue because he's not an elected official, nor is he an International political appointee. He is a hired hand.

The big question might be why did his deadwood pals get transferred to Local 175. Perhaps to fluff up their pensions? What the heck is Danny Gilbert doing haunting the corridors of 61 International Blvd.? These buggers retire, but you can never get them off the payroll. Likewise, if Mike Fraser is so virtuous, perhaps he'd like to post his gross T4 and other income for 2000. We can wait the month or so it will take him to gather the amounts together.

In reference to Mr. Nash's email on the lack of growing support at MFD. I have 13 years with Safeway. In that time I've lost my full-time on 3 seperate occassions (usually right after the implementation of a new collective agreement). My ability to earn a living has been undermined by first the CAP Clerks and now the Clerk 2's. I was told of this website a few months ago by a fellow "pissed off" employee, now 40-50% of my co-workers have browsed by the site (just the other day a note with the http was posted in our coffee room). The word is getting out. UFCW members need a place to express themselves or at least a place where they see people conveying opinions they themselves feel.

OK Kids!
That's enough bickering.
Time to read the POSTING GUIDELINES, then off to bed you go.
And don't forget to brush your teeth! Or should I wash your mouths out with soap?

Slek and Big Ed,

Yes, Ive seen your counter reading. I think its safe to say that 10,000 of those hits were actually from business agents and leadership who regularly visit your website to see the daily "talent show". The rest of the hits are from the 6 or 7 Pot smoking, liberated chimpanzees with type writers who call themselves MFD members. (Sorry to be rude but I dont appreciate being called an idiot or having my colleagues and friends refered to as "pigs at the trough".) On an average day, each one of you probably visits this site 10 or 20 times.

In Solidarity,

Nash Huntley

BTW Nosh, tell the business agents to get off the NET and get their asses into the stores. As for the Executive, they have lots of time on their hands, so surf on Brothers.

You work for the National Office??? Sorry, I thought you were local.

NHuntley
QUOTE;
I think its safe to say that 10,000 of those hits were actually from business agents and leadership who regularly visit your website to see the daily "talent show". The rest of the hits are from the 6 or 7 Pot smoking, liberated chimpanzees with type writers who call themselves MFD members.

If 10,000 of those views were from business agents I'd be very impressed =)
But actually, we have had a total of 974 *unique* visitors in the month of January. And it looks as though February is going to bring even more.

As far as the 'name calling' is concerned;
You can dish it out but you can't take it huh?

And once again ::sigh::, I noticed that you ignored the other 2 points I had made to you. Any particular reason why?

Hmmm............

Slek
Nash and I are youth activists, and we are constantly attaining more knowledge dealing with the labour movement. I speak for both of us, when I say, we've made a difference in making the world a better place. Why do we waste our time? Hmmmm Simple Slek, to make a bloody point! And you ask "what's the point?" Simple, Members for democracy really means Members for Hypocracy. All the members can now stop for a second and think about that one. >=]
UFCW takes legal action against the MFH seriously...WELL DUH...you don't take someone to court, and expect them not to take you seriously. Oh by the way, THANKS FOR WASTING MY DUES AGAIN! Really nice of ya!
Acting foolish, hmmmmm I don't think so. Foolish would be joining the MFH. Speaking up against the MFH (like brother Nash) that's freedom of speech, and a good point of view from the membership!
Prove your growing support! How many members has the MFH attained in the new year?
Now to all the BA's defence...they do get their asses into stores, they deal with the problems we all face. I know personally that if it wasn't for a certain BA a certain MFH member wouldn't have a job. If you were to step into the shoes of a BA, you'd probably wet yourself. They are hard working individuals, and I commend them all!

Hey Ryan,

Question #1: Why do you defend the International telling Brooke to pension-up Local 777 hacks and then Brooke actually giving two of them 25 and 30 year paid-up pensions? What the heck did they ever do to deserve those free pensions and why was the deed kept secret?

Question #2: Do you believe it's right to trade CA consessions for more members? If so, how does that help the existing members?

Question #3: What incentive is there for UFCW brass to fight for decent wage increases when their salaries are tied to the top published rate rather than the bottom or middle? (You'll notice the top rate is always protected.)

Question #4: Do you agree that there would be greater incentive for UFCW leaders to protect full-time jobs if dues were tied to a percentage of your hourly rate and prorated to the amount of time worked? (ie. 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 etc.)

Question #5: Who needs a union when everytime an employer threatens to close, they get the consessions they ask for? Most people join a union to get ahead.

Question #6: What major gains has the UFCW achieved for food industry workers in the past 10 years?

Ryan, think about why you are an activist and why the present UFCW leadership deserves your support. What are you hoping to achieve?

Ryan, I see you've bought the party line hook line and sinker. Well let me say that the UFCW had every opportunity to address our concerns at three different levels. They choose not to and left us with no other alternative but to seek remedy through the Supreme court. Let me say that every person in the MFD pays their dues as well, and it's also our money and our union and we to have a right to know when we cast a ballot that election or vote is one of the utmost integrity. I would think, being an activist you would share that same belief.

Those UFCW pension funds sure come in handy when you need to buy a few members.

http://www.business-journal.com/99105/laborunion.html

This is proof that all MFD members have nothing to worry about.
http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/media/oi/uticafoodworkers.htm

Oops! I'm sorry, stuff like this never happens here because we're Canadians. The UFCW is much different in Canada than in America. Right, Nash?

Scott -- if the Canadian Director is no long taking emails regarding salary matters (having been so badly burned in the past by email usage), then how's about sending him a letter by registered post? I, for one, would be interested to see him make good on the promise to reveal salaries levels of various UFCW officers. Canada Post could tell you if he refused to accept the letter or not.

Solidarity...just thought I'd say.
"Your a d*ck!"

BDG;

You did not think hard enough.
Read the posting guidelines.

Hey John,

We would all love to hear what you have to say just try and do it a little more constructively that's all

No body is more angry about the crap that Local 1518 pulls off especially when it comes to gutting collective agreements purely on the bases of creating more worthless jobs. But "decertify" out of the UFCW because of what Brooke Sundin does, seems a little extreme to me? How about you?

Perhaps it is time we had a little talk about these words "decertification" and "decertify."

PART I

This is the talk of people who are at their wits' end, who see no other options.

It is also the language of those who are poor internal organizers, who don't know how to take over and to democratise their local (and even international) union.

It is the language of those who are such poor politicians that they don't care if they are called (with justification) "anti-union" or not.

In other words it is the language of people who have a lot to learn, and who have not-too-many battles under their belts, and who know little about internal organizing.

So, these people imagine that, instead of using the people to fight for a democratic local union and a democratic international, they only imagine leaving the union.

So, they want a "decertification vote." And why? "Because it would scare the local and frighten the international."

They know - in other words - of no other plans or strategies than emotional movements

(Tell them that and you'll hear a lot of rage).

Of course, mature and self-interested people know that if a decertification vote ever came down to it, then the union would be re-affirmed, if only narrowly (This has been happening a lot in the UFCW recently, and the result is precisely . . . nothing). Most people know that a weaker union is better than none at all. At least that's how they vote.

PART II

The other half of this illusion is the "grass is always greener on the other side" fantasy.

"Oh, if we could just go with the CAW!" it is said.

Well, the CAW is far from perfect, and some parts of the CAW receive more attention than others. Auto is of course pre-eminent there

(I thank the brother for his honesty in mentioning that the loosening of decertification regs in BC were the result of a CAW decert).

So what if a couple of decertification votes hit UFCW Canada in big grocery locals? Do you imagine that the union would actually be decertified?

Well, probably not, a reasonable person might say. The members might just want to "send a message," not actually to decertify.

But, okay, let's grant that the union is decertified.

And what if the CAW was subsequently certified? Buzz Hargrove might not be bruising for another fight with the Canadian Labour Congress, so that's a big 'if.'

But okay, let's grant that, too. CAW gets a couple of big UFCW grocery locals.

__Even if__ one or two large UFCW locals in grocery were successful in going over to the CAW, the reform movement in UFCW would then suffer a severe setback, and things would become worse--not better--for those left struggling in the remaining UFCW local unions.

The most militant grocery unionists would simply--leave. Who can imagine a worse defeat?

And who would continue to set the industry wage rates in grocery in Canada and south-of-Canada?

You guessed it! The UFCW!!

And that is true even of any 'future' CAW locals in grocery. They'd be cussing the UFCW *from the outside,* now. And they'd be the victims of the UFCW, all the same.

Oh, sure, officer salaries might be lower. Would that really help? Officer salaries are a symptom, not the disease itself.

And you'd be just another can in the CAW six-pack. Too bad.

After all, if you want to be a member of an aggressive and a democratic grocery union--then it is best in the first place to be *in* a grocery union.

And, leaving the UFCW isn't going to win you a better deal in grocery, necessarily (Sorry!).

If another UFCW local union like 777 can undercut existing wage rates and standards for a local like 1518, then how much easier is it for another international union to undercut another international within a given industry?

The answer? It is much easier.

And far more common. After all, CLAC undercuts the UFCW today (I don't think anybody would try to deny that).

So, CLAC undercuts UFCW, and UFCW undercuts . . . well, the sad fact it that the UFCW undercuts--itself!!

Surely any possible future CAW locals in the grocery sector would be undercut as well (Please correct me if I am wrong. Maybe some factor makes the CAW invulnerable to being undercut by the UFCW in grocery).

Concessions in the UFCW grocery locals would eventually end up on the doorstep of any CAW grocery contracts, too.

So, what's the answer?

The answer is some discipline within UFCW to establish and defend wages and working conditions within specific areas, and indeed continent-wide.

This sort of discipline will only occur after there is *a change in leadership* within UFCW itself, both at the local and eventually at the international level, as well.

But surely the bloodbath of concessions in grocery must stop, and it will be stopped, not by decerts(!?), but by reforming UFCW.

ONLY a reformed UFCW is going to win workers in North America a better deal in grocery!

"Decertification" is not the answer.

Meanwhile, you best learn how 'HOW' to fight in the present situation, instead of emptying your mind, throwing up your hands and calling out "DECERTIFY!! Boy, *that* would really scare them!"

But, "how do we fight back?" you say. "How do we struggle against people who are opposed to us?" (After all, they don't fight fair.)

Well, I certainly don't recommend fighting against anyone in any case who is not *against* you. This isn't just a matter of procedure.

And if your opponents fought fair or believed in a running a democratic union, then this would be the work of a single afternoon.

That's not the case here, however.

But let me congratulate you on arriving at the question, and reply:

Good. You are ready to learn now.

[This message has been edited by Solidarity (edited 04-08-2001).]

Ask a silly question? Ouch! Solidarity!

In the blood soaked trenches, the dreaded "D" word is cryed out many times a day.

If an organization is corrupt, rotten or otherwise completely out of sync with the interests of its members why should its members waste their energy and resources fighting an unwinnable battle to change it? Democracy is about choices and the right to exercise them. If a group of members want to leave a corrupt union, then that should be their choice to make.

When we implore the exploited to hang on in vain in the hope of transforming something to which we are attached but that they cannot transform, we are acting in our own selfish interests and not in theirs. We are the equivalent of the well-meaning clergyman imploring the abused woman to try harder to change her abusive relationship because the church doesn't believe in divorce. (Think about this analogy in the context of this union and its largely female membership - I wonder to what extent gender is a factor in the nature and degree of their exploitation).

Urging exploited members to "keep it in the family" makes the "house of labour" just another oppressive structure.

I have no affiliation with the CAW but can tell you that whatever its faults may be, it is respected by employers all across the country. Why? It doesn't sell out its members and it doesn't fall for corporate bullshit. At the rate things are going, it will take eons before the same can be said of the UFCW.

[This message has been edited by remote viewer (edited 04-08-2001).]

Before I respond as to the relative merits of going with a bargaining agent that understands the nature of business and has the interests of its members at heart and trying to reform one that doesn't, I would be very interested in hearing about:

1. On a practical level, how is it possible for members to reform an organization like the UFCW? What levers do members have to reform the organization?

2. What progress towards meaningful reform has been made to date?

3. If they wanna go, why shouldn't they?

(My estimate is in eons based on the recent "member-oriented" initiatives that have been published on this site: the partering agreement, the strange pension investments, the Local 1977 expedition to the trough, the BA's and office staff agreements - all suggest to me that the pace of reform - if reform is occurring at all - is glacial indeed).

[This message has been edited by remote viewer (edited 04-08-2001).]

Well, remote_viewer you're asking the right questions--ones of tactics. I don't wish to discuss them here, of course. All members of MFD are welcome to contact me off-list for a two-way discussion on this.

Change in a "top down" bureaucracy doesn't happen gradually. It happens all at once.
The old guys are taken out with the trash, and the sh*t stops.

The ship begins to turn. Only then--and not before.

Until then, they will act as though all political consideration of their opposition is a sign of weakness.

In other words a top-down institution is not "responsive." They don't care.

That's the nature of autocracy. Don't waste your time reading this website for signs of 'gradual' change, then. The change won't be gradual at all!

As for the decertification strategy, it is self-defeating at every point along the way.

Why is that, you say?

Because every local which *does* decertify, leaves behind remaining locals which are even *more* impervious to reform, and even *less* likely to reform.

To the extent, then, that decertification succeeds in one local, it fails everywhere else. The whole process grinds very quickly to a halt.

What's the result? That the wages and working conditions are *still* being set by UFCW, who we maintain have demonstrated that they don't have the members' interests at heart.

Why do I say this? Why do I say that the decertification strategy is a receipe for failure?

Because the decertification strategy will inevitably mean that the bulk of grocery contracts will remain in the hands of the UFCW.

And the wages and benefits and working conditions are set by the bulk of the union contracts--not by one or two locals in a separate international, one with only a minority interest in the sector.

And that's why most people are interested in reform and democracy, not just because they 'like that type of thing.' Reform and democracy are best because we can get better contracts that way.

The "decertification strategy," meanwhile, will give an odour of disloyalty to any call for reform and democratisation!

And there will be concrete evidence for such accusation, too!

A truly poisonous situation. Why? Because of the insistence on a bad strategy of "decertfication."

quote:

---

There's enough backroom shit going on.

---

Amen!

That's the old secrecy thing again.

I've kicked employer's asses by telling them I was coming over to kick their ass. If they asked how I was going to accomplish it, I'd tell them exactly how.

There's no secret recipe on how to kick labour-relations ass. It's a solidarity thing, or it's a legal thing.

No matter what your tactic, you have to show your cards before you collect your money anyway. The cards are dealt, so there's no object in delaying show and tell.

The only thing that's secret is the timing of the attack.

This certainly has become a hot topic. I can only speak from humble prespective and in no way attempt to imply that my views are shared by other members of the MFD. That said;

I remember when I drove an old '78 Ford station wagon. At 40 below [if I could even get it started] I'd leave a huge cloud of oil behind in the parking lot. One thing after another would go on that car. I had no heat in the middle of Jan. and I drove with one hand, and scraped the front window with the other just so I could see where I was going. Ultimately, I gave up trying to fix that damn car and got myself a more "reliable" one.

There are times in our lives when things are just too far gone to fix and we have to move on. But has this time really arrived in the UFCW? The vast majority of our members have yet to get involved, how can we so sure? And what's in it for the CAW? The costs for them to raid the UFCW effectively would be astronomical. What are they getting in return? Our members won't get involved, won't go to meetings, won't vote, and so on and so on. Would you buy that old '78 Ford from me?

" you can talk about the farm, or you can plow the ground.
argue with a rusty nail, or hammer it on down.
You can stand there in the dark, cussin' at the night.
Or you can just reach out your hand and turn on the light.
There ain't no limit in this life, to how far you can get.
But if your goin' all the way, you gotta break a sweat."

Words to live by from a song writen by Chad Brock. It seems to me that many of our members are unhappy, but hope someone else will make things better for them. Well I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. Everyone has to pitch in and help. Until that happens things will continue to get worse instead of better. I think we should get our own act together before we start thinking about jumping ship. It'll pay off in the end.

It's often forgotten in light of the CAW-SEIU controversy that the CAW also merged with an Ontario grocery union last year.

Retail Wholesale Canada, previously affiliated with the USWA, is now officially CAW-RW. So they already have some penetration in the regional grocery industry. Expanding their share may raise, not lower the standards of collective agreements.

For the sisters and brothers in Local 1977, at least, inviting in a CAW raid may be a feasible strategy. At the very least, that appears to be what Williamson's afraid of (see the report from the "fact-finder".)

Interesting that you should mention the Canadian RW (now a division of the CAW). They have quite a story. Beginning in 1990, US-based RW and UFCW Internationals began merger discussions. Talk of a merger with the UFCW was not well-received by the Canadian RW locals. Local executives as well as business agents voiced their oppositin (for reasons that will surprise none of you). RW Canadian Director Tom Collins campaigned hard against the planned merger while at the same time exploring options for the formation of an independent Canadian RW organization or in the alternative, a merger with a more suitable union.

Collins' efforts and the vocal resistance of the Canadian RW didn't go over well with the UFCW and RW Internationals. When a process was developed to facilitate the merger, the Canadian lcoals were to be treated somewhat differently than their American counterparts. American locals would vote as a block on the issue of a merger with the UFCW. If the majority voted in favour of merger, all locals would merge as a block with the UFCW. If the majority voted against, they would continue to exist as RW International. Canadian locals, however, would vote individually on the issue of merger. Those that voted in favour, would merge with the UFCW. Those that voted against, would be disaffiliated from the International, each becoming an "independent" union. Each of these independents would then acquire all of the liabilities of the International including the costs of severance pay of International reps who were on local payrolls, organizing costs and an $800,000 pension liablity. As if that wasn't bad enough, each independent would be precluded from merging or affiliating with any other union for a period of a year. The game plan was to make opposition to a merger with the UFCW as unappealing as possible and to punish locals that dared to vote against the International party line by stripping them of power and resources and leaving them wide open to UFCW raiding in the year following their dissafiliation. As an incentive, however, locals that wished to be bound by the results of the US vote, could do so in advance of the Canadian vote and a few did.

Despite these draconian conditions, the Canadian RW voted overwhelmingly against the UFCW merger, created an independent Canadian union called RW-Canada and merged with the USWA - all in the space of 48 hours in October 1993. This move was of course, vigourously litigated by the UFCW before the Ontario Labour Relations Board where the UFCW claimed that, due to "constitutional irregularities" it now held bargaining rights for all of the RW units in Canada. The litigation produced some unusual and groundbreaking decisions which we must get to some other time. In the end, the UFCW-RW combo got its ass kicked. The USWA-RW were awarded bargaining rights for the majority of the 25,000 Canadian members. As a last ditch maneuvre, a group of some 200 employers appealed to the OLRB to reconsider its decision and rule in favour of the UFCW - a request to which the Board said "no sale."

In 1998, the RW broke with the USWA (as per a right they negotiated in their merger agreement in 1993) and merged with the CAW. The mainstream labour movement was highly critical of this move (as some of it had been of the Canadian RW's decision to disobey the will of the International and resist the merger with the UFCW). My own view is that the RW are just looking for an affiliation that works for them. Nothing wrong with that.

I thought I would tell you this story because it goes to show you what can be accomplished. The Canadian RW were not exactly radicals by anybody's estimation but they stood their ground, organized themselves in a hurry and acted in the interests of their members not their pals at the country club. Last I heard, they're doing OK.