It's not about raiding, it's about rights!
We read with a great deal of interest a recent editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, Let Labour Be Free to Choose and the ensuing rebuttal from Paul Moist, President of CUPE Manitoba and Executive Vice-president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, Union members don't need saving.
Moist argues that "This (the right of workers to change unions) is not a matter for governments to legislate. The Canadian labour movement has its own governing structures, and individual unions are free to join, or not join, bodies such as the Canadian Labour Congress". In support of his position, Moist offers up a litany of faulty assumptions and familiar rhetoric.
There is a lot that Moist doesn't tell us about workers' rights to change unions. He also puts a spin on the issue (it's about unions raiding each other) that distracts us from the real problem (it's about rights). Some clarification is in order.
The "governing structures of the Canadian labour movement", the Canadian Labour Congress or any other organization do not supercede the legal rights of people. Under the labour laws of every Canadian province, working people have the right to join the union of their choice. They also have the right to change unions at specific intervals through a straightforward process administered by provincial labour relations boards. A vote is held between the two unions. A simple majority of ballots cast decides the issue. Unfortunately, this simple, democratic exercise of workers' rights does not suit the Canadian Labour Congress and many of its affiliated unions so they do what they can to interfere, for the greater good of the Canadian labour movement.
But the Canadian Labour Congress is not the Canadian labour movement. A "movement" suggests a broad-based joining of like-minded individuals working collectively in pursuit of common goals. It also suggests progress. The CLC doesn't fit the bill by a long shot. The CLC represents only a small percentage of Canadian workers - 2.5 million out of a total of 17 million. Its 100 or so affiliated unions are a minority of Canadian labour organizations. The 2,700 unions and 25,000 members affiliated with the Confederation des Syndicats Nationaux (CSN), for instance, are not members of the CLC. Neither are the thousands of workers who belong to approximately 430 independent unions in Canada. Then there is the 70% of the Canadian workers who are not members of any union. Presumably many are interested in a better deal at work. Are they part of the labour movement? By Moist's definition, they're not.
Of the 2.5 million workers who belong to CLC-affiliated unions, few have any real involvement in decisions made on their behalf by the big umbrella organization. Just over 2,000 delegates attended the CLC's last annual convention. That's hardly a representative group and there is some doubt about the extent to which they are able to express their own views or those of their coworkers back home. Informed insiders have said that most who attend at these big events stick to their union's party line - if they don't, they won't be going next time around.
Despite Moist's optimism about the inherent goodness of CLC-affiliated unions, the fact is that some have an abysmal track record of providing pitiful service to members, negotiating pathetic contracts and ham fistedly discouraging dissent. Their leaders rule like feudal lords, rewarding those who obediently follow, punishing those who don't and expecting the rest to cheer them on respectfully from the sidelines. Inclusiveness, participation and respect exist in theory and in organizing literature only.
That "Canada's trade union movement has freely chosen not to emulate the corporate community" would surely come as a shock to some of the high and mighty of Canadian labour. Certain CLC-affiliates have become so immersed in business culture that they do little more than collect dues and help employers manage the expectations of their workers. Some call their leaders "CEO's", some call their members "dues units". Leaders justify their bloated salaries by comparing themselves to business executives. Union staffers travel in style to conventions in exotic places, hobnob with business executives, and publicly defend business practices that cause their members grief. They wheel and deal among themselves in members, growing their membership through mergers and acquisitions because it's more "cost effective" than organizing them.
The growing discontent of union members is evident in the skyrocketing number of complaints of unfair representation filed against unions across the country. The "groups that are not happy over a particular situation from time to time" are part of a burgeoning union reform movement that is taking root in many unions. Through the medium of the Internet, union democrats are connecting with each other and taking their message to the world. They are not "unhappy with a particular situation". They are outraged at autocratic leadership, corruption, poor service and labour-management coziness that benefits everyone but them. Some union officials may work hard at reaching out to their members and addressing their concerns but some internal relationships are "repaired" with threats, harassment and lawsuits. For many thousands of union members, Moist's solidarity and unity translate into conform and compromise.
Much effort is put into keeping all of this quiet. A CLC-sponsored web site, www.workrights.ca, recently forbade discussion of union democracy in its online discussion forum. The administrator called such talk "propaganda, rants and dirty laundry". At the CLC last annual convention a reporter was ejected by CLC President Ken Georgetti himself for asking what the CLC was doing about union democracy. A few months prior, a union member was ejected from the Ontario Federation of Labour's convention for distributing a socialist magazine.
One CLC-affiliate, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, an enormous US-based union that bills itself "A Voice for Working America" has filed several lawsuits in the past year alone against people and organizations that have criticized its internal practices. The defendants in these lawsuits include union members, a former union official who went public about life on the inside, the administrators of Members for Democracy, a union democracy web site and the Quebec-based labour federation CSN.
Many union constitutions further discourage workers from choosing who will represent them or from expressing their views about the quality of representation they receive. Union members can be fined, suspended or even expelled from membership (a move which may cost them their jobs) if they engage in activities that are deemed - by their leaders - to be detrimental to the union's interests. Those who are penalized this way have nowhere to turn for help except the courts and few can afford the time and expense involved in going there.
But even as workers grow more knowledgable about their rights and the unpleasant secrets of certain mainstream union honchos leak from the house of labour like a sieve, the CLC and its patrons ignore the rising tide. Over the past decade, millions have been spent by unions fighting off "raids" - or keeping members from fleeing - depending on your perspective. Lawsuits have been filed claiming compensation for lost members.
The leaders of these unions have a strong interest in keeping their members locked in. Members bring in money. Money funds bloated salaries, lucrative perks and the upscale lifestyles for the fortunate few. The CLC does what it can to help them hold on to what's theirs. That's what the "no raiding" rule is all about. It's not about organizing workers. It's not helping win better wages and working conditions. It's an internal protocol that gets in the way of a lot of people's legal right to choose.
The term "raiding" is an artificial construct - a label plastered on an issue that the labour leaders would rather not deal with. The term itself implies ownership. It has a macho air about it; one that harks back to a bygone era of tough union bosses and obedient union members. Moist himself uses the offensive term "poaching", something that suggests union members are game or barnyard stock. The unorganized 70% can be forgiven their lack of enthusiasm.
There's also a good deal of hypocrisy about raiding. It's only a sin if it happens between CLC-affiliated unions. The 430 or so independent unions out there are fair game for raiding; so are unions affiliated with other labour federations. If CUPE or the UFCW or any other CLC affiliate wanted to sign up their members, that wouldn't be raiding. It would be a good thing and nobody at CLC headquarters would be getting worked up about it.
Here's the bottom line: Working people are not "things". They are autonomous individuals who have rights that supercede the preferences of private organizations. Under the law they have the right to join the union of their choice and to change unions during specified periods of time. These are legal rights that apply to all of them all of the time. These are important rights. There are no laws in Canada protecting union members from abusive, corrupt or incompetent union officials. Changing unions is the only way out for workers stuck in these bad relationships. Where do Moist and the other potentates of the Canadian labour movement get off interfering with those rights?
Allowing workers to change unions would destroy the CLC Moist tells us. Too bad for the CLC. That's their problem. No citizen should be expected to sacrifice his or her legal rights to save an organization. Imagine our government in Ottawa saying that you must vote Liberal to save the Liberal Party or that you can't get a divorce because it will hurt the Catholic Church? Democracy is about choices and respect for the rights of people to choose. A new labour movement - a community of workers - is evolving outside the walls of the tired old house of labour. The union establishment can join in, stay away or continue to be rags in the drain of progress. It's their call.
Let's define the issue in a way that favours democracy instead of property rights. AUPE did not raid CUPE. A group of nurses in Alberta exercised their right to change unions. The CAW did not raid the SEIU a couple of years ago either. Thousands of workers in Ontario exercised their right to change unions. Every single group of workers that wants to exercise its right to choose should be able to do so without interference or threat of reprisal.
Rights that can't be exercised are meaningless. If legislation is needed to stop the outrageous interference with the legal rights of millions of hard working people then so be it. Let the CLC and its affiliated unions save themselves.