Buzz Hargrove is president of the Canadian Auto Workers union. <<
Labour's pains are no reason to give up the fight
BUZZ HARGROVE
Friday, June 30, 2000
We've heard a lot in recent weeks about the efforts of Canada's
conservative movement to reinvent itself. At the same time, though,
Canada's labour movement has been going through a less public but
equally important process of reflection, debate, and gut-wrenching
change.
Earlier this year, eight local unions in Ontario decided to
disaffiliate from their U.S. union and join the Canadian Auto
Workers. Now that decision, initially affecting 30,000 service
workers, may ultimately spark a restructuring of the entire Canadian
labour movement, with implications for every union member in the
country.
The decision to join the CAW was supported unanimously by the elected
leaders of the union locals at issue. And the decision has since been
ratified by more than 95 per cent of the thousands of individual
workers who have been allowed to vote on the issue. But their parent
union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), refuses to
accept the verdict of its members. It has placed the eight locals
under dictatorial trusteeship, and is suing the renegade leaders
personally for millions of dollars.
Now the Canadian Labour Congress, the umbrella organization for most
unions in Canada, has closed ranks with the SEIU by imposing
sanctions against us for accepting these new members. As of July 1,
we at the CAW will be effectively thrown out of the Congress, our
leaders and members barred from participating in events ranging from
national-level conferences to nitty-gritty local labour council
meetings.
According to Congress rules, it is virtually impossible for workers
to switch their membership from one union to another; as a result,
the decision of the eight locals to join the CAW technically
constitutes "raiding."
It doesn't matter how badly a union represents its members, or how
much it loses the confidence of those who pay its bills. Its members
can't switch affiliations without serious risk of losing their
certification and their hard-fought bargaining gains altogether. And
as long as dues money keeps flowing in from workers who are treated
more like indentured servants than trade unionists, then the picture
of happy solidarity is preserved -- for the union leaders, anyway.
Many people have asked me why the CAW would risk a split in the
labour movement in order to accept only 30,000 members in what for us
is a new sector. Our decision was not about getting new members, or
moving into a new sector. Rather, our actions are motivated by a
deep-seated commitment to union democracy, informed by our own bitter
experiences with unaccountable leaders. The CAW was formed only 15
years ago because the Americans running our parent organization put
their own agendas ahead of the preferences of their Canadian members.
We cannot watch as the aspirations of other Canadian workers are
similarly sacrificed.
In part, the current dramatic events have occurred because of the
CLC's failure to evolve in response to long-run changes in the
broader economy. Hostility from employers and governments meant that
cozy business unionism, in which union leaders take few risks and
actively co-operate with employers in return for annual wage
increases, was no longer sustainable. Meanwhile, the rise of
multi-industry unions such as the CAW made old jurisdictional rules
obsolete.
The CLC needs new rules governing membership disputes between unions.
It also needs to facilitate more creative and militant tactics on the
part of the movement as a whole. If it fails, then the cozy
non-aggression pact between member unions will soon become the CLC's
very raison d'être -- and that's no basis on which to build a vibrant
and effective federation.
There's another, deeper failure on the part of individual unions that
also underlies the current conflict. Why was a group of service
industry workers so intent on joining the CAW in the first place?
Because they, like so many other union members in both the private
and public sectors, had suffered years of concessions, wage freezes,
and other setbacks. Worst of all, they didn't even see their union
doing much about it.
Yes, the obstacles confronting unions in recent years have been
daunting ones. But many unions lost the basic determination to carry
on the fight. Some leaders seemed content to accept huge concessions
and other setbacks, so long as the dues kept coming. And if union
members are prevented from democratically selecting new
representatives, then the gradual decline and bureaucratization of
Canada's labour movement will continue.
No union can promise new members rich collective agreements. No union
can win every battle it undertakes. But every union must promise that
it will fight creatively and forcefully to improve the lives of its
members. And every union must respect the democratic right of its
members to freely choose their own representatives.
It may be a rocky road for the Canadian labour movement in coming
years. But there are other times in our history when we reinvented
and restructured ourselves to reflect new challenges, and new ways of
facing them. It's far better to take a few risks to revitalize the
hopes and dreams of rank-and-file union members than to watch the
steady degeneration of a business-as-usual institution.
Buzz Hargrove is president of the Canadian Auto Workers union.
>>