No Union Democracy, No Union Revitalization


Union democracy shouldn’t be seen as an abstract good separate from more important strategic considerations about rebuilding labor. Without democratizing labor, we can’t rebuild labor.

United Auto Workers members attend a rally on October 7, 2023, 

in Chicago, Illinois.

 (Jim Vondruska / Getty Images)

Chris Bohner 

JACOBIN

26/02/2024


Are labor unions democratic, and does it even matter? The recent transformation of the United Auto Workers (UAW), led by newly elected president Shawn Fain and the rank-and-file caucus Unite All Workers for Democracy, has provoked new debates about the governance of American unions.

For over seventy years, the UAW was under the complete control of just one party, the Administration Caucus. It wasn’t until the UAW settled a wide-ranging criminal complaint with the Department of Justice in 2020 that union members obtained the right to directly elect the top officers of their union (approved in a referendum supported by 64 percent of the membership). UAW members promptly threw out the Administration Caucus, engaged in a victorious strike against the Big Three automakers, and launched one of the most ambitious organizing campaigns in recent history.

Is it just a coincidence, or is there any link between the UAW’s democratic reforms and the more militant direction of the union? And if there is such a link, does it have any lessons for the broader labor movement? In a recent Jacobin article, I discussed some flaws in the state of contemporary union democracy, contending that the direct election of top union leaders is an important reform that could help reinvigorate the labor movement. Dave Kamper wrote a reply defending the current state of union democracy, saying that while he of course values democracy within the labor movement, “democracy is a value, not a strategy” and won’t necessarily lead to more militant unions.

There have been some significant victories for unions in recent years, but the percentage of workers who are unionized is still declining, and labor is not organizing at a rate that will reverse this trend. There are many external causes for the decline, but one internal factor is a failure of union leadership and a breakdown of democratic governance — “one member, one vote” is a worthy reform that could help address this failure.

“The Electoral College on Steroids”

In starting to answer the question of whether unions are democratic, let’s review the two predominant election models for electing top officers — positions typically vested with significant power to set a union’s direction. A handful of unions have direct elections (or “one member, one vote”), while most elect delegates to a convention at the local level through a membership vote, who then nominate and elect the top officers. The delegate system looks democratic, but the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), two of the largest private sector unions, provide examples of how the delegate system can work in practice.

Like the International Brotherhood of Teamsters before they were taken over by the Department of Justice in 1989, the UFCW and SEIU make liberal use of ex officio delegates: elected local officers who automatically became delegates without a membership vote. This is similar to the “superdelegate” system used by the Democratic Party that was famously deployed by party insiders to blunt the momentum of Bernie Sanders’s insurgent presidential candidacy.

Kamper argues the “delegates of [the UFCW] convention were all directly elected by members in secret-ballot elections.” However, according to the UFCW Constitution, top local union officers are automatically delegates to a convention by virtue of their office “without separate nomination and election as a delegate,” even if they were elected to office up to three years before the convention.

As one UFCW member remarked, the system is “like the Electoral College system on steroids.” Indeed, the UFCW delegate system is analogous to voting for candidates to the Electoral College before knowing the Democratic or Republican nominees for president.

Because of superdelegates and other features of the UFCW constitution, the UFCW reform group Essential Workers for Democracy estimates that up to 60 percent of the delegates to the 2023 convention were officers or staff. This built-in incumbent bias is a central reason why the top leadership “elections” at the UFCW resemble a dynastic form of succession. Over the last thirty years, there have been only three UFCW International Presidents, none of whom faced competitive or contested elections.The UFCW delegate system is analogous to voting for candidates to the Electoral College before knowing the Democratic or Republican nominees for president.

The lack of leadership challenges occurred as the union lost over 200,000 members, saw a steep drop in union density in its core industry (supermarkets), and negotiated a union contract at Kroger — one of the UFCW’s largest employers — that leaves one out of five workers on food stamps and other social assistance. Kamper argues reformers aren’t doing the hard organizing work to challenge UFCW leadership, but the structural obstacles to democratic participation are a better explanation.

UFCW isn’t the only large union using a superdelegate system to control union conventions. SEIU has an upcoming convention in 2024 to replace Mary Kay Henry, the retiring president of the union. Under the SEIU constitution, not only are the top officers of locals automatically delegates to the convention (even if elected up to three years ago), but the entire slate of local officers are automatically delegates. For example, SEIU’s largest local — 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers, representing some 450,000 members — is apportioned two hundred delegates for the 2024 convention, but seventy-nine of the delegates, or 40 percent, are superdelegates.

The superdelegate system is just one undemocratic feature of union governance, but there are many other formal and practical obstacles impeding worker participation, open debate, and competitive leadership elections. Kamper doesn’t address these obstacles, but surely union members voting for superdelegates years before a convention — without any knowledge of the competing convention candidates or resolutions — aren’t meaningfully participating in a democratic process.

“Morbid Symptoms of Democracy’s Opposite”

It is true that “democracy can and does have a different look in different unions,” and some delegate systems can be substantively democratic. One example is the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), while Kamper offers the National Education Association’s (NEA) annual Representative Assembly (RA). Still, he provides no data on how many NEA delegate elections are contested or the degree of member participation — all critical indicators of a robust democratic culture. Incidentally, Becky Pringle won the top office at the last RA with 93 percent of the delegate vote.

Is it a “disservice” to the labor movement, as Kamper warns, to ask the “question of how leaders are chosen”? Kamper, who has written insightfully on labor, didn’t think so when promoting Sara Nelson (the president of the Association of Flight Attendants) as the next president of the AFL-CIO. Arguing that Nelson’s election would be an “enormous boon” to “building a more democratic, militant, progressive US labor movement,” Kamper criticized the fact that “the overwhelming majority of the people . . . will have no effective say in how delegates are selected.”

Although the AFL-CIO president has very limited powers, the leaders of national unions have considerable constitutional muscle to drive the strategic direction of a union. Top officers typically control the finances of the national union, set the strategic direction of organizing and contract fights, establish and limit local jurisdictions, and impose trusteeships on rebellious locals. In the case of the UFCW, a small committee led by the international president can prohibit local unions from voting on contracts, deny strike benefits for unsanctioned strikes, and override strike votes.

Given the powers of top officers, the question of how leaders are chosen is essential. Jonah Furman’s Jacobin article “How Democratic Are American Unions?” suggested that one metric to measure whether unions are democratic is to look at union leadership: “Do incumbents ever lose their positions to a challenger? Are there (meaningful) challengers? Obviously, leadership challenges aren’t the source of ‘democracy,’ but the lack of such challenges . . . could very well be morbid symptoms of democracy’s opposite.”

In my article, I presented data on the election of top officers at the largest unions. Four of the six large unions with “one member, one vote” had competitive or contested elections for the top spot at the last convention. In contrast, for the fourteen unions without direct elections representing 10.6 million members, only three had competitive elections at the previous convention, and not one incumbent lost.

Kamper doesn’t address this data because he argues there is no strategic value to democracy. However, one of the primary arguments for democracy is that contested leadership elections with open debate lead to better long-term decision making than autocratic systems. That’s why “one member, one vote” is valuable as a reform — it isn’t a “silver bullet,” but it is an important pressure valve that members can use when local democracy is not working effectively.Of course, union democracy doesn’t ‘automatically’ lead to more militant or effective unions, but it is a crucial ingredient.

In this regard, Kamper ignores the importance of “one member, one vote” in revitalizing the UAW and, conversely, the strong link between delegate systems and the rampant corruption that necessitated the federal takeover of several large unions. Instead, Kamper focuses on the Teamsters, pointing out that direct elections did not “automatically” lead to a militant union under James Hoffa Jr, the former general president.

This is true, but every presidential election at the Teamsters since 1991 was competitive, a rarity in many delegate systems. Meaningful elections are important organizing vehicles for members to openly debate union strategy, helping sustain the relevance of reform movements like Teamsters for a Democratic Union.

When Hoffa Jr imposed the UPS contract in 2018 against a majority of workers voting no, “one member, one vote” gave Teamster members a direct avenue to throw out his successor and elect new leadership. It is highly doubtful that this would have happened under a less responsive delegate system.

Oligarchy vs. Democracy in the Labor Movement

Kamper doesn’t look very deeply into the actual practice of democracy in today’s unions because, surprisingly, as much as he values union democracy abstractly, he sees little strategic value in democracy as a path to labor’s revitalization. This is not an uncommon view, as some labor theorists have long argued that oligarchy and elite rule are necessary for labor unions to effectively fight the vastly disproportionate power of capitalists.

But this view may be surprising to contemporary reform movements seeking to change their unions or the many rank-and-file activists profiled in Herman Benson’s classic book on union democracy: Rebels, Reformers, and Racketeers: How Insurgents Transformed the Labor Movement. As Benson documents, union reformers fought for democracy at great personal cost, frequently subject to retaliation by employers and union leaders and, in some cases, violence and murder. These members weren’t motivated by some abstract moral value of democracy. They saw democracy as a strategy to transform unions that were failing to effectively represent workers in their fight against employers.

Of course, union democracy doesn’t “automatically” lead to more militant or effective unions, but it is a crucial ingredient. Kamper claims there hasn’t been a “systematic effort to study” the relationship, but he overlooks some essential academic scholarship. Judith Stepan-Norris and Maurice Zeitlin’s book Left Out: Reds and America’s Industrial Unions exhaustively probes the relationship between union democracy and mass organizing in the 1930s and 1940s by the Congress of Industrial Unions (CIO).

Citing a 1948 study of union democracy, Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin point out that most unions at the time — especially the more conservative American Federation of Labor (AFL) unions — were “not even nominally democratic.” But when they looked more closely at the CIO unions (many of whom had the opportunity to write their constitutions from scratch), Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin found that “seven out of ten CIO international unions, as of that same year [1948], were democratic: either highly (29 percent) or moderately (40 percent); only three out of ten (31 percent) were ruled by an autocrat.”

Moreover, Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin “found that the contracts won by the locals of stable highly democratic international unions were systematically more likely to be prolabor on a set of critical provisions (management prerogatives, the right to strike, and the grievance procedure) than those won by locals of stable moderately democratic and stable oligarchical internationals.” The findings of Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin are consistent with a large body of theory that argues democracy is a more effective governance system than autocratic forms of organization.

The labor movement has rightly condemned the undemocratic features of our political system, calling for the elimination of the filibuster and the expansion of voting rights to create a government more responsive to the working class. But why shouldn’t the same standards apply to union members seeking to participate in the governance of their union?

“One member, one vote” is no silver bullet, but as Mike Parker and Martha Gruelle argued in their classic book Democracy Is Power, “the demand for direct elections can be an important tool in a movement for reform, although not a substitute for a movement.”

CONTRIBUTORS
Chris Bohner is a union researcher and activist.

Wal-Mart Drives Down Wages

And here is another good reason to boycott Wal-Mart as if one was needed. They drive down wages. In Canada. In competition with our large big box discount grocery chains. Its not just lower costs and lower prices folks, its driven by lower wages, and NO benefits.

But Wal-Mart is not the only villian in this story, they have pals in the bosses, in this case Loblaws and its big box retail outlet Superstore, and their union, UFCW.

Canada has too many grocery stores and the situation will only get worse as discounter Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and other non-union global retailers take a bigger bite of the market, Loblaw Cos. Ltd. chairman Galen Weston warns.

To take on the growing competition, Loblaw, the country's largest grocer, is racing to overhaul its systems. It is adding more general merchandise, lowering prices and rolling out more discount superstores. And the unionized company is in contract talks in a bid to gain pay concessions and level the playing field with non-unionized Wal-Mart. Loblaw profit slips on snags in overhaul

Loblaw operates at a competitive disadvantage to Wal-Mart in terms of labour costs, as the majority of Loblaw stores are unionized. The retailer has successfully negotiated to pay employees at its 80 superstores lower wages than at its traditional stores. Loblaw girds for battle

Canada's biggest supermarket chain says it wants to open more mid-sized conventional grocery stores in downtown Toronto to serve the booming condominium market. But Loblaw Cos. Ltd. said it must first strike more deals with its unions, similar to the ones it got for its Ontario superstores, to remain competitive with non-union rivals. Loblaw eyeing hungry condo dwellers

They already gained concessions from their union, the sell out UFCW. Last round of bargaining UFCW whined about Wal-Mart, whom they have tried to unionize, while accepting the Loblaw contract without taking it to the rank and file to vote on. The threat of Wal-Mart is enough to drive UFCW into concessions, not that it needs to be pushed hard.

Since the late eighties UFCW has accepted concession bargaining by Safeways, and others and as typical of this business union, despite membership opposition. In Alberta in the 1990's concession bargaining by UFCW with Safeways inspired Ralph Klein to attack public sector wages using UFCW's two tiered wage concession and wage roll back of 5% to Safeway's as an excuse, to roll back public sector wages by 5%.

While a union is better than no union, when it comes to UFCW all they care about is the union dues, as they have accepted increased part time two tiered wages, including lower wages for new employees. Why. Well they still get the union dues whether the workers are full time or part time. They are after all in the 'business' of being a union.

The imposition of bureaucratic rule has always required bureaucratic methods, including outright dishonesty. A recent example of this process is found in the attempt by leaders of the American Flintglass Workers Union, a small, relatively democratic union, to take that union into the United Food & Commercial Workers, one of the nation's most grotesquely bureaucratic unions. Merger might have made sense for this tiny union, but given the reality of the UFCW, it was clear the "Flints," as they call themselves, would lose some of their current democracy; e.g. the election of the union's ten national reps. To get it by, the pro-merger leaders called a special convention without making the terms of the merger available until the delegates arrived. Sensibly, the delegates voted the merger down by over three to one. In this case democracy prevailed over bureaucratic method.

The battle for bureaucratic unionism was won by the 1950s and the unions that emerged looked little like those that exploded on the scene in the mid-1930s. Reviewing in horror the transformation of so many unions, Sidney Lens wrote at the time (in The Crisis of American Labor) about the rise of full-time, appointed "reps" whose swelling numbers bolstered the domination of union politics by the top officials. There had always been authoritarian leaders, but for the newer industrial unions at least all of the armies of appointees were something new. This rising tide of bureaucratic business unionism brought with it the receding fortunes of the unions themselves. Four decades later, many of labor's friends and enemies alike assume that massive bureaucracy and top-down control are the natural state of the unions, possibly "the best" state.

Kim Moody Is Bureaucracy "Best" For Unions?

Also See:

Labor Notes Bookshelf - An Injury to All"Kim Moody's An Injury to All exhaustively documents the devastating effects of management's anti-union drive of the last fifteen years.

An Injury to All: The Decline of American Unionism. - book reviews

Confessions of an orthodox militant - and contentions - response to the review of author's 'Injury to All'; includes reply of reviewer Dana Frank

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
unions, Loblaws, Weston, UFCW, Wal-Mart, Canada, labour, Real-Canadian-Superstores, Superstore, union, food, supermarkets, Safeway

Cargill beef-processing plant in High River, Alta. narrowly avoids strike action

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Email

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

Days before planned strike at High River, Alta., facility,

 union agrees to new contract

Jade Markus · CBC News · Posted: Dec 04, 2021 

The Cargill beef-processing plant in High River, Alta., seen in 2020 after it reopened following a two-week shutdown because of a COVID-19 outbreak affecting hundreds of employees. On Saturday, workers accepted a new contract offer that included new rights for sick employees.  (Dan McGarvey/CBC)

Employees at Cargill's beef-processing plant in High River, Alta., have voted in favour of a new labour contract, narrowly avoiding strike action and a possible lockout.

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 401 (UFCW), which represents workers at the plant, said Saturday that workers chose to accept the new contract offer, with 71 per cent voting in favour.

In a statement, UFCW said it was not an easy decision for staff at the plant, and called the contract vote a "bittersweet victory." 

Workers had raised safety concerns after a COVID-19 outbreak at the plant in 2020 affected more than 900 people. The outbreak, which forced Cargill to temporarily close the plant — one of Canada's largest — is linked to three deaths.

The union says the new contract includes procedures to ensure worker health and safety, benefits, and new rights for sick employees. 

After the two sides held talks on Tuesday, UFCW's bargaining committee agreed to recommend the new offer to its members, Cargill spokesperson Daniel Sullivan said. Workers voted between Thursday and Saturday.

The union released parts of the proposed offer to CBC earlier in the week. The contract included $4,200 in retroactive pay for many Cargill union members; signing, holiday and COVID-19 bonuses; and a $5 wage increase.

Workers prepare beef to be packaged at the Cargill facility near High River, Alta. The plant is the site of what became the largest COVID-19 outbreak in North America last year. (Name withheld)

UFCW had said the plant's roughly 2,000 workers would strike Monday unless an agreement was reached.

The union also they brought in tents, floodlights and heaters for the possible strike, while nearby fields were levelled to provide parking.

• What Cargill workers want 
  • Cargill workers to vote on new deal ahead of strike at one of Canada's largest beef-processing plants

Cargill had also planned to lock out all UFCW union staff as of 12:01 a.m. Monday, according to a statement from the company's vice-president of labour relations, Tanya Teeter, which was obtained and made public by the union.

• Cargill issues lockout notice to staff at one of Canada's largest beef-processing plants

• Cargill workers to vote on new deal ahead of strike at one of Canada's largest beef-processing plants

"We are pleased to have reached an agreement that is comprehensive, fair, and reflective of their commitment to excellence at Cargill and the critical role they play in feeding families across Canada," Jarrod Gillig, the company's president of business operations and supply chain for North America protein, wrote in a statement to CBC Saturday.  

"As an organization that leads with our value to put people first, we truly believe this ratification is in the best interests of our employees and we are eager to move forward to build a stronger future – together."

Reforms still needed: Union

"We also look forward to the citizens of Alberta joining with us in calling for reforms and restructuring in the meatpacking industry," UFCW President Thomas Hesse wrote in a statement Saturday. 

"Workers have been ripped off. Ranchers have been ripped off. And we've all been ripped off at the supermarket counter. Government failed to protect these workers, as well as failing to protect Alberta ranchers and consumers. Change must occur." 

The Cargill plant processes up to 4,500 head of cattle per day, accounting for about one-third of Canada's beef.

With files from Tony Seskus, Joel Dryden and Reuters

Strike action avoided at Cargill beef plant in High River, Alta.


Adam Lachacz
CTVNewsEdmonton.ca 

Digital Producer
Published Dec. 4, 2021 

Cargill workers approved a new contract with 71 per cent support, avoiding a strike or lockout.

After two days of voting, employees at the beef-processing plant in High River, Alta., embraced the new labour contract.

In a statement, the United Food and Commerical Workers (UFCW) Local 401, representing workers at the plant, said on Saturday that it was a "bittersweet victory."

The site, employing about 2,000 people, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak last year that affected more than 900 people and forced Cargill to close the plant temporarily. Three deaths have been linked to the outbreak, including two workers and one family member.

Workers will receive $4,200 in retroactive pay, a $1,000 signing bonus, a 21 per cent wage increase over the life of the contract, and improved health benefits. The company also agreed to provisions to facilitate a new culture of health, safety, dignity, and respect in the workplace.

"Our employees in High River are important to Cargill's work to nourish the world in a safe, responsible and sustainable way," said Jarrod Gillig, Cargill North America's business operations and supply chain president, in a statement to CTV News.

"We are pleased to have reached an agreement that is comprehensive, fair, and reflective of their commitment to excellence at Cargill and the critical role they play in feeding families across Canada."
STRIKE AVERTED

According to UFCW Local 401, the union and workers were ready for a potential strike, erecting tents in front of the plant, installing floodlights and propane heaters, levelling nearby fields to act as parking lots, and finalizing a picketing payroll system.

UFCW Local 401 president Thomas Hesse previously told CTV News that the deal was "fair" but would support workers on the picket line if they decided to reject the offer.

"Tomorrow, work will begin to enforce and apply the new provisions of the Cargill union contract," Hesse said in a statement Saturday. "Local 401 congratulates and thanks Cargill union members and our Cargill Bargaining Committee."

Hesse added that the past few months were trying for many employees at the plant.

MORE WORK TO DO

While the decision was not an easy one and a cause for celebration, UFCW Local 401 says there is further work.

The union says workers at the JBS Plant in Brooks, Alta., observed the Cargill proceedings as they head into bargaining for a new contract next year. Additionally, the UFCW Local 401 says it plans to continue pushing for meatpacking industry reforms and restructuring.

As prices for meat continue to soar at the grocery store, Hesse said more needs to be done to better support workers and ranchers.

"Workers have been ripped off. Ranchers have been ripped off. And we've all been ripped off at the supermarket counter," he said. "Government failed to protect these workers, as well as failing to protect Alberta ranchers and consumers. Change must occur."

With files from CTV News Calgary's Michael Franklin

RELATED STORIES
'We are not afraid': Workers at Cargill's High River, Alta. meat plant vote to strike
Cargill comes to tentative deal with union at High River, Alta. beef plant
Workers at southern Alberta meat-processing plant begin receiving COVID-19 vaccinations
Site of COVID-19 outbreak last year: Vaccination clinic at Alberta beef plant postponed
Cargill donates $125K to social agencies in High River, Alta.

Union Democracy Is a Value, Not a Strategy

By Dave Kamper

February 1, 2024

Source: Jacobin


Democracy is a central value of every trade union worth the name. But we shouldn’t assume that a more democratic union means a more militant union.

Chris Bohner’s recent essay in these pages, “Direct Elections for Labor Leaders Make for More Militant Unions,” lays out an argument that at one level is so uncontroversial that it should be a platitude — unions should be democratic. No one who believes in organized labor in the United States (or anywhere in the world) can disagree with the sentiment. Nevertheless, Bohner is right to say it, because even seemingly obvious truths bear repeating.

However, Bohner goes much further and commits an error common to union reformers — conflating the morally good with the inherently strategic. A “more democratic union,” Bohner contends, “is a more militant union.” The path to a stronger, better union is through democracy.

Would that it were so. Building more effective unions requires commitment, patience, planning, and considerable skill, and cannot be achieved by changing a constitution. We are doing a disservice to those who want to build a better labor movement if we reduce the scope and scale of our challenges to the question of how leaders are chosen.
Democracy and Militancy

Let me back up, though, and begin by questioning one of Bohner’s underlying assumptions, that “‘one member, one vote’ is a right denied to most union members.” This simply isn’t true.

It is true that if by one member, one vote, you only mean direct election of an international union’s top leaders, most unions are not structured that way. But that’s the only way that Bohner’s assertion is true.

For example, Bohner criticizes the delegates of the convention of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) for not backing what he calls “commonsense resolutions” to make it easier for the union to strike, increase strike pay, and direct resources to organizing. He asserts that if “the general membership of the UFCW had direct elections, these resolutions would have likely received widespread support.” This is because, as he puts it, union conventions that elect leaders by the delegate system “entrench incumbents who can deploy the union’s vast legal, financial, political, and organizational resources to maintain power and stifle reform challenges.”

But the general membership of the UFCW does have direct elections. The delegates of that convention were all directly elected by members in secret-ballot elections. The UFCW constitution lays out the process in excruciating detail, one that guarantees members the right to vote.

Why is a convention delegate elected by one-member-one-vote a shill for incumbents, but an international union president elected by one-member-one-vote a liberatory figure who will change the union in fundamental ways?

Bohner here falls prey to another common error made by union reformers — treating union decisions they don’t agree with as self-evident proof of some kind of corruption.

Unions are political entities. Reasonable people can disagree on what the best path forward is for a union. To stick with UFCW: it’s entirely possible that UFCW convention delegates might have sad memories of the 2003–04 California grocery strike, where some seventy thousand UFCW members were out for 140 days, the union’s assets were cut in half, and the final deal was a bitter pill that few believe justified the walkout. Remembering that experience might well make a delegate reluctant to increase strike pay because of the risk that a long strike would drain the union’s coffers.

I’m not saying those convention delegates were right; I’m not saying they were wrong. I’m saying that their decision can be explained without resorting to allegations of corruption.

And, yes, it is likely true that, if the current leadership of UFCW opposed the reformers’ suggested changes, they might have tried to persuade convention delegates. That’s called politics, not corruption. Leaders get to try to persuade people to support their policies. That’s what leaders are supposed to do.

While Bohner reluctantly acknowledges that union democracy goes beyond direct election of international officers, that’s clearly the part he considers the most important. If so, he seems to me to be doing a disservice to, say, the National Education Association’s (NEA) annual Representative Assembly (RA), arguably the world’s largest parliamentary gathering, which some years can see close to ten thousand delegates, directly elected by members across the country. Democracy can and does have a different look in different unions.

However, even if we grant Bohner’s contention that union democracy equals one member, one vote, for the top leadership of the union, we shouldn’t assume that such a reform will automatically lead to a more militant, more organizing-minded, or more successful union.

Bohner (rightly) praises the Teamsters’ successful UPS contract campaign, a militant, strategic, well-executed plan that won a lot of good things for the members. But Bohner can’t (and doesn’t try to) explain why Teamsters presidents directly elected by the members since 1991 didn’t produce what he considers a revitalized and militant union, but the direct election of 2021 did.

Bohner has produced very provocative work on union finances, arguing that unions are hoarding assets at the expense of organizing and militancy. His argument is that more union democracy would change that trajectory. I can understand why people might want to believe it, but saying it doesn’t make it so.

The only systematic effort to study the relationship between union democracy and union organizing doesn’t support that point of view. In the mid-2000s, Andrew W. Martin looked closely at union financial data and came to the conclusion that the greater the influence union staff have on a union’s actions, and the less control local unions have over the operations of their locals, the more likely that union will engage in new organizing. Martin’s data is based on LM-2 reports to the Department of Labor, which is not an ideal source, but it is the same source that Bohner uses for his work on union finances.

As to the other half of Bohner’s argument, that directly elected union leaders will also be more militant, there isn’t any robust evidence to back it up. If you squint at the year 2023, it does kind of look like unions with directly elected leaders were more militant, but there are any number of years in recent memory where the most militant union was (say) the Communications Workers of America (CWA), or the NEA, or Service Employees International Union (SEIU), none of which directly elect their top leaders.
The Hard Work of Reform

What does seem to be true is that unions that become more focused on organizing and become more militant have gone through some kind of internal shift in power. But that shift in power isn’t always tied to changes in constitutional arrangements. If you’d asked folks before the recent United Auto Workers (UAW) strike what the most inspiring recent story of union reform and militancy was, many would have said the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). In 2010, a CTU reform caucus won power and took the union in a much more aggressive direction, launching a series of powerful strikes and even getting a former CTU staffer elected mayor. The CTU reform story is inspiring and powerful; it does not feature notable constitutional changes.

The 2018 Red for Ed strike in West Virginia and elsewhere had a different path, but also one without a union-democracy-equals-union-militancy storyline. In West Virginia in particular, member-organizers bypassed official union structures and put together a statewide strike with little reference to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) or NEA leadership in the state.

You see this again and again if you look at how unions reinvent themselves. That conflict is rarely centered on the union’s formal structures. What it always requires, though, is considerable amounts of hard work.

If you want to reform your union, reform your union. Have one-on-one conversations to identify organizing issues and figure out what it will take to move members in the direction you want to go. Find and support better leaders, at every level of the organization. Develop strategies to win based on the circumstances of your union and the employers against whom you struggle. Build energy for those strategies through even more one-on-one conversations, leadership identification, and action. Execute your strategies, and win.

If you want unions that do more organizing, that are more militant, you’re going to have to build it, carefully and consciously. No silver bullets. Just organizing.

MICHIGAN

What new union contracts mean for Meijer employees


by: Madalyn Buursma
Updated: Feb 23, 2024 

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — Raises and more paid time off are coming for Meijer employees after the union voted to ratify new contracts.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 951 ratified the contracts late Thursday night, the union says. The UFCW 951 represents more than 25,000 Meijer workers.

The ratification of the contracts came shortly after the repeal of Michigan’s right-to-work law took effect. Prior to the repeal, employees could not be obligated to join or pay for a union.

Michigan’s right-to-work repeal takes effect

Under the new union contracts, new Meijer hires in Michigan must either join the UFCW 951 or pay a service fee. Non-union members who are already employed by Meijer have until June 15 to either become a member, pay the fee or quit, the union says.

There aren’t many employees who aren’t already part of the union, John Cakmakci, president of UFCW Local 951, told News 8.

“We’re proud of that,” he said.

He expects the new requirement will make the union stronger.

The three separate contracts cover retail, distribution center/transportation and retail facilities maintenance workers. They include immediate raises of up to $1.50 an hour, plus more paid time off for those who were hired after Oct. 23, 2005.

There will also be a 25% increase in Meijer’s 401(k) match, employees will be eligible for healthcare benefits after 30 days instead of 60 days, and there will be a new paid family care leave for employees to take paid time off to take care of a family member with a serious illness.

Employees will also be guaranteed a raise for every 700 hours they work, down from the 1,000 hours previously required.

A post-pandemic workforce: How COVID empowered workers

“There were significant wage increases for our members in the distribution center as well as in the retail, premium improvements and paid time off. And some working language improvements as well,” Cakmakci told News 8.

The new contracts also give employees more opportunities to get a full-time position, along with increased shift, job classification and building premiums.

“We’re excited to have reached an agreement that includes significant investments in our team and demonstrates how much we value and care about our team members,” Ken Barton, the vice president of labor relations for Meijer, said in a statement. “This agreement also positions Meijer to continue providing great services to the communities we support.”

Cakmakci said the bargaining process took about four and a half months. While he said the union has a good relationship with Meijer, having three contracts makes the process “fairly complicated.”

Union workers ratify new Meijer contracts with wage increases, more time off

Abby Poirier 

-

February 23, 2024

Meijer Inc. store in Grand Haven. Credit: Mark Sanchez

Members of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 951 voted this week to ratify new contracts with Meijer that contain improvements to wages, paid time off, 401(k), health care and pay for more than 25,000 Meijer employees. 

The three separate, four-year contracts approved this week are effective Feb. 25. The contracts cover employees working in retail, distribution centers and transportation and retail facility maintenance and offer immediate wage increases of up to $1.50 per hour. 

Other contract improvements include: 

• • More paid time off for employees hired after Oct. 23, 2005;
  • A 25% increase in the company’s 401(k) match;
  • A shortened waiting period for health care benefits eligibility for full-time employees, from 60 days to 30 days; 
  • New paid family care leave, which provides paid time off for employees to care for family members with a serious illness;
  • More opportunities for employees to obtain full-time positions;
  • Guaranteed wage increases for every 700 hours worked in retail units as opposed to a prior 1,000 hours; and
  • Increased premiums for various shifts, job classifications and locations.

John Cakmakci, UFCW Local 951. Credit: Courtesy photo

“Not only are our members receiving significant wage increases, but the length of time it takes them to get to the top rate has been reduced due to the closing of gaps in the wage scale,” UFCW Local 951 President John Cakmakci said in a statement. “I am proud of the members who served on the bargaining committee and worked together to achieve contract gains that improve the lives of their fellow members.”

Cakmakci characterized the new contract as a win for workers represented by UFCW 951, the largest private sector union in the state. 

“We’re excited to have reached an agreement that includes significant investments in our team and demonstrates how much we value and care about our team members,” Ken Barton, vice president of labor relations at Meijer, said in a statement. “This agreement also positions Meijer to continue providing great services to the communities we support.”

The union began negotiations with Meijer months ago. Cakmakci noted at the time that improvements in paid time off and more affordable medical care were among the union’s top priorities in contract negotiations with the supercenter retailer, the first after the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic subsided. 

The previous contract, which was ratified in 2020, expired this month. 

“With everything that people have gone through in the last three years with COVID and everything, I think our members felt like they were forgotten,” Cakmakci said in a November report. 

Cakmakci said at the time that Meijer has historically set a standard for negotiations with other retail employers.

“It’s been a long process, but I’m very excited for this new contract,” said Steve Speare, who works at Meijer distribution center 882 in Monroe County and served on the bargaining committee for UFCW 951. “Everything we did is about getting what you work for, making a living, and I was comfortable with how everything turned out.” 

The new contract also comes during a period of changing Michigan laws concerning union membership. 

Michigan’s right-to-work law ended Feb. 13, making it the first state in 58 years to repeal such a law. Right to work had allowed workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement to opt out of joining the union. 

To reflect this repeal, the new UFCW 951 contacts with Meijer will require all new hires to join the union or pay a service fee as a condition of their employment with Meijer. Existing Meijer workers who have opted not to join the union will have until June 15 to become a union member, pay the service fee or leave the company, according to a statement.

Cakmakci sees the right-to-work repeal as a victory, noting the “detrimental impact right-to-work has had on our state.”

“Right-to-work laws are about increasing the power of corporations while restricting the power of workers to join together in unions, rather than worker freedom or job creation,” he said. “Unions are one of the few organized groups that have the capacity to successfully advocate for the economic interests of working people, so the ability for workers to be in a union must be protected.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been updated from its original version to include comment from Meijer.

Google thanks grocery workers with new Doodle
By Wade Sheridan

Google is recognizing grocery workers with a new Doodle. Image courtesy of Google

April 13 (UPI) -- Google is honoring grocery workers during the COVID-19 pandemic with a new Doodle.

Google's homepage features the letter "G" in the company's logo sending a heart to a grocery store worker who is represented by the letter "e."

The grocery store worker, who is wearing all green, is standing next to stands of fruits and vegetables along with a cash register.

The company says that as the pandemic continues, Doodles will pay homage to those who are battling the virus.

"As COVID-19 continues to impact communities around the world, people are coming together to help one another now more than ever. We're launching A Doodle series to recognize and honor many of those on the front lines," Google said.

Recent Doodles have given thanks to farmworkers and farmers and custodial and sanitation workers.

 Allison WilliamsGoogle honors farmworkers and farmers with new Doodle

Google recognizes custodial and sanitation workers with new Doodle

Grocery Workers Keep Dying From Coronavirus:
 ‘We Don't Have a Choice’
Dozens of grocery workers nationwide have died from coronavirus, and thousands more are out of work because they're sick or have been exposed.

By Paul Blest Apr 13 2020 VICE NEWS USA 

Cover: Volunteers at Pantry 279 distribute food to area residents experiencing food insecurity during the COVID-19 Coronavirus emergency. (Photo by Jeremy Hogan / SOPA Images/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Dozens of grocery workers nationwide have died from coronavirus, and more than 3,000 members of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union are currently out of work due to illness or exposure to COVID-19, the union said in a press call on Monday.

UFCW president Marc Perrone said that 30 members of the UFCW, which represents more than 900,000 grocery workers as part of its membership of 1.3 million, had died due to complications from coronavirus. But according to a Washington Post analysis published Sunday, at least 41 grocery workers nationwide have died due to complications from the coronavirus and more than 1,500 UFCW members have tested positive for coronavirus.

“I work in one of the hardest hit areas, and while I maintain my composure at work, the fear we feel is absolutely real,” said Gregg Finch, a UFCW member and Stop and Shop worker in New York, the global epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.. “We don’t have a choice, we have to work. We also know that we are needed. The shop is essential for New Yorkers going through the struggle.”

A recent survey conducted by the UFCW found that 96% of 5,000 members who responded are concerned about being exposed to coronavirus, Perrone said on the call Monday. In recent weeks, workers at companies such as Amazon, Shipt, and Instacart have staged walkouts in order to demand management to implement stronger safety measures and paid leave for sick employees.

Because of the overwhelming concern from members, the UFCW is rolling out a “Shop Smart” ad campaign in an attempt to persuade social distancing compliance from customers. The union will soon roll out print and video ads on a “nationwide basis,” Perrone said, “to get customers to think about [safe shopping] in a more positive way.”

Jane St. Louis, a Safeway worker in Maryland, said that three of her coworkers are out due to illness, although they haven’t been tested, and that workers are expected to stay home for two weeks if they have a fever. “Everyone’s going by that even though they aren’t getting paid,” she said.

Grocery workers from around the country expressed their fears of contracting the virus, which they said have been compounded by poor social distancing and unhygienic behavior from customers, such as tossing used gloves in shopping carts or on the floor.

“We do need to shop differently and smarter than ever before,” Finch said.

“It is clear that unless something changes quickly, more and more of these workers, both union and non-union, will become exposed and die,” Perrone said. Perrone also noted that the UFCW sent a letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week urging the federal government to provide personal protective equipment to food workers “before food supply is threatened and workers die needlessly.”

He added that no formal plans have been made for walkouts at grocery stores yet, as the union has seen “good faith efforts” from employers. But he didn’t rule out more aggressive action in the future if conditions get worse.

“The more people get frustrated, if this virus doesn’t die down, we could see some of that at some point,” Perrone said. “But not because anybody wants it to happen and certainly not because these workers want it to happen. They’re just as concerned about consumers as themselves.”

This article originally appeared on VICE USA

This is Class War

The Only Labour Relations between Workers and Bosses is Class War!

"The employing class and the working class have nothing in common."
Preamble to the IWW Constitution

It is time for the Labour Movement in Canada to grow a backbone and JUST SAY NO! to working with or obeying Labour Relations Boards and their rulings.

In Alberta we have recently had rulings against unions, including a ruling on Finning which found that when it outsources its work to the rat union CLAC plant that this did not violate Labour Relations law. The fact that Jim Dinning who hopes to replace Ralph as Premier of Alberta is on the Finning Board probably influenced this decision against the IAMAW whose members are having their jobs contracted out.

A disputes inquiry is being held into the Lakeside Packers strike, effectively ending the strike for 60 days, but with no guarantee of binding arbitration. After the union requested binding arbitration and the Minister of Labour never responded.

For a dozen years, Ralph says his government won't pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Then, late Tuesday, the Klein Tories pick a winner and a loser.

They use the heavy hammer of Big Government and call off a legal strike at Lakeside Packers in Brooks, a walkout slated to commence early yesterday morning.

Winner. Lakeside Packers, a slaughterhouse owned by the world's biggest meat merchant, Tyson Foods of the U.S. of A.

Losers. The employees at Lakeside Packers.

Tyson is happy. Their plant is operating. Reports surface of supervisors telling employees the union is powerless.

Doug is left to calm down his members, more than half are new Canadians and most are from Sudan, fleeing from a full-scale human slaughter by a dictatorship bent on genocide.

They don't understand what is happening. Why is the government in this democratic land not protecting them? They are also angry with the union for not fighting, not realizing the union has no choice with the province playing favourites.

Doug advises them to obey the law and go to work. The union asks Cardinal to address the rank and file. He passes.

Then O'Halloran speaks words no one with any sense of fair play wants to hear.

"I think they screwed us," he says, of the province.

Ralph Screws Workers Calgary Sun Cries Foul

"Where is the government all this time?" Ringe Lual, a trimmer of the plant, said of the lengthy negotiations that led to Wednesday's strike deadline. "Why they step in at [the] last minute? Where are they all this time?"

What a Friend Tysons has in Ralph

Mason urges arbitration to resolve Lakeside dispute
Says appointment of a Disputes Inquiry Board favours Tyson over workers
NDP Opposition Leader Brian Mason today sent a letter to Human Resources and Employment Minister Mike Cardinal condemning the government’s deliberate use of labour legislation to favour Tyson Foods over unionized workers at its Lakeside plant near Brooks.

Government 'dirty tricks' in Lakeside dispute? Would 'impartial umpire' choose sides? Asks AFL

While unions have representatives on the LRB so do the bosses and the government picks who it wants as chair.

In this case the chair is a management lawyer representing the anti-union Construction Industry Merit Shops who have sweetheart contracts with CLAC. He was appointed by the Klein Government after they fired the pro-labour Chair when they didn't like one of his rulings in favour of the union.

There is no fair or level playing field for workers in Alberta labour relations. The game is rigged in favour of the bosses.

The Faces of Labour Relations in AlbertaAUPE President Dan MacLennan and Alberta Premier Ralph Klein chat during the premier’s Klondike Day’s breakfast July 26 on the Legislature grounds in Edmonton. The annual event was attended by thousands of AUPE members. ( they are golf pals too. ep)

And now we have Telus getting support from the Canadian Industrial Labour Relations Board and the Supreme Court of B.C. If this isn't enough to ring the clarion bell of class war I don't know what will.

Telus wins injunction against striking workers
Phone company Telus has won an injunction barring striking union members from blocking access to company premises in British Columbia.
The B.C. Supreme Court granted the injunction Friday, a day after the Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU) went on strike."This is a very broad and positive ruling that gives Telus the ability we need to ensure our team members can safely come to work and serve our customers," Audrey Ho, the company's vice-president of legal services, said in a statement Saturday. The decision also bars the TWU from picketing at or near customers' premises, the company said.

New contract implemented by Telus
Labour board doesn't stop unilateral move
A major work stoppage at Telus Corp. entered its second day yesterday as the company went ahead and unilaterally implemented a contract offer that its main union has spurned.
Vancouver-based Telus essentially got the green light to proceed on Thursday evening. That's when the Canada Industrial Relations Board issued a key decision that didn't order the removal of lockout measures introduced in April. This has allowed Telus to continue with plans announced last week to implement the contract yesterday. “It's an endorsement of what we've been going through,” Telus vice-president of corporate affairs Drew McArthur said yesterday. “The CIRB has found that we're well within our rights to take the approach that we have.”

Unions in Canada believe the contract is sacred, they actually believe in contract law. And they abide by it. While the employers know contracts are made to be broken, and will find away around the contract anyway they can.

A hostile legal and regulatory climate explains much of the disjuncture between provincial macroeconomic success, and the ho-hum economic condition of Alberta' workforce. Rules regarding union organising, certification, strikes, and picketing are the toughest in Canada. This is at least as important as the much-vaunted "free enterprise" culture of the province in explaining the low level of unionisation. Alberta's low provincial minimum wage also helps keep wages from getting out of hand.

In this context, economic progress for working people will not descend upon their hands like manna from the free-market heavens. Workers will get what they demand and what they fight for. All of which brings us to the Herald strike.

It's no accident that this bitter strike is occurring in Alberta. The issues being confronted by the strikers will rear their heads across the country, as the Southam chain is restructured and reoriented. Indeed, if the strikers lose, the employees of newspapers elsewhere in Canada can expect to face demands for the elimination of seniority protection and other concessions. Calgary is a great place for Southam's management to test-drive its new policies.

In this sense, then, Alberta's anti-union institutions clearly promote the sorts of bitter conflicts that they are purportedly designed to prevent. A tilted playing field does not stop workers from fighting for their rights; it only makes those struggles more difficult and violent than they need to be. The determination of the Herald strikers is simply more evidence of that historical finding.

The Alberta Disadvantage By Jim Stanford, Parkland Post Winter 2000

But playing on the reformist ideals of the trade union movement, that it is a partner in capitalism, the state and the bosses created Labour Relations Boards and the Labour Relations Industry. A whole new profession for left leaning progressive lawyers and members of the NDP.

It is the Management’s Rights clause, the recognition that Capital dominates the workplace and is the owner of the means of production that solidified the AFL/CIO industrial unions, as the handmaidens of capitalist production in the post war era. Workers Power was now not a revolutionary power to overthrow the capitalist system, but a form of fixed capital to be bargained with for the crumbs of an expanding capitalist system.

The strength of the IWW was its refusal to give up the right to wobble the job, no contract was signed that ever gave up the right to walk off the job over grievances. This development of the Management’s rights clause is key to the development of a whole legal, labour industry of paid reps, service or insurance model unions, labour and employer lawyers, mediators, arbitrators, all the functionaries of the state. The growth of the labour law industry and labour relations boards, etc necessitates the unions and management being part of the capitalist state. On the shop floor the post WWIi unions bargained away their members rights for a guaranty of increasing wages and benefits, while at the same time the unions recognized the State as arbitrator of the social contract, one which created a tripartite relationship between the state, capital and labour. This social contract was the realization of the dreams of the second international, social peace replaced class war.

Unions, the State and Capital
Unpublished Paper by Eugene Plawiuk, 2003

By giving up the right to take direct action on the job, that is to 'wobble' the job over grievances, leads unions into the morass of labour relations games.

The idea of eliminating the management rights clause in collective agreements was raised not by radical syndicalists, but by the outgoing chair of the Industrial Relations Society in the UK in the 1990's.

A learned judge he saw management's rights as the clause which not only limits union’s abilities to represent their members but restricts union members from getting immediate satisfaction over their grievances. There is no level playing field for workers with collective agreements that allow for management rights and for a grievance arbitration procedure.

There is no justice in the courts or the labour relations tribunals. They are there to enforce LAW AND ORDER. To make sure production is not disrupted by strikes. Even short two hour strikes that would resolve an immediate grievance on the shop floor.

They exist to limit, restrict and make illegal direct action by workers. And to have our unions sit on these boards, and play tripartite footsie with the bosses is what drives workers mad, as in angry. Cause we always lose.

Alberta Workers Angry at Government and Union

The process of grievance arbitration is long and drawn out, and can take years to resolve. And if it is a case of being unjustly fired from a job, the cash you get will be far less than the non-union worker who can take the issue to court under common law as constructive dismissal and get a settlement for more money faster.

Business Unions act on behalf of the company, not on behalf of their members. They promise to make their workers tow the line; they act as agents of Law and Order on the shop floor. What’s good for GM is good for CAW.

It is only when workers strike and run their own strike committees, can workers take power over their lives and away from the union hacks.

Canfor workers back on the job in Prince George after wildcat strike

A case in point is the Lakeside Packers strike, the workers were ready to strike, but were stopped not by a government order but by the capitulation of their well paid UFCW union boss Doug O'Hallaron. Cause he didn't want to go to jail.

Doug is a deal maker, he wants a contract, he wants a deal, he's looking after his and UFCW's best interests. Yep but both he and UFCW don't care about their members interests. Because whatever happens they have a pool of dues paying members who fatten their bank accounts.

To what end? Well to buy a million dollar house as a retirement gift to their outgoing International President as they did in the 1990's.

You'd think with all their money and lawyers, UFCW and O'Halloran would have the guts to challenge an unfair anti-worker ruling on behalf of the folks who pay his lucrative salary. Nope, not a chance.

You would think that the labour movement, that so called house of labour would organize their members to join mass pickets during strikes. Instead they make a toke show on the picket line.

Telus picket line gets a boost

'Good turnout' includes support from B.C. and local unions

To really shut down Telus, right now would take thousands of workers marching the picket line in solidarity with TWU workers.

And is this likely to happen? Nope. Most unions are lucky to mobilize two or three well paid reps to attend the picket line. And they always have excuses. After all its summer time and the union reps are off on paid vacation leave.

UFCW INC. BUSINESS UNIONISM AS USUAL

The other excuse is that the strike is strictly the union’s affair. This is the biggest crock of BS ever. The strike is the weapon of the class; it is the fundamental tool of class war. Even the bosses know this. For a strike can be the match that lights the prairie fire of the General Strike. When a union wins a strike it is a victory for all working people when they lose it is a defeat for all working people. As Jim Stanford points out in the quote above, the Herald strike which was lost, was not just a loss for workers at the Calgary Herald, but for newspaper workers across the country.

A case in point is when UFCW struck Safeway’s in the early part of the 1990's they accepted a roll back in wages in particular for first time employees . UFCW is no small union, they are one of the largest private sector unions in Alberta and their acceptance of a roll back contract impacted the whole labour movement in the province.

Loblaws, a Canadian grocery and retail chain, opened Real Canadian Super Stores (RCSS) in Canada several years ago. RCSS combines food and discount retail under one roof, paying wages that are typical of the discount retail industry, as do Supercenters in the United States. RCSS entered the market in Alberta in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Safeway has been the primary unionized supermarket in Alberta for years, and Safeway wages in Alberta were considerably higher than RCSS. By the early 1990s, competition with the lower labor-cost RCSS began to have a dramatically negative impact on Safeway profits.

Safeway executives estimated that the wage gap between their employees and RCSS workers was between $8.00 and $12.00 per hour in Canadian dollars.10 In 1993, Safeway concluded it could no longer compete without drastically cutting pay and benefits. Management presented employees with two choices – either Safeway would cut its losses and leave the Alberta market, or cut pay and benefits by the equivalent of $5.00 per hour (Canadian). Eventually, the unionized employees agreed to the pay and benefit cuts. Safeway implemented the pay cuts both by reducing pay and benefits and by buying out the contracts of 4,000 experienced employees and replacing those workers with persons earning approximately $6.00 per hour with no benefits.11 In 1997, Safeway employees went on strike in an effort to restore wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement. The strike ended without the union regaining the wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement.

The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances
Examples Of The Labor Market Impact Of Wage Differentials – Cases From Canada

This allowed the Klein government to use this as an excuse to bring in wage roll backs for public sector workers. Klein cleverly pitted private sector workers against public sector workers, saying that what was happening at Safeways should apply across the province. He also had the NDP government in Ontario to use as an example of another provincial government trying to get public sector unions to accept roll backs.

Another case is when UFCW led their worker’s out on strike at Gainers, instead of occupying the plant, and demanding the plant be put under workers and farmer control. Since it was originally owned by the Alberta government. But it had been sold off to Burns, owned by Tory bagman Arthur E. Childes, at a fire sale price. Burns then sold it to Maple Leaf foods. Even the leadership of the Alberta Federation of Labour at the time called for the workers to occupy the plant. But that was never the plan anyways, because UFCW and Maple Leaf had other plans. UFCW came to a sweetheart arrangement with Maple Leaf to sacrifice Gainers in Edmonton and another Plant in Burlington if Maple Leaf Foods would open a new plant and hire its members in Brandon Manitoba.

All this was done under the leadership of Doug O'Halloran who speaks not in the interests of the workers but in the interests of UFCW Inc. And he cries crocodile tears when the government halts the Lakeside Packers strike. A strike he really didn't want anyways. You see for O'Halloran and UFCW the strike is the threat they use to get a collective agreement. It's all about the collective agreement and the Rand formula, it's never about what’s best for workers that is only incidental. Once UFCW gets a contract it gets dues. No matter how bad or good the contract is for the workers involved it is always good for UFCW Inc.

THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOUR

If the local labour councils and the Federations of Labour as well as the CLC is the so called house of labour, then it is a dilapidated slum. The leadership is terrified of losing their jobs. They suffer bureaucratic senility. They will always prefer the backroom deal with the bosses or the government to the idea that this is class war and that the purpose of unions is to overthrow capitalism. They oppose plant occupations because well they are illegal; they oppose the wildcat strike because it's illegal too. But isn't that why we have high priced labour lawyers, to get the leadership out of jail. Nope that can't be the real reason either. The reason is that these actions are taken by the rank and file 'out of the control' of the paid reps and leadership. And if such ideas spread, it might lead to, horror of horrors, a General Strike.

Even the most militant leader or leadership in the labour movement accepts their role in upholding Law, Order and Good Government. And once they do, it will always be the workers who get screwed.

The reason is simple workers who do take strike action realize they have given up all to win the fight. Including the fight over the day to day grievances that have usually piled up until the strike. Not so their leadership who see it as just another moment in collective bargaining. This is why workers on the line are always more militant than their union leadership.

Professional union reps and paid hacks are not capable of challenging the bosses or their government cause well they are paid not to. They can't organize the workers who pay their salaries; because they are out of touch with the rank and file. Or worse yet they are opposed to rank and file control because it threatens their job security.

They promote local union executives to political positions in their unions, offering them careers and lucrative jobs as reps, as long as they tow the line. They often take the best and brightest, activists who really care about workers interests and put them into the union machinery to become another cog in the wheel.

If workers organize themselves, the first to attempt to squash them aren't the politicians, or cops, or lawyers, it’s their own union leadership, fearful for their 'jobs'.

IT'S TIME TO TAKE BACK OUR UNIONS

The only way this can change is if members of a union mobilize to take back their unions for themselves. To eliminate paid full time representatives who earn $100,000 salaries off the backs of part time workers who get $8.50 an hour.

Replace these reps and union business agents with elected rank and file reps who serve two year terms and are up for staggered election, with their pay and benefits being no more than the highest paid worker on the job.

Rank and File strike committees shall be directly elected by the members. These delegate committees during strikes are the only ones allowed to negotiate with the bosses, not the paid reps or union executive and leadership.

Union locals will have democratically elected executives and committees of members, and any regional, national, or international reps will answer to the local membership.

All union locals must be politically and economically autonomous from their national union.

Locals will not give up the right to strike in collective agreements, and in fact will further enforce this basic right with a further clause that states that members of the local will not cross other workers picket lines.

Unions will not participate in Labour Relations Boards, arbitration or Industrial Relations. Any action taken by the state whether it is an injunction, or attempts at arrest will be met with mass action not only by the union affected but by all unions in the region.

Fines against the union will NOT be paid to the state. If such fines occur it will abrogate the Rand Formula and the union will implement a direct dues collection off the shop floor.

Union locals will be autonomous and form not for profit societies to hold their funds in escrow in order to protect their autonomy.

Union locals will affiliate with whom they please in the labour movement. If their International or National organization fails to adapt to direct member democracy the local has the right to federate with whom it pleases according to a democratic vote of the members.

Union locals will form flying picket squads of all members, to make sure that all strikes or lock outs are kept short and effective. Based on the principle of An Injury to One is and Injury to All, and The Longer the Picket Line, the Shorter the Strike.

All grievances will be solved as quickly as possible on the shop floor, or in the institution where they occur by a meeting of the union steward and management. Should management not resolve the issue, workers have the right to walk off the job until there is a resolution to their satisfaction.

The union has the right to use any and all tactics to solve their grievances, these include the sit down strike, rotating strike, wildcat strike, and plant occupation the use of the standard strike tactic will be reserved as a weapon of last resort. If it is applied the union will mobilize for sympathy strikes, hot cargoing and building a call for a general strike.

These are just a few suggestions on how we can take back our unions from the labour hacks and well heeled, well paid bureaucrats. Who see the labour movement not as a class struggle but as their career opportunity, economically and politically.

A career they make off our backs.