MP Adler: CUPW Union Leaders 'Spreading Hate' Of Israel

51 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP
MP Adler: CUPW Union Leaders 'Spreading Hate' Of Israel

yea or nay?

NDPP

MP Mark Adler Open Letter to Denis Lemelin, CUPW National President

http://www.cija.ca/israel-advocacy/mp-mark-adler-open-letter-to-denis-le...

"CUPW's radical and hostile anti-Israel actions do nothing to help the situation in the Middle East....Union bosses at CUPW should respect members by focusing on improving working conditions in Canada instead of on spreading hate."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Fredericton postal worker’s trip to Palestine smeared by Conservative MP in House of Commons

Fredericton – Conservative MP Mark Adler for the Toronto riding of York Centre accused Fredericton postal worker Ruth Breen and her union, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), of using public funds to pay for her trip to the occupied West Bank in Parliament’s Question Period on March 5th. A brief account of Breen’s trip appeared in the union’s newsletter, The Rose.

quote:

Breen says she is perplexed by Adler’s strong reaction to the use of “war crime” to describe Israel’s actions. She points to information found on federal government websites that support her assertion that Israel is committing war crimes.

Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel’s obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

….

Canada opposes Israel’s construction of the barrier inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem which are occupied territories. This construction is contrary to international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Canada not only opposes Israel’s construction of a barrier extending into the occupied territories, but also expropriations and the demolition of houses and economic infrastructure carried out for this purpose.

Adler’s attack comes at a time when the Conservatives are attempting to pass Bill C-377 (an amendment to the Income Tax Act) through Senate. The Bill attempts to destroy the ability of unions to do political activity. Union leaders say that Bill C-377 is partly about countering political work that is unpopular with the Harper Conservative agenda; this includes Palestine solidarity work....

http://nbmediacoop.org/2013/03/13/fredericton-postal-workers-trip-to-pal...

Breen will speak and show pictures of her trip to the West Bank at a public event in Fredericton on Wednesday, March 13th at 1:30pm at Carleton Hall Room 103, University of New Brunswick. The event is part of Israeli Apartheid Week, organized on mostly campuses across the world in March to raise awareness about the illegal occupation of Palestine and the Israeli Apartheid state.

NDPP

Ruth Breen used 'public funds' for her trip to the West Bank? Why didn't she take the free zio-junket jet like most of our mps?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..funny ndpp how we came across this item at the same time in different places.

..not even that part turns out to be true. more like adler spewing hatred against cupw.

quote:

According to Breen, Adler is ill-informed. “I traveled to the West Bank on Atlantic Regional I International Solidarity Funds. I did not travel to the West Bank with public funds as Adler is alleging,” says Breen.

 

David Young

epaulo13 wrote:

..funny ndpp how we came across this item at the same time in different places.

..not even that part turns out to be true. more like adler spewing hatred against cupw.

quote:

According to Breen, Adler is ill-informed. “I traveled to the West Bank on Atlantic Regional I International Solidarity Funds. I did not travel to the West Bank with public funds as Adler is alleging,” says Breen.

 

Since when do Conservative M.P.s allow the truth to get in the way of bashing a Union?

 

Unionist

"Public funds" is code for the fact that union dues are tax-deductible. That's also their pretext for Bill C-377. Watch for Harper to start wondering why dues should be tax-free.

Mr.Tea

A lot of different things are tax deductible. If I make a donation to a charity I support, I get a tax receipt for part of the amount. That doesn't mean that I'm using "public funds" to support that charity.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Union dues are treated the same as professional dues, an expense required to earn a living.  As such they are a 100% deduction against income unlike charitable donations that are 15% for the first $200 and for rich people the rest is a 29% deduction.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/dnrs/svngs/clmng1-eng.html

Mr.Tea

Yeah, that's a good comparison. As a dentist and business owner, I deduct a lot of things that are business expenses, including my membership in the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario and the Ontario Dental Association. If those groups use that money that dentists contributed (and received tax deductions for), it's still not "public money". Adler's suggestion is as absurd as saying that if you work for the government, whatever you spend your income on is "using public money" because that's where it originated.

Unionist

Last I checked, the Conservative Party (which is financed by "public funds" - i.e. political contributions - or in the case of MPs and cabinet ministers, government salaries and expenses) doesn't let a day go by without doing rabid pro-Israeli-regime propaganda. That would include the above-mentioned Member of Parliament The Honourable Assholedler. In fact, I believe Adler did it during working hours. I'd be happy to represent him in his dismissal arbitration.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Maybe it is just me, but every time I read (or hear) the descriptor "Union Bosses" I want to stuff a towel down the writer's (or speaker's) throat and watch them choke on it.

Note to self: New Year's resolution to dispense with violent imagery is obviously a failure.

Unionist

bagkitty wrote:

Maybe it is just me, but every time I read (or hear) the descriptor "Union Bosses" I want to stuff a towel down the writer's (or speaker's) throat and watch them choke on it.

Thanks for putting my feelings into words.

 

NDPP

this is also  Zionist power taking care of its business, which is particularly good in Canada...

Slumberjack

bagkitty wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but every time I read (or hear) the descriptor "Union Bosses" I want to stuff a towel down the writer's (or speaker's) throat and watch them choke on it.

I'm partial to the term 'bureaucracy.'

Unionist

Sure, because when progressive union representatives are under attack, it's always important to remind everyone that they're just a bunch of bureaucrats.

Slumberjack

They would be much better positioned to weather such attacks, providing there was a little more context to this story, such as a previous resolution from the membership authorizing a turn one way or another in the direction of international politics.  If they are on their own in this, and I don't know for certain if they are, the question of 'why' comes to mind among several others.  Do such decisions hinge upon the personal persuasions of a few, well intentioned though they may be?  Is it preferable for the sake of results that injustice be countered by demagoguery?  Do the dictionary makers need to be more specific by adding another line under the definition for solidarity, and representation for that matter?  Is it necessary to know what the membership would intend in this instance or others, before committing the organization as a whole to a specific course of action?

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

They would be much better positioned to weather such attacks, providing there was a little more context to this story, such as a previous resolution from the membership authorizing a turn one way or another in the direction of international politics.

CUPW - On Our International Solidarity Work

Quote:
If they are on their own in this, and I don't know for certain if they are, the question of 'why' comes to mind among several others. 

The above-linked information is signed by the President of the union.

Quote:
Do such decisions hinge upon the personal persuasions of a few, well intentioned though they may be?

No, in democratic unions like CUPW, such decisions hinge upon the mission of the organization, consultation with the workers, and voting.

Quote:
Is it preferable for the sake of results that injustice be countered by demagoguery?  Do the dictionary makers need to be more specific by adding another line under the definition for solidarity, and representation for that matter?  Is it necessary to know what the membership would intend in this instance or others, before committing the organization as a whole to a specific course of action?

Lots of questions. Read the information on CUPW's website and let me know if any remain unanwsered.

 

MegB

"Union bosses" is clearly synonymous with "mob bosses", implying that unions are associated with organized crime. As far as I know, unions aren't, as a rule, closely associated with either the Conservative or Liberal parties.

onlinediscountanvils

Rebecca West wrote:
"Union bosses" is clearly synonymous with "mob bosses", implying that unions are associated with organized crime.

That may be the association that comes to mind for some people, but I think there's another generation who wouldn't necessarily make that connection.

Unionist

Well, whatever connection they make, "boss" is not a neutral or complimentary word. I don't see the MSM referring to the "church bosses" or even the "corporate bosses" or "Conservative bosses" or "Nonprofit charity bosses".

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:
I don't see the MSM referring to the "church bosses" or even the "corporate bosses" or "Conservative bosses" or "Nonprofit charity bosses".

No, they typically don't. But people do use those terms.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

On Feb. 23rd 2003 50,000 or more of us met for a nice day of action on the lawn of the BC legislature. A Liberal Minister looking out from inside the building when asked by a reporter what he thought of all the people on the lawn he replied they are all just Union Thugs.  I still have my Union Thug button that became de rigueur at all future rallies for a number of years. Here is picture of me and my fellow Union Thugs. 

I hate the term union bosses as well. Maybe a campaign turning it around would be helpful. Something like, "I am a proud union member and yes WE are the bosses of our union."

 

onlinediscountanvils

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Maybe a campaign turning it around would be helpful. Something like, "I am a proud union member and yes WE are the bosses of our union."

Yes, it would be encouraging to see rank-and-file members identify strongly enough with that sentiment to proclaim it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I would like to see the mods change the title of the thread to remove "union bosses" it is not needed and it is disgusting

onlinediscountanvils

If the purpose of the thread is to shine a light on Mark Adler's comments, I'm not sure what benefit would come from redacting his actual words from the title.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

This is just Mark Adler spreading his hate of unions.

NDPP

Why not just add the quote marks around 'Union Bosses?'

He said it, after all.

However it's a droll idea adding the term to Rabble's blacklist of words and expressions henceforth consigned to the outer darkness never to be uttered here nevermore again. How droll.  (even though, having been a member and an active one too in several large and well known ones in years past I can tell you in no uncertain terms that there certainly were most definitely union bosses in my unions. At least one of those who shall remain nameless might even be a name familiar to some here. So I'm very glad to receive what is undoubtedly accurate and more recent information from our friends above that this is no longer the case.  Delighted to hear it. It shouldn't have been that way and I'm glad those days are passed. Good riddance too.)

I consent and support the title change as requested above.

Please substitute 'Zionist MP Adler Attacks Labour Movement's Palestinian Support For Israel'

NDPP

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I don't see the MSM referring to the "church bosses" or even the "corporate bosses" or "Conservative bosses" or "Nonprofit charity bosses".

No, they typically don't. But people do use those terms.

Church Bosses To Help Pope Row Dons Stars

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottishnews/3172586/Church-bo...

Business Boss Seeks Early EU Vote

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/business-boss-seek...

BC Conservative Boss Cummins Urges Harper to Reconsider

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Conservative+boss+Cummins+urges+Harper+r...

Big Union Bosses Go to Committee

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/11/01/big-union-bosses-g-to-committee/

As problematic or irritating as the term may be for union bosses, the term is surprisingly common along with a whole range of 'bosses' and not exclusively in a necessarily negative context either, if one cares enough to google away precious time on such a search.

NDPP

dp: delete

NDPP

PS

and this hot off the Paisley Daily Ex Presses...

Charity Bosses Give it the Hard 'Cell'

http://www.paisleydailyexpress.co.uk/renfrewshire-news/local-news-in-ren...

Slumberjack

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Maybe a campaign turning it around would be helpful. Something like, "I am a proud union member and yes WE are the bosses of our union."

Yes, it would be encouraging to see rank-and-file members identify strongly enough with that sentiment to proclaim it.

And as well with the sentiments behind the anti-zionist statements from the representative level.

NDPP

 

Yes indeed SJ.

So I agree to the deletion of union bosses

Do you agree to support my new title?

Slumberjack

If the shoe fits, why not.

Unionist

Thanks, NDPP, for opening this important thread - unfortunately now hijacked by a combination of attacks on unnamed union leaders and the rather strange effort to show that " union bosses" either isn't pejorative or else is richly deserved.

Too bad this BS needs to arise in the context of CUPW, one of the very few organizations in society with the courage to tell the truth about Palestine and Israel.

NDPP

Good on CUPW! I also had outstanding union bosses.  Why very few is a good question. Do you endorse the title change in place of the unmentionables?

Unionist

Yes of course, and I realize you were obviously just quoting. I still find some of the posts here about unions to be, shall we say, out of place.

NDPP

radiorahim wrote:

This is just Mark Adler spreading his hate of unions.

and more...

 

Non-Jewish Groups Join Forces For Daily Vigil at York University: March 11 - 15

http://jdlcanada.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/today-wed-thurs-fri-vigil-york...

"...The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney; the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Bob Rae, and MPs such as Conservative Marc Adler... each condemned, in their own way, the intrinsic anti-Semitism and intolerance of the Israel Apartheid activities.

From Bob Rae: 'Israeli Apartheid Week continues to defy logic and the cause of social justice.' From MP Adler: '[Their views] are a disgrace and their hate-filled words and tactics must be condemned by all who believe in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I urge all members to join me in condemning this ugly smear campaign..."

Unionist

Ok, NDPP, with respect, why are you quoting these neofascists as authorities for what Bob Rae and Joyce Murray and others said? Why are you linking to this shit at all?

The neofascists say that Bob Rae and Joyce Murray called IAW anti-Semitism "each... in their own way". Of course, they have no quote to that effect.

I guess what I'm saying is this: If Bob Rae or Joyce Murray or even Adler called IAW "anti-semitic", just show us the quotes - not the hate-filled lies of the pseudo-Jewish Offence League.

 

MegB

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:
"Union bosses" is clearly synonymous with "mob bosses", implying that unions are associated with organized crime.

That may be the association that comes to mind for some people, but I think there's another generation who wouldn't necessarily make that connection.

True enough, but consider the age and mindset of those who would deliver such a message. White, conservative, late middle-aged. They're not exactly preaching to the youth vote. I'm not sure they're capable of doing so.

NDPP

  A comment was made that this was just Adler spreading his hate of unions. The link has him doing/saying more and some of the other dark allies in the zionist camp. The hate-filled lies of the pseudo-Jewish Offence League, just like those of CIJA, Harper, CBC news and all the others who would further extend Israeli influence and power across this country, should be  watched, analyzed and acted against. I hope that the link shocks and appalls more people into action because there's still too few fighting back and the disease is spreading rapidly. Why has the JDL been given such latitude? They're worse than the Klan but they have a constituency that's growing. And now these Zionists have joined with the settler movement in Caledonia and elsewhere. If people don't wish to read JDL material they don't have to. Or wonder why CUPW is left so bereft of support on this issue.? Or why, still, nobody has called for the immediate expulsion of the Cast-Lead, Mavi Marmara warcriminal Israeli Defence Attache, Brig-Gen Eden Attias? Any Diaspora action on Attias that you've heard of?  Clearly there's lots of denial and heads buried in the sands on the growth of zionist power in Canada - perhaps some think it's a good thing -  but shooting the messengers, averting the eyes, and deleting terms or links ain't going to help. As for Peter Kent's facebook friend Meir Weinstein misquoting Adler or Bob Rae etc, he shouldn't. What else?

Unionist

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

 

Unionist wrote:
Thanks, NDPP, for opening this important thread - unfortunately now hijacked by a combination of attacks on unnamed union leaders and the rather strange effort to show that " union bosses" either isn't pejorative or else is richly deserved.

(See posts 11 and 12 if you're wondering where the focus began to shift.)

I wasn't wondering anything, as a matter of fact. The focus "shifted" when a participant asked for the thread title to be changed to make it clearer and less offensive. You, of course, have not shown any interest whatsoever in the actual topic of this thread, but rather wish to discuss the disconnect between young activists and union leaders - not particular ones, but as a generalization - unless of course you include Denis Lemelin and CUPW in your comments, in which case I will have other words to say.

Rebecca - I and others, including the person who opened this thread, have asked for the title to be changed. I'm now taking this to rabble reactions so as not to continue this drift further.

 

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

 

Unionist wrote:
Thanks, NDPP, for opening this important thread - unfortunately now hijacked by a combination of attacks on unnamed union leaders and the rather strange effort to show that " union bosses" either isn't pejorative or else is richly deserved.

(See posts 11 and 12 if you're wondering where the focus began to shift.)

I wasn't wondering anything, as a matter of fact. The focus "shifted" when a participant asked for the thread title to be changed to make it clearer and less offensive. You, of course, have not shown any interest whatsoever in the actual topic of this thread

 

Ok, well I was allowing that discussion of the specific phrase; "union bosses", was perhaps not the original intent of the thread. But since you seem to think this thread only became "hijacked" well after that discussion spur had already emerged, then yes, I have shown an interest in the "actual" topic. You don't get to have it both ways. And yes, I agreed with Slumberjack's comments on the other "actual" topic, too.

onlinediscountanvils

Slumberjack wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Maybe a campaign turning it around would be helpful. Something like, "I am a proud union member and yes WE are the bosses of our union."

Yes, it would be encouraging to see rank-and-file members identify strongly enough with that sentiment to proclaim it.

And as well with the sentiments behind the anti-zionist statements from the representative level.

Yes, that too.

 

Unionist wrote:
Thanks, NDPP, for opening this important thread - unfortunately now hijacked by a combination of attacks on unnamed union leaders and the rather strange effort to show that " union bosses" either isn't pejorative or else is richly deserved.

(See posts 11 and 12 if you're anyone is wondering where the focus began to shift.)

 

Rebecca West wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:
"Union bosses" is clearly synonymous with "mob bosses", implying that unions are associated with organized crime.

That may be the association that comes to mind for some people, but I think there's another generation who wouldn't necessarily make that connection.

True enough, but consider the age and mindset of those who would deliver such a message. White, conservative, late middle-aged. They're not exactly preaching to the youth vote. I'm not sure they're capable of doing so.

Yes, you're quite correct when referring to its use by right-wing politicians, media, and astroturf groups. But I'm actually more familiar with this phrase being used by a generation of frustrated and disillusioned younger union activists - even by union staff.

 

[edited choice of pronoun for clarity]

MegB

There ya go. Thread title changed. I will now return to what little family time I have left today.

Michelle

Sorry, ODA, I respectfully disagree with you on this one.

I've seen you (rightfully) express discomfort with oppressive terms in other threads.  Does that mean that you're the one who started the thread hijack if it turns into a big long debate about whether or not the term is oppressive or offensive?

Unionist

Here's Bob Rae's full cowardly anti-solidarity statement. He wants to say "anti-semitic", but he's even too cowardly to do that explicitly:

Quote:

“The events in the next few days that go by the deeply prejudicial name ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’ continue to be a counterproductive way to achieve social justice in the Middle East. When all who desire peace in the region should be supporting and encouraging respectful dialogue between parties, this week sets out to do the opposite.

Canadian universities and academic institutions have a long history of providing a space to engage in enlightened discourse on issues of justice and equality. For this reason, it is all the more difficult to comprehend a focus that ignores terrible atrocities presently taking place in the region.
We should also be wary of group-vilifying speech that seeks to delegitimize or demonize. Indeed, as our own Supreme Court found unanimously just this past week in affirming the constitutionality of hate speech legislation, such speech seeks to delegitimize group members, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.

The failure to stand up for these real and pressing injustices is undermined by an approach that puts all the blame for inaction on only one country. Demonizing one people and one country does not encourage reconciliation, cooperation or respectful discourse about peace and democratization in the Middle East. A constructive approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue would be more effective if it persuaded governments and civil society to work with both parties to reach a negotiated resolution based on dialogue and understanding.”

I'll keep an eye out for Mulcair - although we already know where he stands (ask Libby Davies).

 

Fidel

There is a good article on Adler's site about Canada fighting U.S.-supported terrorism in Afghanistan and Middle East. Of course, he doesn't mention the U.S. and allies aiding and abetting terrorism in those countries. That much is obvious to everyone, and so Adler leaves that for his very wise constituents to glean from world news reports.

Unionist

As far as I can see, the attacks in the House on unions for supporting Israeli Apartheid Week started in 2009, again with the Liberal Party. This particular rabid speech plays the "anti-semitic" card and calls for pro-solidarity activities on campuses to be suppressed:

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.) wrote:

 Mr. Speaker, under the umbrella of free speech, some groups are using university campuses, like York, to undermine the fabric of civil discourse with events they have entitled “Israel Apartheid Week”.

    Such events will inevitably sow discord, promote negative stereotyping and fuel hatred.

    One might well ask what motivates groups like the Canadian Arab Federation, CUPE Ontario and CUPW in their endorsement and organization of “Israel Apartheid Week”.

    The safety and security of Jewish students and their instructors will be unnecessarily placed in danger by these demonstrations. The cause of peace in the Middle East will not be advanced by eroding the principles of freedom in Canadian universities.

    I invite the House to join me in condemning these “Israel Apartheid Week” activities and in encouraging university administrations to take steps to stop anti-Semitism and the dissemination of hatred.

 

onlinediscountanvils

Michelle wrote:
I've seen you (rightfully) express discomfort with oppressive terms in other threads.  Does that mean that you're the one who started the thread hijack if it turns into a big long debate about whether or not the term is oppressive or offensive?

 

Hi, Michelle. I'm not sure I understand your question.

If you're asking if I was the one who introduced the discussion over the term, "union bosses", into this thread; no that wasn't me. Apart from the original thread title, and appearing in the quote in post #1, that ball didn't get rolling until post#11, and at least 4 people participated in the "hijacking" (including a mod) before I joined the thread. Of course, I know you can see that yourself, so maybe I've misunderstood what you're asking me.

onlinediscountanvils

MY RESPONSE TO THREE MP’s STATEMENTS ON CUPW   By: Jean-Claude Parrot

In a statement made by Tory MP Mark Adler he said that a CUPW newsletter was radical propaganda. He was supported by two other MP’S, Steven Fletcher and Bob Rae. The statement also claims that CUPW use of public funds for the trip of Ruth Breen of the Atlantic region to Palestine.

First, CUPW has no access to public funds. The trip was paid by a regional fund made up of contributions from the CUPW locals of the Atlantic region and voluntary contributions by individual postal workers. It would never come in my mind to refrain people to take this kind of action for a cause they have at heart. Quite to the contrary, it is nice to see people who care about others.

The CUPW has negotiated a National Fund as part of the settlement in the last round of negotiations. The fund allows the CUPW to maintain relationship with workers in the rest of the world and show solidarity when they face violation of their human rights, including workers rights or simply to discuss issues that affect workers around the world. The fund is restricted to be used to “developing and maintaining relationships and exchanges with postal workers from other countries and their unions”. This is not a public fund.

CUPW negotiated this fund the first time many years ago and the amount could have been placed in other benefits for postal workers but with the support of the members it was agreed to have such a fund. I am sure that you know we are not the first Union to have negotiated a similar fund with its employer.

Now on the issue of the bulletin, I thought we were in a country where we have the freedom of speech. I have no doubt that CUPW will not accept to be censured by these MP’S who, because of their political position on Israel, are willing to ignore the violation of human rights of women workers in Palestine.

I have no doubt that CUPW would show the same solidarity with workers in Israel if they were to be denied their right to negotiate or see a violation of their human rights. The contact with workers and their unions in other countries is also ensuring a better knowledge of the situation of workers around the world.

Our contacts with Unions and workers in the rest of the world made us understand that the investments of multinationals in their countries contribute to the exploitation of over 250 million children around the world and to the exploitation of women and children in export processing zone where they are not covered by the laws of the country in the field of safety, child labour, minimum wage and many others; leaving them at the mercy of these multinationals and their sub contractors.

These violations of international conventions were already denounced by the International Labour Organization (ILO) a tripartite organization of governments, employers and workers from over 170 countries.

All these violations are in countries that are told that this is necessary in order to be more competitive. We know that despite these MP’s trips around the world we cannot count on you three to expose these situations especially at a time where we are being told all the time that we should be more competitive.

My question is: who are we competing against? How can we compete against children, working long hours with very little pay, without offering the same exploitation of our children? How can we compete with workers in export processing zone who have no right to negotiate; no protection or safety at work; no right to have a union to represent their grievances without offering investors similar zones in Canada?

So I am just asking that you cease your attack on CUPW solidarity with other workers in the rest of the world; especially that for you, it is just another way to stop our workers to know the situation of these workers around the world. In fact, our government should be ashamed of trying to bring Canadian workers into the same conditions of these workers.

The attacks on the labour movement in Canada will never hide the fact that it is the present government who eliminates the decent jobs in this country in favour of indecent profits. The so called plan of action to make us more competitive which is the subject of a publicity campaign on television and other media which cost millions of dollars paid by the Canadians is something to be ashamed of.

The attacks on the Public Sector Unions across this country is to achieve the ideology of small governments leaving to these multinationals and their subcontractors the profitable parts of the services leaving the rest to the taxpayers in this country. The revenue of some services can be used to provide the services that do not provide revenues.

The attacks of the seasonal workers; the attacks on people who received help from governments; the attacks on unionized workers; the attacks on the members of first nation communities; the attacks on environmentalists; the attacks against students who dare demonstrating; and much more, are simply an attempt to distract Canadians from the fact that the present federal government is violating international conventions and resolutions to the benefits of the shareholders of multinationals.

These shareholders were well represented by Stephen Harper when he was the spokesperson of the National Citizen Coalition which board was composed of these shareholders who too often are not even paying income taxes. He was taking the same stands for them at the time that he is taking today.

It was demonstrated in the nineties that the debt in Canada was caused at 92% by both equally, the high interest rates and the tax exemptions. So, all this to say to the three of you, so called offended by CUPW, that you should look into what role you are playing to make it a better world for those you are supposed to represent and for those who are exploited around the world by these multinationals and their subcontractors.

I will always put in priority: ‘’decent jobs not indecent profits’’.

Note: Jean-Claude Parrot is a former National President of CUPW (1977-1992) and a former Executive Vice-President of the CLC (1992-2002). He was also a member of the governing body of the ILO (1993-2002). He is retired since 2002 and wrote the book ‘’My Union, My Life’’ which was published in 2005.