ONDP leadership VI (plus York University strike)

Last time, NDP MPPs also used the excuse that the Transit union's leadership gave them the green light to support back to work legislation (union members had rejected a settlement endorsed by union leaders). This time CUPE 3903's leaders recommended rejection of management's most recent offer so the party won't be able to use having permission from the union leaders (against the union members) as a justification.

working link

peterjcassidy: Very tasteful, this posting, reposting, double posting, cross posting of what amounts to an inane neo-liberal screed (as Unionist rightly pointed out somewhere else). Perhaps next time you repost, you could just snip and emphasize in bold the swipe at Peter Tabuns.

By allowing such a screed to frame the discussion, you simply parrot the distasteful acrimony increasingly marking this leadership race.

I mean. Give me a break. Since when do we allow people such as Andrew Steele, a neo-liberal apologist and a former senior advisor to McGuinty, to get away with such a baseless slur against the NDP and Peter Tabuns? His belittling of the NDP and his assumption that Tabuns favours back to work legislation are nothing short of scurrilous. Of course rather than questioning that assumption or its motives, we'd rather perpetuate it to score some points in the leadership contest. Congratulations.

I, for one, hope the NDP stand united against the McGuinty tomorrow, and I further hope that if Tabuns stands opposed tomorrow, those who perpetuated this screed, will, if not rescind their comments, at least acknowledge that fact.

Peter, any member of the legislature could have delayed the TTC back to work legislation by witholding unanimous consent for speedy passage. None did. Not even Kormos.

PJC: I share your view that the move by the McGuinty Liberals to introduce back to work legislation adds interest to the leadership race. I also share your previous disappointment with the NDP's support for BTW legislation in the TTC strike, although I also believe those circumstances not to be exactly similar to those faced today.

For instance, a not so obvious related issue is that, if the ONDP is not going to be a vocal and determined advocate of electoral reform (in my view PR electoral reform and environment/ Green economy are the most pressing issues for the NDP), we need at least to have more open votes in the legislature or some other way of allowing legislators not to be so beholden to whipped voting.

btw: We keep talking about democratic renewal within the ONDP, but I haven't heard anyone press upon the leaders that fighting for PR might be the best way for the NDP to reinvigorate democracy in general. 

I also share your stipulation that those that oppose the BTW legislation should be commended and by the same token those that support should be criticized.

Still, if Steele's analysis sucks so badly, why repeat it then? Seems to me the only good reason to repeat neo-Liberal tripe around here would be to roundly criticize it. Something tells me instead you weren't too bothered by the cheap shot he takes at Tabuns. Peace.

Tomorrow should be interesting... edit: Guess I spoke too soon. Seems like we pretty much know. Way to go Howard! But it still could be interesting.

I'm not saying this is, but back to work legislation can be a tool for workers to get a good agreement in the face of a difficult employer.  Personally, I will want to hear what the Local leadership says before I will pass judgement on who may or may not be a friend of labour in this leadership race and this strike situation.

Steele's analysis is a little flawed.

The York Strike is very straightforward for the NDP. You have a united strong union that has just endorsed their leadership and is still out on the line and management that refuses to bargain. In the CUPE 3903 statement they make it clear that they oppose McGuinty's plan. This is way more clear-cut than the TTC strike when the leadership of the union more or less begged to be ordered back-to-work and most of the membership seemed content to be ordered back. The NDP would oppose this under any circumstances.

That said, I don't think the debate in Windsor should be cancelled - unless the full Caucus is needed to effectively block the bill I think the debate organizers shouldn't be punished for McGuinty's BS.

That is an important distinction as it seems the media presents these strikes as all the same in their union-bashing coverage.

I'm confused.  I was reading Peter Cassidy's post that cites a globe and mail article and they mention that peter Tabuns is the "preceived front runner" in the leadership race.  Then I read an article by the journalist (if I can call her that) Christina Blizzard that states that "tabuns and Prue" are front runners.

http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1403223

My confusion is based on the fact that I have yet to see any polling evidence that would support these claims.  

Can anyone out there tell me if a poll has been completed and if so where can I find the results?

Thanks!

(sent to my in-box within the last hour)

--------------------
Subject: Emergency rally tomorrow at noon outside Queen's Park against Back to Work Legislation!

** Please forward widely **


Emergency rally tomorrow at noon outside Queen's Park against Back to Work Legislation!

When: Sunday January 25, 2009 at 12pm
Where: Outside of the Provincial Legislature building at Queen's Park

Premier Dalton McGuinty has announced Back to Work Legislation for CUPE 3903, that has been on-strike since November 6, 2008. The provincial government parliament is meeting on Sunday January 15, 2009 at 1pm to discuss Back to Work legislation for CUPE 3903.

We have two demands:
1) That the Provincial government NOT enforce Back to Work legislation;
2) That the Provincial government place pressure on the York bargaining team to negotiate in collective bargaining

• The York bargaining team has made no effort to collectively bargain during this round of negotiations
• The Liberal party and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty have done nothing to pressure the York bargaining team to collectively bargain
• The latest move to enforce Back to Work Legislation is a serious attack to rights to collectively bargain in Ontario
• CUPE 3903 has maintained that it is willing to bargain until a negotiated settlement is reached
• CUPE 3903 urges the members of provincial parliament to allow collective bargaining to continue and refrain from interference
• Back to Work legislation is an attack on labour unions in the province of Ontario

WE WILL NOT STAND FOR IT!

Members of CUPE 3903 will receive picket pay for attending the rally.

This rally is endorsed by the CUPE 3903 Executive.
--------------------

Who was missing from the vote?

Well - glad to see that no one abstained from the vote.

Marchese wasn't there but he sent words of support.  Eight members of the NDP caucus (including Hampton) came out to support the rally.

Boy this going to be messy in the media, the back to school leg is going to cause some major hate on's against the NDP. Not that I dont support the work, we have a responsibility.

<deleted message> This is a quasi-public Board -- we know that Liberals and Conservatives lurk here.  <deleted message>   

Well I think its obvious that the Premier has tossed out his welcome when it comes to York.

 Kudos to Howie on his finest hour.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.wyork29/BNStory/National/?cid=al_gam_nletter_newsUp

Hampton was indeed impressive in opposing back-to-work legislation for the York strike.

Yes, I missed Malcolm Allen (I was thinking of MPs specifically). Of MPPs the Marchese and Kormos endorsements will be interesting though I have a feeling Kormos isn't going to endorse anyone.

I caught the debate in Scarborough Thursday night & it didn't really help me much. I like and respect all 4 candidates. I've worked an 2 of their campaigns (other 2 too far away), but would have worked for any and all of them. They all spoke well and made good points with the audience.

 Prue came out strong on the need to look at stopping the funding of seperate schools and the other 3 all said he was nuts to even bring it up. They reminded him how school funding had killed John Torrie in the last election and Bisson referred to it as "the third rail of Ontario politics". Still I admire Prue for having the guts to talk about a tough issue. He also said we need to do away with the OMB, give cities more powers and tie any auto bailout money to shares in the companies and a seat on their boards of directors. He has a ton of experience.

Horwath played it pretty safe. She talked about rebuilding the economy along the lines of social democratic principles. She hit a couple of tried and trusted themes like the need for anti-scab legislation and incentives for greening our homes. She wants to broaden our base with more youth, women and imigrants, reverse the Harris download etc. and says she is just the woman to do it. She made a point about giving the NDP a different look with a younger female leader. I think she has the least experience.

Bisson was quite impressive with his flawless french and his excellent speaking style. He cracked jokes, thundered on issues he was passionate about and generally aquitted himself well. He said we needed to have a clear policy on crime and stop shying away from talking about the issue. He felt we needed to stake out our beliefs that crime isn't fixed with more cops, jails and longer sentencing. We need to address the causes of crime and be clear about how effeective that would be. He was also big on keeping most fundraising $ at the local riding level and encouraging a lot more of that activity.

Tabuns was typicaly soft-spoken but made good sense. He said the NDP is not well respected by the public on ecomomic matters and they are top of mind right now. He reminded us there are big opportunities in the new green economy and the NDP should be all over that issue. He felt we need a new and very positive message. He wants us to get our MPPs out on the raod a lot more, not "cloister them in Queens Park". He wants more candidate support and mentoring and a lot more election preparedness, not "30 days of panic followed by 5 weeks of campaigning".

Each candidate said things I agreed with and I think each hit on at least one thing I thought little of.

No I completely agree with that Stockholm, I think you have made a really good point, actually I think the press had been softening on it and blamming it more on McGuilty in the last couple of weeks. I think that goes to show that the messaging is working.

So now your smearing both a leadership candidate and a federal member?

 I use the word smear because all the alligations against Tabuns are simply not true. Its been one leadership candidate's tactic so far to divide people on the issues. I dont know if that is really "leader-like" of that candidate. Remember we are all in the same sandbox guys.

Unionist, you were certainly onto something. Tabuns has a despicable anti-labour background. A few years ago when he was president of Greenpeace he locked out his workers just before Christmas and they had a year left in their contact. Tabuns did nothing to stop the lockout. He also has a grievance against him for wrongful dismissal of one of his support staff. You have to wonder why Tabuns chooses to surround himself with people who have such unbecoming reputations like Cheri DeNovo (see Ottawa Citizen article). Well, you know what they say; birds of a feather flock together...

JMasse has been very quick to accuse anyone who brings up Tabuns past as "smearing". He makes these accusations even though in past threads he has no problem dismissing and ridiculing the leadership of our former leader Howard Hampton.

Personally, I think it's tasteless and low that Tabun's camp attacks Hampton's leadership when he's stepping down. When Tabun's anti-labour past is brought up it's because his past illustrates that his leadership abilities are questionable. The membership has a right to question Tabuns's leadership ability. It's not smearing, its call informed decision making. I've noticed that Tabuns camp spends a lot of energy trying to cover up and redirect Tabun's anti-labour past - imagine all the effort that would be required to defend this guy's reputation in the next election if he were to become leader - what a burden!

In the debate in Scarborough Tabuns talked about his vision of an energy economy, unfortunately he spoke in general terms with no real qualitative specifics. He used an obscure American example of an auto plant being partially retooled to make solar panels.

As we all know the U.S. is the solar and environmental capitol of the world. Just look at hoe few SUV's they have.

Peter's use of this of this as an example of how to turn the economy around is the equivalent of Miss America pontificating on world piece. It appeals to the individuals who are not so much uninformed but not very astute to the reality of our present and more importantly our pending economic situation.

The bottom line is when your land lord raises your rent are you going to buy new fluorescent bulbs or pay the rent so you do not get evicted.

"Personally, I think it's tasteless and low that Tabun's camp attacks Hampton's leadership when he's stepping down."

That's the first I've heard of that or are you just making it up?

From the mouth of JMasse under ONDY Leadership V (plus Ginger)

"those should be Provincial Victories and Howard could never convert"

"had Howard's team been able to attract a more viable candidate that would have changed the fate of at least Windsor West."

"Howard didnt have that same type of presence. I mean when you go to the door canvassing, no one is talking about Howard when you mention the NDP. They are talking about Jack. As far as Windsor West goes, I actually do think that provinically we could win there, and could have won there, and once again it does go hand in hand with what type of candidates you attact, and I do think that has to do something with your leader."

"I think the word you are looking for is SEAT, not seats. The only Seat that Howard may be attributed to helping is Beaches. Its amazing that Howard also doesn't get the credit for the breakthroughs in the North, mostly because they are federal."

Hope this answers your question Stockholm. I'm not sure why JMasse feels the need to make Howard Hampton look bad... personally I think it just makes JMasse look bad.

Lost in Bruce County wrote:

I think I could Bisson could very well end up getting my second vote Northwestern Lad

 Glad to hear that Lost in Bruce County... now we just need to convince you to make Mr. Bisson your first choice hehe

Is there any way to get an indication of how much in total each campaign has raised (ie including donations for $100 or less)?

I hardly think that two individuals posting on babble constitute "people in Tabuns' camp bad-mouthing Hampton". I for one play no role at all in Tabuns "camp". I barely even know the guy. If you have evidence that there is a concerted campaign by senior figures around Tabuns to discredit Hampton because for some weird reason that is seen as advancing his campaign (I don't see how) - then please explain. This isn't about getting Hampton to step down - that has already happened. Now we are on to who should succeed him.

Do you consider Bisson to have a "despicable labour past" isnce he voted for the social contract during the Rae regime?

I notice that there are few comments about Coyle's piece in the Star and I assume sarcasm in JMasse's comments, but it is so dry it is hard to tell.  I guess I'm asking, aren't people embarrassed about Coyle's article or angry.

There are major differences between Tabuns locking out Greenpeace workers and Bisson voting for the social contract.

The Intent: Tabuns illegally tried to reopen the contract and then locked out his workers because he wanted them to bring in more money. The social contract was a last attempt to keep people employed and prevent layoffs after failed Keynesian attempts of counter-spending to save jobs and stimulate the economy.

The Circumstances: Tabuns locked out his workers even though they were exceeding all fundraising aspects of their contracts - Tabuns wanted them to bring in more money. The social agreement came during the greatest recession since the depression. The bank of Canada had set the prime rate 6 points higher than the US, the Fed. govn't made cuts to the social transfer, a million people were out of work in Canada, tax revenue was down and our deficit, which the NDP had no control over, ballooned to $10 billion. The NDP was attempting to reduce the debt without cutting public sector jobs. Tabuns lockout had nothing to do with saving jobs. In fact, he hired scabs from Caring Together Inc. - another violation of the collective agreement.

Burdens: Tabuns was president. He was ultimately responsible. The union spokes person said that the labour relationship "went from bad to worse with Tabuns" (see link). Tabuns also has a current grievance filed against him for wrongful dismissal. Bisson has a clean labour record besides the social contract and is well liked by staff at Queens Park. He is not deemed to be ultimately responsible for the social contract - Rae is. The vote was whipped and Bisson had little power over the situation; still his intentions were to retain jobs. Tabuns had a lot of power yet he used it to eliminate and downgrade jobs and Tabuns camp spends a lot of time defending or redirecting conversations about his past. 

As an active member of the labour community, I have mixed feelings about the social contract. While the contract saved thousands of jobs, the process in which it was implemented was undemocratic and violated labour rights. My hope is that Bisson and the NDP has learned from the social contract to always be labour friendly. Tabuns continuous poor labour record suggests that he hasn't learned from Greenpeace. In fact, it's just more of the same. 

Excuses, excuses. No one is ever going to be 100% lily white on labour relations because the moment that you are an employer - you ipso-facto have to negotiate with labour and you can't always say Yes to 100% of their demands. Meanwhile several unions and people with background in organized labour such as Michael Lewis as backing Tabuns - obviously they think he is very pro-labour otherwise they wouldn't be supporting him. There have been a number of debates and Q and A of the candidates. I'm surprised that no one has asked Tabuns anything about this Greenpeace "tempest in a teapot".

Another concer i would have about Gilles Bisson (not that I'm that concerned about him since the consensus seems to be that he will come in dead last), but he is widely viewed as totally ANTI-environmental. I've spoken to people involved with ENGOs and he's widely viewed as the member of the NDP caucus who is the least sympathetic on any environmental issues and that he was also the only member of the leg. to vote against a bill raising penalties for cruelty to animals. I don't think the NDP will have much future being led by someone who is proudly anti-environmental and who is an apologist for people who torture animals.

Wow Stockholm... where is this "consensus" that you're referring too??? If that's what you're thinking than you will be quite surprised come March let me tell ya.

As for Mr. Bisson and the environment, that's just bs and to try to throw mud on him in such a way is just low. Unlike all the other candidates, he actually lives in one of the few areas in this province that is still relatively environmentally better off and being from that area, he knows that the livelyhood of residents there is strongly linked to that environment. Mr. Bisson and his constituents depend on taking care of that environment and not abusing it for their very well-being, so to try to say that he doesn't care about that issue is just balony. Trying to paint Mr. Bisson as "proudly anti-environmental" and "an apologist for people who torture animals" is just completely eroneous, wrong and makes it completely obvious that you have an agenda. If you weren't that concerned with Mr Bisson, you sure wouldn't be attacking him in such an underhanded way

You think you could stuff more stereotypes into that Stockholm??? Mr. Bisson has plenty of sensitivity to environmental and urban issues. Hell, the man has been at Queen's Park for 19 years and at the OFL for 3-4 years before that. Do you think that he's been living at those times??? Last time I checked, an MPP from Timmins doesn't get to sleep in his own bed every night

The fact is that the man has been living back and forth between Toronto and Timmins for over 20 years and if you think that in that time he hasn't picked up on the issues of urban Ontario than you are either seriously misinformed or are seriously underestimating the man. 

And while you're on the whole regional thing, it's about choosing the best candidate for the job and not about their postal code. The fact is that Mr. Bisson knows the issues of urban Ontario just as well as the other candidates because he's been living those issues for over 20 years. 

Stockholm- because the bill was extremely flawed.  It allowed OSPCA officials to enter a property without just cause.  In fact no evidence was needed to get a search warrant other than a refusal to let the OSPCA to enter a property.  In essence it gives the OSPCA the powers of a police force without a single one of the checks we have placed on the abuse of power in policing.  And that is just one issue.  The real question should be why the rest of caucus didn't vote against such an unrepresentative move.

It breaks my heart that toney downtown environmentalists that don't have to operate in the real world are upset that Bisson stood up for the large consensus in rural Ontario - including amoung environmental and progressive groups.

Of course it may be the endangered species act you are refering too.  In that case those ivory tower environmentalists that want my part of the world to be their cottage and camping playground want rural landowners to pay the entire costs of protecting the last refuge of many species because we didn't destroy those woodlots or wetlands.  Many rural environmentalists and progressives pointed out the major flaw that costs should be shared by all of society since all of us are culpuble for habitat destruction that has occured in the past and that an individual should not bare the burden, or costs by themselves for that.

I'm not a first round voter for Bisson, but lets keep with some basic honesty in our criticisms.

Just to balance out my own comments, it appears that COPE 343 (formerly OPEIU 343) has endorsed Michael Prue.

One of the units represented by the local is Greenpeace workers. 

Has anyone considered getting away from what matters to ondp members and concentrate on electing a leader that will appeal to people who are not in the NDP. Naive as it may seem I believe that getting the most votes gets you the Premiership. Therefore let's think about the experience and the baggage that the candidates have, especially as perceived by the media public in general.

Thank you Mycroft,  for bringing a semblance of balance & persepective (and IMHO sanity) back to this. Taking quotes from the  frikkin Canada Free Press (our very own Cancon equivalent of the Freepers) to slag an NDP candidate is like, well, like, er.... Fox news "reporting" Obama was a Muslim terrorist. If you want anti NDP stuff, sure you can get it there, I'm sure there's Oodles of wonderful BS "reporting" on every NDP policy & politician, past, present & future. While you're at it, you might as well quote the Manning or Fraser Institute on the merits of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

aka Mycroft, the union provide it's own response (see link). It maintains that it was a lockout, that although people were offered phone canvass jobs they had less hours and therefore their earning potential was decreased. They say that the addional phone canvass jobs only lasted until April and then they were layed off. They say that they were the only Greenpeace centre to end the footcanvas program and that nonunionized centres maintained their footcanvassing. They say that T.O. Greenpeace accepted a financial donation from Caring Together who picked up the footcanvass work while the unionized workers where locked out. Please feel free to read it all for youself at the proivded link above. 

I have to say guys, this is very discouraging. I mean the mudslinging that is going on here is just terrible. We are still all in the same caucus and we are still all in the same sandbox. Grow up. And I say this having been known to be a more militant supporter.

Each one of these candidates all have their expertises and certainly would be an asset to the party. I just hope that everyone will put there words into action, go out to help the riding associations regardless if they are leader or not because thats what the party needs the most. I hope the next leader comes to our regional skills conferences, like Eastern Council which happens April 17th -19th and Northern Council on May 1st - 3rd 2009. The party has many benefits, we are a strong and united bunch. Lets keep it that way and stop with this childish mudslinging. 

I hate to see it but i think that part of the reason why we see this negativity is that almost no one really all that enthused about any of the four candidates and most people I know will vote for who they dislike the least. In a race like that its inevitable that there will be a lot of negativity because no one really feels all that good about who they support.

I'm not singling out the NDP. I'm singling out this race. In the last federal leadership race people were genuinely excited about Layton and some of the other candidates. Even in 1996 when Hampton won, there were people who were passionate about him or Lankin or Kormos etc... but this race just seems dull and uninspiring.

I disagree with the suggestion that Gilles Bisson will come in dead last. The large membership in the north is an aspect of this race that has been largely ignored by commenters. Consider the near sweep of the north federally. Between that base, his strong organizational team and his popularity in much of the union movement, Gilles starts from an organizational position of strength.

He is the only perfectly bilingual candidate, which also helps in the north, both among established members and in selling new memberships. He is also an effective speaker and congenial presence while pressing the flesh.  He has struck a rich vein with his comments regarding the need for internal renewal and the need to empower the ridings.  There are many longtime members who deeply resent the funding formula and see it as both counterproductive, in that it limits grassroots potential for fundraising, and crippling to local organizations' ability to do much of anything between elections. His early attack on that, and a well reasoned critique of the party's internal malaise have been heard by many members, especially older ones. 

His appeal for a clear social democratic agenda also has a constituency. It is unclear whether there is much stomach for such an approach among members in some of the large urban ridings in the south, but it will appeal to labour membership in places like Windsor and Hamilton.

His principle baggage is his home turf. There is a sense that we need an urban leader, and most people from southern Ontario don't accept Timmins as an urban template for their communities. Northern politicians of all stripes have problems building broad support for leadership runs in their parties generally, and there may be limited willingness to go back-to-back with Howard and Gilles. I have heard a fair bit of that, for sure.

My handicapping has Peter Tabuns as the clear frontrunner, but if Peter doesn't have enough for a first ballot win, Gilles might pull it off.  Gilles and Andrea are Steel brother and sister and I think if one drops off the other will benefit. There is baggage between the Toronto guys. On a second ballot, Gilles has considerable potential to grow.

"Consider the near sweep of the north federally."

Yeah let's consider it. The NDP took an unprecedented 7 federal seats in the north federally while led by a man from downtown Toronto. In the last provincial election, the man from Rainy River got us a measly THREE.

One thing to bear in mind is that since everyone will be filling out a preferential ballot - there will be no opportunity for candidates to make deals with each other after the first ballot - all the ballots will have been filled out in advance and it will be a fait accompli. Its hard to say where the preferences would go. A lot of people will back people from their region initially and then it will be a mixed bag afterwards - though I suppose its possible that Prue and Tabuns voters in the GTA may preference each other.

A lot of rank and file members are not privy to any personal animosities between the candidates that may or may not exist - it will become a matter of name recognition. Its likely that the vast majority of members in Beaches-East York would make Prue their MPP their first choice - but remember that Tabuns ran there federally in 2004 and has roots there too.

The missing piece of this bit of analysis is that the man from dowtown Toronto lost a seat in downtown Toronto while sweeping the north. And the man from Rainy River won more seats in Toronto in 2003 on 7 fewer total Ontario seats than the man from downtown did in 2008. The reasons are not entirely straightforward.

The other missing piece of that analysis is that Mr. Hampton won 3 seats, but lost about another 4 seats in the North by about a total of 1,000 votes. There were a couple they lost by a couple hundred votes and they lost Thunder Bay-Atikokan by like 50 votes (after closing a 12, 000 vote gap from the previous election). It's not like the North roundly rejected Howard. The fact is that we came extremely close in ridings where we had lost the previous time by on average 10,000 votes. Literally an extra few hundred votes would have won us an extra 3-4 seats. Closing that gap put the Federal Party in a better position at the end of the day and a great deal of that was thanks to the work of Mr. Hampton and Northern leaders like Mr. Bisson.

It's interesting. This is a really good dialogue I'd hate to see degenerate into a partisan free-for-all, something that should probably be carried on in a separate thread, since it's something we really need to continue discussing after the leadership is over.

Call me crazy, but this is really about resources-both where they are deployed and their availability. What's just been described above points to me that there is major growth potential, but one single region across the province-independent of the rest of Ontario, doesn't have the seat capacity to put us over the top.

Our most recent electoral strategy involved devoting serious resources to about 20 ridings across the province. That's 34 shy of majority territory. For the sake of argument though, let's consider those ridings to be an NDP 'base'. They're smattered throughout Northern Ont., the 416, Horseshoe, and SW Ont.

These ridings get the bulk of the resources and staff allocated to them. In the regions and ridings we don't contest seriously, the party infrastructure is caught in a death spiral of neglect and atrophy. The more these areas stay ignored, the less fertile they become for us.

At the same time, what infrastructure, local knowledge and people on the ground we have in these areas have no incentive to renew, fundraise, and build local capacity. They watch what funds they do raise go to contest ridings in 'the bases'. They rarely, if ever, have any contact with a staff organizer, becoming ever more cut off from the central party.

We're starved for resources, and when you starve yourself, your body's first act of self-preservation is to basically start consuming itself.

In the short term, at least, there needs to be a dual focus on pulling in more money while at the same time using the resources we currently have more effectively.

I do believe that Prue's $10,000-per riding strategy is good step to immediately make all the ridings more competitive. Contrary to some claims around here, he has said how he'd pay for it (either dedicated fundraising, re-allocating from the lousy regional ad buys or a combo of the two), and it would both allow us to quickly start building capacity in all ridings, as well as forcing our opponents to more seriously contest their own 'bases'.

Moving beyond that, there's no question the funding formula needs to be revisited and the rules surrounding how riding associations collect money need to tilt more fairly towards the riding associations, something Prue is also addressing.

No question--we need to put more into the North, and into Toronto and Horseshoe and SW Ont, but we also need to build beyond our base in order to make government. Growth in a single region won't do it. Clearly we need more, and we need to better with what we've already got.

The full transcript of the Greenpeace story.  The labour board would go on to agree with the union, not with Tabuns, that there was a case.
--------------------------------------
Workers respond to Greenpeace Director
ak 12:56pm Tue Nov 26 '02
article#13445

Locked out canvass workers respond to Greenpeace's peter tabuns

PT: What Peter Tabuns says.
343: How the union responds.


PT: Dear Folks, Tooker has circulated one side of the story at Greenpeace,
I want to give you the other side.

343: Peter Tabuns responds to Tooker Gomberg regarding the door canvass
union, but ironically he has never responded to the door canvass union
itself. This represents a consistent pattern in which Mr. Tabuns has
failed to respond to our concerns, in spite of our repeated requests.

PT: Greenpeace has made some changes in the fundraising program in
Toronto.

343: These "changes" were made in the middle of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement which management signed October, 2002, and which doesn?t expire
until December, 2003.

All the unionised staff who were affected by this change were offered
similar jobs in the phone canvass program, which is covered under the same
collective agreement. No one has been locked out.

Although the door canvass was offered jobs in the phone canvass, this was
only done after management tried unsuccessfully to change the terms of our
door canvass contract. When this attempt failed, they shut us down and
transferred us to the phone. Therefore this is effectively a lockout by
Greenpeace management.

Mr. Tabuns says the jobs offered were "similar jobs", but he neglects to
mention that for some canvassers the number of hours worked per day would
be reduced from 9 hours to 5 ?, for the others from 7 to 5 ?. Although the
base hourly rate of pay is comparable, the overall earning potential is
significantly lower.

In addition, there are at least 2 canvassers who are unable to perform the
phone work because of their pronounced accents. They were successful
face-to-face, but are unable to do the same on the phone. Management has
not offered these workers any other jobs.

Furthermore, management indicated on several occasions that there would
only be enough phone work for additional phone canvassers until about
April.

The real issue, however, is that we have a Collective Bargaining Agreement
for our own door canvass jobs, not some other jobs. We have met and
exceeded all of the standards in our contract. This transfer to other jobs
is an attempt by management to get out of our contract after they failed
to change the performance standards.

PT: The specific change is a shift away from a door canvass to an expanded
phone canvass program. Staff in both programs are covered under the same
collective agreement, and base wage rates in the phone canvass program are
slightly higher.

343: Mr.Tabuns says "the specific change is a shift away from a door
canvass", why did this "shift" only occur after management was
unsuccessful in changing the terms of our contract?

If there was a "shift away from a door canvass", why was every door
canvasser given a $750 signing bonus to sign this contract less than a
year ago?

If there was a "shift away from a door canvass", why does the
non-unionized Montreal canvass remain open, and why does Greenpeace use
the non-unionized Caring Together agency to door canvass in other cities?

The only reason the shift has occured is to get out of this union
contract.

PT: All the rights of the collective agreement have been honoured, and
Greenpeace went a step further by creating new positions to avoid
involuntary layoffs among unionised staff in the door OR the phone canvass
programs. (One management position is eliminated.)

343: The phone/door union in the past few weeks have filed over fifteen
grievances with management. Some of these grievances include:

a. Management has failed to provide a hard copy of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement to the union despite repeated requests;

b. Management has accepted donations from the agency "Caring Together"
which were solicited in Toronto contrary to the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. Without explanation, management rejected this grievance;

c. We were pressured, illegally, by management to accept the phone canvass
jobs within 7 days of our closure notice, the Collective Bargaining
Agreement stipulates that we must have 45 days to decide. This caused
great stress for our members.

PT: When anyone gives money to an organisation like Greenpeace they expect
the money to be used to protect the environment while treating workers
well. The phone canvass at Greenpeace has much lower administrative costs
than the door canvass, so more of every dollar that is donated can go to
protecting the environment. Unionised staff were all ? absolutely without
exception -- offered similar unionised jobs within Greenpeace, in the same
union. This simply is not a lock out. People were given notice of layoff
in accordance with the collective agreement, they were offered comparable
work.

343: The phone canvass is also an effective part of our union. The door
canvass provides the phone canvass with most of its leads so that it can
fundraise. The door canvass is also an outreach program which the phone
canvass is not.

The door canvass is also profitable for Greenpeace, but management refuses
to show us the financial statements. This is another of our grievances,
which was denied by Greenpeace ? they still haven?t shown us the numbers.

Several have chosen to take those jobs, some have found other work since
being told of this change, others are still looking.

Mr.Tabuns should know that many of our canvassers have not found other
work, and many have not had a cheque since October 15, 2002.

PT: Obviously, not everyone is happy with the change, and that is probably
human nature. Some people enjoyed the outdoor work of door canvassing
versus the indoor work of phone canvassing, some may have had other
reasons. But the fact is the phone canvass allows much more of donors'
money to go to protecting the environment (in a similar unionised wage
structure).

343: Mr.Tabuns says some of us are unhappy because we enjoy the outdoor
work versus the indoor work, or perhaps other reasons. How would Mr.Tabuns
know our reasons if he will not meet with us? The real issue is not
whether we work indoors or outdoors, or "some other reason". It is not the
job or the money. It is a justice issue. We have a contract that we signed
in good faith that has been broken by management.

PT: Greenpeace is the only national environmental group that has unionised
staff. The current contract for the canvass staff was agreed about a year
ago and has another year to run. There is every expectation that when it
expires, another contract will be agreed as normally happens. The office
staff in Toronto has been unionised since the early '90's and there has
never been a strike or a lockout.

343: We are proud that we have a union at Greenpeace. We started our union
to protect Greenpeace workers from abuse by management. In our door
canvass we had not had a raise in base daily pay for 10 years. We had to
vote to go on strike several years ago to get a modest pay raise. In spite
of this progress as a union, we are now being shut down - the very people
who started this union in the first place.

Greenpeace has had a questionable relationship with labour and unions over
the years, and now the Canadian Labour Congress has "uninvited" Jo Dufay
(Greenpeace Head Campaigner) from speaking to them at their convention. As
well, the Toronto Labour Council has rejected Mr.Tabuns?s attempt to
dissuade us from public protest.

PT: We engage in campaigns to protect the environment and prevent nuclear
war. Those campaigns are why we need to make the best use of donors money.

This is tough for all of us here, we have worked with the people doing
door canvass for many years and wish it had worked out differently.

343: The Greenpeace door canvass has been the heart of greenpeace direct
actions for 14 years. Many of us have been arrested for participating in
Greenpeace actions. One of our members, who is still facing charges for
participating in a Greenpeace lock down, is now protesting in front of the
building for being locked out by his own boss.

PT: So, that?s our side of the story. You will make up your own mind about
which position makes the most sense. However, please bear in mind that the
original message you received didn't give you the full picture here.
Sincerely, Peter Tabuns, Executive Director

343: Our canvass staff are spending countless hours in protest over this
issue unpaid. Greenpeace management and their lawyer are spending
countless hours on this issue, paid for by Greenpeace donations.

Please contact Peter Tabuns and Development Director, Rebecca Moershel to
let them know you think their actions are wrong and will suspend your
support for Greenpeace until their labour policies have clearly been
corrected.

Peter Tabuns ext. 3012, Rebecca Moershel ext. 3014, both at
416-597-8408.
peter.tabuns@yto.greenpeace.org, rebecca.moershel@yto.greenpeace.org

For more information, or for responses to anything else Peter Tabuns has
to say, e-mail us at: opeiu_343@yahoo.com

Contact Gary Connolly, Union Steward 416-429-7658
or Patty Clancy 416-703-4448 ext. 29

Sincerely,
Greenpeace Door Canvass Union

Some big news today from the Bisson Campaign:

NEW MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS PUT TIMMINS JAMES BAY ON TOP AND BOOSTS BISSON LEADERSHIP BID

(TIMMINS -- January 28, 2009) Membership numbers released this week by NDP provincial office show that Timmins James Bay is now the largest riding association in Ontario -- a significant development for leadership candidate Gilles Bisson.

According to the new figures, Timmins-James Bay now has a total of 1,398 party members, an increase of 429 per cent since July 31, 2008 when the riding had 265 members.

Comparative numbers for Toronto Danforth show a total of 1190 members, up 71 per cent since July. In Beaches East York, membership is up 64 per cent to 696, while there are 731 members in Hamilton Centre, an increase of 58 per cent.

"I am delighted by the fact Timmins James Bay is now the largest riding association in the province," said Bisson. "A great deal of credit for this goes to my organizing team. It shows many residents of the riding are going from supporters to full-fledged members."

He said the spike in memberships is good for the NDP in general.

"Leadership contests traditionally boost memberships and what I think we're witnessing is growing excitement about the decision our party will make at convention in Hamilton."

Bisson campaign manager Chris Mockler said the boost in memberships in Bisson's home riding of Timmins James Bay speaks to a broader trend unfolding across the province.

"The more our members learn about Gilles the more they are moving into our camp. Clearly the numbers released by provincial office show that there is momentum developing that increasingly shows voters are moving in our direction.

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=37415

Seeing as how the party's central office, there were 5,000 new members signed up through out the entire campaign, and Mr. Bisson managed to sign up over 1,100 in just his riding alone. That's over 20% of the new members signed up. Mr. Bisson more than likely also signed up members in other ridings, so that number of new members brought in by the Bisson campaign is sure to be a fair bit bigger than that Timmins- James Bay number. 

Agreed.

Since 1995 the decision to allocate resources to a limited number of target ridings has been driven by one primary fact, there have not been enough resources to do it any other way. When the party was knocked flat in 1995, it failed to adjust internally; it carried on for a while as if it still had the support base to maintain a centrally driven apparatus.

When it figured out that it didn't, the leadership made the mistake from which the rest of  the story follows. Instead of refocusing the organization to invigorate and use the energies of the grassroots more effectively the decision was taken to starve the ridings to maintain the centre.  The centralized mindset of the leadership was evident in other decisions as well. We have now been in this mode long enough that an organizational culture has formed around it.

 I believe that Michael's $10k proposal speaks to a real problem, but I don't believe it is a realistic use of our resources.  Money to the ridings, sure, but not like that.  It sounds grand, but it would not be the most effective way to allocate scarce money.  Some ridings would not be able to make timely, effective use of it, some have a real need for more.

Neither does it speak to the malaise within the ridings that afflicts all our efforts.  Longtime supporters feel reduced to the role of piggy bank for a remote central organization.  It will take more than a fat cheque to overcome that.  There is a serious need for renewal.  I am hearing some recognition of that, and I believe that all of the candidates have indicated they realize there is a problem. So far I think Gilles has been the most clear about the nature of the problem and what needs to be done.

One element of Michael's proposal that I do like is the clear recognition that there are no ridings we don't care about.  As you note, we will not win government taking 34 seats.  We can only win the others we need by working on them.

I think that the discussion of these issues has been healthy, but too limited.  I hope that there is a vigiorous discussion among the leadership contenders over the final weeks of the campaign.

It wouldn't hurt to have a place to thoughtfully discuss policy/strategy/etc.

Michael and Gilles both recognize that building is a process. There's disagreement on how to kick-start the process, but I don't think disagreement is necessarily a bad thing.

Regarding the $10k per riding. On its own, it would probably be good money after bad. It has to be backed up by an attentive party central that meaningfully services the riding associations, provides access to resources and organizers, and helps the riding associations develop local talent.

That's as much a challenge for the rank-and-file to demand what they need from the party central--the leadership, the staff and the executive.

There are huuuuuge challenges to breaking down the organizational culture that's taken root, Peter3. Most likely, they are beyond the skill of the finest leader to confront single-handed. The question becomes whether the rank-and-file, especially who hail from the neglected regions, break down their own institutional mindsets and and push hard for change.

Since it looks like Oshawa is in deeper trouble than was thought, is Peter in negotiations to open a new windmill factory?

So Bisson has locked up the support of the northern caucus . Hmmm...no real suprise there although 7 Mps is a huge endorsment and a strong show of faith in a particular candidate.  Of interest is the fact that Bisson has the largest riding association and the biggest turn out in the membership drive.  This points to a strong organizational core and a defined strategy. I was undecided between Horwath and Bisson and have decided to throw my lot with Gilles.  Looks like a winner and a man with a plan to me. I wonder if this is experience showing its true form?

I'm just not sure that having an anti-environmentalist windbag that shows every sign of being totally UNappealing to the 80% of Ontarians who live in cities is what the NDP needs right now. We need to look forward and not backwards.

Mr. Bisson is not anti-environment, nor is he unappealing to 80% of Ontarians. Period. Look at my posts above on that. 

Closing for length. Please continue here:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/introductions/ontario-ndp-leadership-news-0