Will UNITE HERE split open up rifts in CLC?
Recent discord in UNITE HERE is creating concern that in Canada the fight could end up involving other unions.
Four years ago the Hotel Workers Union (HERE) merged with the Textile Workers Union (UNITE) to create a new union UNITE HERE in the US and Canada. This new union it was hoped would merge the organizing zeal of HERE with the financial stability of UNITE. Many hoped this merger could help re-invigorate the labor movement.
Today that marriage is falling apart and threatens in Canada to draw other unions into the fray.
With the union’s first convention slated to happen this summer, Bruce Raynor past head of UNITE, and joint president of UNITE HERE is worried that he will lose power to the majority of the union which is largely from the old HERE. At stake is the $5 billion Amalgamated Bank owned by the union.
To try and stop this he has begun to try and secede the old UNITE locals from the union.The problem he faces is that he doesn’t have the support of the majority of the executive board to secede according to the union’s constitution. The majority of the Board has opposed attempts to split the union.
This has lead Raynor to file a lawsuit against those on the Executive Board who don’t support him. To fight this Raynor has launched a war of disruption to try and force a settlement on his terms. In the process he has not only launched a lawsuit but has:
- Used his areas of power in the union to put other locals into trusteeship, thereby removing the local elected leadership in an attempt to deprive the majority of votes at the convention.
(see http://labornotes.org/node/2099)
- Launched websites attacking HERE leader and co-president of UNITE HERE John Wilhelm, the website strangely resembles the anti-union site unionfacts.com
(see www.fixourunion.org )
- Pulled organizers off of union drives from both Canadian and US UNITE locals to run campaigns to try and split HERE locals away from HERE and into the UNITE end of the fight.
In all of this Raynor now finds himself support by Andy Stern, the president of SEIU.
Clearly SEIU hopes that Raynor if he is able to win his war of disruption will merge UNITE into SEIU bringing with him the $5 billion bank.
This is where Canada begins to fit into the equation and raises some serious issues for the labor movement.Given that the majority of the UNITE HERE executive board show no signs of letting the divorce take place without a vote at the convention, which Raynor will lose, the options for Raynor and his Canadian ally Alexandra Dagg, legally taking members out of UNITE HERE are limited.
One scenario could see Raynor and his allies take what they can and merge quickly into SEIU. But with few members Raynor would have to raid his old union UNITE HERE through SEIU. If not through SEIU then through any number of proxy unions backed by Raynor and SEIU could be used to raid UNITE HERE.
Already in Toronto and Ottawa there are accusations that the recently formed Canadian Hospitality and Entertainment Workers Union is one such front. While the leaflets, which have been handed out at Hotels organized by HERE, have a picture and statement by Buzz Hargrove on them, it is believed that it is front for the UNITE end in Canada. The reason for these rumors is that organizers for this new union (which has no members) have been showing up on HERE members doorsteps and have remarkably accurate membership lists – suggesting a high degree of inside help – presumably from UNITE in Toronto.
If Raynor and Dagg merge into SEIU, it would then be SEIU that would be interfering in the internal affairs of another CLC affiliate. This opens up comparisons to the raids by the CAW against SEIU in Ontario that created a major rift in the labor movement.
In that case several SEIU locals voted to leave SEIU and join CAW. Similar to the UNITE HERE situation, these locals were prevented from leaving in that manner by the SEIU constitution. The CAW used that pretext to openly raid SEIU in Ontario – particularly in the healthcare field.
The result of this was that SEIU and other unions demanded that the CAW be kicked out of the Canadian Labor Congress.One wonders if the current leadership of SEIU in Canada, which came together to fight the CAW raids and has helped rebuild SEIU in Canada, will be able to stomach the thought of being turfed from the CLC for raiding UNITE HERE.
Sharlene Stewart, president of SEIU Canada, has built a reputation as fighter against raiding. At the last CLC convention she gave an impassioned speech against raiding between affiliates of the CLC. It begs to question whether she would allow SEIU’s name in Canada to be used to raid another union, especially one as prominent as UNITE HERE.
Stewart must know that if SEIU Canada is seen as raiding, or assisting to, raid a CLC affiliate it will provoke calls for SEIU’s expulsion from the CLC. Other unions, especially the CAW, would probably be more than happy to see SEIU lose the anti-raiding shield of the CLC.
It would be a sad irony that after rebuilding from the raids of the late 90’s SEIU Canada could see itself facing the same charges that it leveled against the CAW. The difference this time is that if removed from the CLC, SEIU would undoubtedly face raids from CLC affiliates interested in gaining members from SEIU.
Further it would be sad to see SEIU Canada which has engaged in very innovative organizing campaigns to unionize workers turn against a union that has done much to raise the cause of mainly immigrant hotel workers.
M. Reingold
Is there something you'd like to share with the rest of the class?
Recent discord in UNITE HERE is creating concern that in Canada the fight could end up involving other unions.Four years ago the Hotel Workers Union (HERE) merged with the Textile Workers Union (UNITE) to create a new union UNITE HERE in the US and Canada. This new union it was hoped would merge the organizing zeal of HERE with the financial stability of UNITE. Many hoped this merger could help re-invigorate the labor movement.Today that marriage is falling apart and threatens in Canada to draw other unions into the fray.With the union’s first convention slated to happen this summer, Bruce Raynor past head of UNITE, and joint president of UNITE HERE is worried that he will lose power to the majority of the union which is largely from the old HERE. At stake is the $5 billion Amalgamated Bank owned by the union. To try and stop this he has begun to try and secede the old UNITE locals from the union.The problem he faces is that he doesn’t have the support of the majority of the executive board to secede according to the union’s constitution. The majority of the Board has opposed attempts to split the union.This has lead Raynor to file a lawsuit against those on the Executive Board who don’t support him. Further, Raynor has launched a war of disruption in the Union to try and force a settlement on his terms. In the process he has not only launched a lawsuit but has:- Used his areas of power in the union to put other locals into trusteeship, thereby removing the local elected leadership in an attempt to deprive the majority of votes at the convention.
(see http://labornotes.org/node/2099)- Launched websites attacking HERE leader and co-president of UNITE HERE John Wilhelm, the website strangely resembles the anti-union site unionfacts.com(see www.fixourunion.org )- Pulled organizers off of union drives from both Canadian and US UNITE locals to run campaigns to try and split HERE locals away from HERE and into the UNITE end of the fight.In all of this Raynor now finds himself support by Andy Stern, the president of SEIU. Clearly SEIU hopes that Raynor if he is able to win his war of disruption will merge UNITE into SEIU bringing with him the $5 billion bank.This is where Canada begins to fit into the equation and raises some serious issues for the labor movement.Given that the majority of the UNITE HERE executive board show no signs of letting the divorce take place without a vote at the convention, which Raynor will lose, the options for Raynor and his Canadian ally Alexandra Dagg, legally taking members out of UNITE HERE are limited. One scenario could see Raynor and his allies take what they can and merge quickly into SEIU. But with few members Raynor would have to raid his old union UNITE HERE through SEIU. If not through SEIU then through any number of proxy unions backed by Raynor and SEIU could be used to raid UNITE HERE.Already in Toronto and Ottawa there are accusations that the recently formed Canadian Hospitality and Entertainment Workers Union is one such front. While the leaflets, which have been handed out at Hotels organized by HERE, have a picture and statement by Buzz Hargrove on them, it is believed that it is front for the UNITE end in Canada. The reason for these rumors is that organizers for this new union (which has no members) have been showing up on HERE members doorsteps and have remarkably accurate membership lists – suggesting a high degree of inside help – presumably from UNITE in Toronto.If Raynor and Dagg merge into SEIU, it would then be SEIU that would be interfering in the internal affairs of another CLC affiliate. This opens up comparisons to the raids by the CAW against SEIU in Ontario that created a major rift in the labor movement.In that case several SEIU locals voted to leave SEIU and join CAW. Similar to the UNITE HERE situation, these locals were prevented from leaving in that manner by the SEIU constitution. The CAW used that pretext to openly raid SEIU in Ontario – particularly in the healthcare field.The result of this was that SEIU and other unions demanded that the CAW be kicked out of the Canadian Labor Congress.One wonders if the current leadership of SEIU in Canada, which came together to fight the CAW raids and has helped rebuild SEIU in Canada, will be able to stomach the thought of being turfed from the CLC for raiding UNITE HERE.Sharlene Stewart, president of SEIU Canada, has built a reputation as fighter against raiding. At the last CLC convention she gave an impassioned speech against raiding between affiliates of the CLC. It begs to question whether she would allow SEIU’s name in Canada to be used to raid another union, especially one as prominent as UNITE HERE.Stewart must know that if SEIU Canada is seen as raiding, or assisting to, raid a CLC affiliate it will provoke calls for SEIU’s expulsion from the CLC. Other unions, especially the CAW, would probably be more than happy to see SEIU lose the anti-raiding shield of the CLC.It would be a sad irony that after rebuilding from the raids of the late 90’s SEIU Canada could see itself facing the same charges that it leveled against the CAW. The difference this time is that if removed from the CLC, SEIU would undoubtedly face raids from CLC affiliates interested in gaining members from SEIU.Further it would be sad to see SEIU Canada which has engaged in very innovative organizing campaigns to unionize workers turn against a union that has done much to raise the cause of mainly immigrant hotel workers.Murray Reingold
Recent discord in UNITE HERE is creating concern that in Canada the fight could end up involving other unions.
Four years ago the Hotel Workers Union (HERE) merged with the Textile Workers Union (UNITE) to create a new union UNITE HERE in the US and Canada. This new union it was hoped would merge the organizing zeal of HERE with the financial stability of UNITE. Many hoped this merger could help re-invigorate the labor movement.
Today that marriage is falling apart and threatens in Canada to draw other unions into the fray.
With the union’s first convention slated to happen this summer, Bruce Raynor past head of UNITE, and joint president of UNITE HERE is worried that he will lose power to the majority of the union which is largely from the old HERE. At stake is the $5 billion Amalgamated Bank owned by the union. To try and stop this he has begun to try and secede the old UNITE locals from the union.
The problem he faces is that he doesn’t have the support of the majority of the executive board to secede according to the union’s constitution. The majority of the Board has opposed attempts to split the union.
This has lead Raynor to file a lawsuit against those on the Executive Board who don’t support him.
Further, Raynor has launched a war of disruption in the Union to try and force a settlement on his terms. In the process he has not only launched a lawsuit but has:
-Used his areas of power in the union to put other locals into trusteeship, thereby removing the local elected leadership in an attempt to deprive the majority of votes at the convention.
(see http://labornotes.org/node/2099)
-Launched websites attacking HERE leader and co-president of UNITE HERE John Wilhelm, the website strangely resembles the anti-union site unionfacts.com
(see www.fixourunion.org )
-Pulled organizers off of union drives from both Canadian and US UNITE locals to run campaigns to try and split HERE locals away from HERE and into the UNITE end of the fight.
In all of this Raynor now finds himself support by Andy Stern, the president of SEIU. Clearly SEIU hopes that Raynor if he is able to win his war of disruption will merge UNITE into SEIU bringing with him the $5 billion bank.
This is where Canada begins to fit into the equation and raises some serious issues for the labor movement.
Given that the majority of the UNITE HERE executive board show no signs of letting the divorce take place without a vote at the convention, which Raynor will lose, the options for Raynor and his Canadian ally Alexandra Dagg, legally taking members out of UNITE HERE are limited.
One scenario could see Raynor and his allies take what they can and merge quickly into SEIU. But with few members Raynor would have to raid his old union UNITE HERE through SEIU. If not through SEIU then through any number of proxy unions backed by Raynor and SEIU could be used to raid UNITE HERE.
Already in Toronto and Ottawa there are accusations that the recently formed Canadian Hospitality and Entertainment Workers Union is one such front. While the leaflets, which have been handed out at Hotels organized by HERE, have a picture and statement by Buzz Hargrove on them, it is believed that it is front for the UNITE end in Canada. The reason for these rumors is that organizers for this new union (which has no members) have been showing up on HERE members doorsteps and have remarkably accurate membership lists – suggesting a high degree of inside help – presumably from UNITE in Toronto.
If Raynor and Dagg merge into SEIU, it would then be SEIU that would be interfering in the internal affairs of another CLC affiliate. This opens up comparisons to the raids by the CAW against SEIU in Ontario that created a major rift in the labor movement.
In that case several SEIU locals voted to leave SEIU and join CAW. Similar to the UNITE HERE situation, these locals were prevented from leaving in that manner by the SEIU constitution. The CAW used that pretext to openly raid SEIU in Ontario – particularly in the healthcare field.
The result of this was that SEIU and other unions demanded that the CAW be kicked out of the Canadian Labor Congress.
One wonders if the current leadership of SEIU in Canada, which came together to fight the CAW raids and has helped rebuild SEIU in Canada, will be able to stomach the thought of being turfed from the CLC for raiding UNITE HERE.
Sharlene Stewart, president of SEIU Canada, has built a reputation as fighter against raiding. At the last CLC convention she gave an impassioned speech against raiding between affiliates of the CLC. It begs to question whether she would allow SEIU’s name in Canada to be used to raid another union, especially one as prominent as UNITE HERE.
Stewart must know that if SEIU Canada is seen as raiding, or assisting to, raid a CLC affiliate it will provoke calls for SEIU’s expulsion from the CLC. Other unions, especially the CAW, would probably be more than happy to see SEIU lose the anti-raiding shield of the CLC.
It would be a sad irony that after rebuilding from the raids of the late 90’s SEIU Canada could see itself facing the same charges that it leveled against the CAW. The difference this time is that if removed from the CLC, SEIU would undoubtedly face raids from CLC affiliates interested in gaining members from SEIU.
Further it would be sad to see SEIU Canada which has engaged in very innovative organizing campaigns to unionize workers turn against a union that has done much to raise the cause of mainly immigrant hotel workers.
M. Reingold
Sorry was cutting and pasting it looked ok in preview both times. Finally realised need to disable rich-text.
Apologies again
This is interesting since SEIU and UNITE-HERE are partners in the "Change to Win Coalition" which was formed in the US by several unions that left the AFL-CIO. This sounds like it could kill off CtW (which appears not to have lived up to expectations even without this development).
These sound like battles where workers' interests and voices are secondary, or lower down yet.
Union leaders who worry about raiding (doing it, or defending against it) should be asked to look for other occupations.
Interesting article by Harold Myerson that puts a bit of perspective on things for those uninitiated to the history of the merger and the dispute. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=disunite_there
He suggests, and I tend to agree, that the SEIU intervention is more about leverage for a "demerger" that will leave the former UNITE more or less whole, or at least they'll get to keep their precious bank...Yeah, they own a bank...
If they demerge, and that seems likely, best bet is UNITE is swallowed up in fairly short order by SEIU and then SEIU starts organizing (new units, not raids, which I don't think Stewart could/would do) in the hotel sector.
If that's the case HERE is in real trouble in the sector, 'cause they don't organize any better than they service - which is to say not at all. Truth is you don't have to raid them, just patiently wait for their members to decert (they do it on a fairly regular basis) and then scoop them up.
Pathetic all around.
The "leadership" on both sides needs a good slap, 'cause it's the members that are suffering
Agree with aka Mycroft about CtW http://www.counterpunch.org/macaray02062009.html
the US commentariat has been suggesting since very early after his win that Obama's transition team was putting the boots to both parties to get it together. EFCA is a big whip...
Latest release from UNITE HERE - "A Merger That is Working" - An Analysis
http://oneunitehere.org/detail.asp?prid=15
Looks more like a release from the HERE half of UNITE HERE.
At this moment it's pretty clear there is no "UNITE HERE" . There's Raynor, the UNITE crew and their spin and Wilhelm, the HERE crew and their spin.
Any analysis that pretends to be from "UNITE HERE" is fundamentally dishonest. Check out the "real" UNITE HERE site and you'll find it's silent on the feud. Of course each side has their various fronts and props, but they provide spin, not analysis.
Real analysis, such as it is, is coming from people like Harold Myerson and non-partisan organizations like Labornotes.
What would be really interesting is if there were a truly independant members site out there. I'm sure if there was one they'd be saying a pox on both your houses, not trying to cheerlead one side or the other.
The defense of the merger at least exposes the "HERE organizes slowly" line, put forward by the Raynor faction, as a fabrication. Most interesting part is the section on the organizing record before and during the merger. The stuff is based on public sources, so you can verify it (if you want).
Where to start, where to start.
OK, so the first thing that is exposed here is that at least 2 (perhaps three - Et tu unionfriend?) of the posters on this thread ( yoo hoo November5 and Stop Raiding) are UNITE HERE staffers (or more precisely HERE faction UNITE HERE staffers) who joined babble this very day to use this forum to advance their partisan position.
Welcome and more power to you I suppose, but it doesn't make for very interesting babbling. This is a great site, hope you find more interesting uses for it. As I said previously, fronts and props provide spin, not analysis.
I'll give you folks this though, you can move in lockstep - you managed to get member numbers 17219 and 17220. Do you share a desk?
Although I generally have a pretty low threshold for propaganda I did manage to make it through your whitepaper, stop raiding. Sorry November5, but no part of that thing is interesting. It's a litany of factoids and spin, just like every piece of propaganda that I've seen from either side since this thing began (this particular piece actually manages to be dryer than most though).
The best bit of this whitepaper is that ironic gem near the end that says "ultimately this debate will not be decided by dueling white papers". True enough, so would both sides stop issuing them, you're killing the market for Sominex.
As for verifying the factoids contained in your little thesis I have neither the know-how nor the inclination to search jillions of American NLRB records. Call me a lazy nationalist.
However, twenty minutes on Canlii did give me a rough sketch of the organizing that has gone on closer to home since the merger.
Since 2003 in Ontario I count 2 new hotel certs, and 3 new units that look like small tag ons to existing hotel units, also looks like two lost hotel unit votes.
In the same span I count 2 hotel decerts (and yes, abandoning bargaining rights to avoid losing a vote is a decert) and a couple of random and sundry unsuccessful hotel raid and decert efforts.
I'd call it a wash I suppose, but I certainly see no evidence of great organizing prowess (and I'm being charitable). You owe me 20 minutes of my life back.
I have no idea what your UNITE compatriots have done over the same span in their sectors in Ontario, but then again they're not on this thread fronting, so they don't generate enough ire to get twenty minutes of my life.
Besides, no doubt either UNITE or HERE will be issuing a whitepaper about it in the next few days or weeks so I can read all about it then. zzzzzzz...
@ Hammerhead
I think you're missing the point a little bit. The issue doesn't seem to be so much that the HERE model is slow to organize, but that the argument put forward by Raynor - that the UNITE model of hot-shop, rip-and-run organizing is somehow more successful than the HERE committee-building model - falls flat when confronted by actual data.
Further, it looks like you're trying to appear neutral, yet you're using the same rhetoric you claim to hate. You write "If that's the case HERE is in real trouble in the sector, 'cause they don't organize any better than they service - which is to say not at all. Truth is you don't have to raid them, just patiently wait for their members to decert (they do it on a fairly regular basis) and then scoop them up."
I would like to see some hard evidence behind this claim - what were the behind-the-scenes dynamics underlying the raids experienced by HERE recently? Aren't there several industrial unions desperate to get a foot-hold in the hospitality industry? Are the Steelworkers, CAW and Machinists (and others) actively probing organized hotel properties? Could this have an impact on the recent raids (and raid attempts) experienced by HERE?
Finally, I feel like your characterization of the whole situation as a battle of personalities between politically-motivated and egotistical leaders is especially facile and disingenuous. When you say "The "'leadership' on both sides needs a good slap, 'cause it's the members that are suffering," I think you are totally minimizing the role of workers in the situation. You make the workers sound like cowering children watching their parents battle at the dinner table.
It's far to easy to say 'Let those power-mongering leaders fight it out, I stand with the workers.' The UNITE vs HERE fight will have a huge impact on the entire Canadian labour movement, and we need more than tired clichés about the nobility of the working class.
In fact, it is the question of what role workers should play in their union that underlies the whole struggle between UNITE and HERE. Is a union something that happens to workers? Is a union best-served when ultimate power is vested in the figure of a single, ever-present leader? (I'm looking at you here, Buzz) These are important questions, and this is what the fight between UNITE and HERE is really all about.
Finally finally, I think it's poor form to bust others for posting anonymously when you yourself are posting anonymously.Hammerhead
Your 20 minutes were indeed poorly spent.
Firstly, I am neither a UNITE HERE staffer, member or hold elected office for the union. I have no idea who Nov 5 is and I'm not particularily concerned whether you believe me or not. I (perhaps like you) am an outsider looking in who is interested in the outcome of this battle and the impact it may have upon the Canadian labour movement (see thread header).
Secondly, what your posts have conveyed to me are that you make assumptions, that in my case are inaccurate (therefore all else that follows by you is taken with a grain of salt) and that you go to an inordinate length (reading various white papers, searching canlii etc) to criticize UNITE HERE. It would appear that you have an axe to grind.
Just popping in to let everyone know that all are welcome to post on babble, including union staffers and members and people with no union affiliation at all - and no one has to identify themselves. So if we could keep the speculation about people's real identity out of this, that would be great. We welcome all new babblers, no matter what thread or discussion has attracted them. Lots of babblers discuss issues here that involve the organizations they belong to. (Think NDP, maybe?) No one has to declare their identity or their workplace or affiliation if they would prefer to remain anonymous.
Your comments are right Michelle but this whole thread has been kinda staged by the HERE types in the first place and I think people have a right to know that too.
I think that Unionists' point about the voice of members being lost here is what is most important and I found some Canadian members of UNITE HERE discussing the very topics in this thread at http://nextforunitehere.org/ .
It doesn't look good for unionfriend. Former members of HERE from Ontario, discussing never receiving service or being informed of union meetings and how thrilled they were to receive education and empowerment from the UNITE side after the merger. Members talking about the failure of HERE to organize, the problems making the merger work, wanting to separate. It is pretty clear that this merger is over.
You can say what you want about propaganda (and there is a lot on both sides if you read the US press) but I've been in the Canadian labour movement for twenty years and I know some of the people on this site from counless labour day parades, conventions and picket lines. I remember meeting James Deane at the Hamilton Days of Action. These are the voices of the members of this union and if you listen to them, it is pretty clear the merger/marriage/union is done.
I think the members should determine what happens next. I know that I and a lot of people in the Canadian labour movement will support and stand up for their right to make that determination themselves.
I may have missed this - I can't find any evidence that SEIU Canada has weighed in on this.
Why have we concluded that Sharleen Stewart is planning a raid? I see that Stern has offered to take in both halves of UNITE but the Canadians have been silent it seems.
I have been very reluctant to comment, but perhaps a few thoughts might be useful. HERE in BC is not a very progressive organisation and UNITE is a small player. The idea that a struggle at the top of these two groups could harm the entire labour movement is almost unthinkable.
I simply think Unionist is correct. Forget the institutional bullshit and let the workers decide their own future.
It's really hard to figure out what's going on. I don't think raiding is even an issue - at least at this point.
My understanding, and I'd love to be corrected, is that UNITE and HERE merged, the merger never worked and now Bruce Raynor (President of the old UNITE and now President of UNITE-HERE) wants to separate. If he succeeds he'd probably start merger talks with SEIU. The folks at the HERE half of UNITE HERE have looked at the math and realized that if they had an election they could simply take over and get rid of Raynor. So now, while Raynor is still in control, UNITE-side locals are disaffiliating one at a a time. Disaffiliation is normally pretty tough since most union head office retain the right to trustee locals and do so when disafiliation is in the cards. However, in this case Raynor wants these locals to disafiliate, and quick, before he loses office.
I get of this from here - and the statement below.
I suppose "raiding" could become a factor if HERE takes control of the Presidency, trustees the UNITE locals, and keeps them in while Raynor encourages another union (SEIU) to take back his old locals.
--
The following is a statement from Bruce Raynor on proposed disaffiliation votes by UNITE HERE locals and joint boards:
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20070817/CLF013LOGO)
Recently, I have learned that several UNITE HERE joint boards and locals representing more than 150,000 workers throughout the U.S. and Canada are planning on holding votes of rank and file leaders on the question of whether or not to disaffiliate with our international union. This is a historic and unprecedented action that indicates just how serious and deep the rift in our union is, but also how democratic trade unionism can be.
The merger that created UNITE HERE needs to come to an end, and I still hope that we can forge a path to the future based on a set of private negotiations that works out what is best for all of our members. But clearly many of our local leaders have no faith that that is possible. While I am saddened by this course of events, I understand that they feel the need to take immediate action in the interest of their members. And I am proud that the worker leaders of our union will be participating in a massive act of democratic self-determination.
These meetings will be full of rank and file leaders, elected by other workers to represent them in their regional organizations. They are the closest thing to direct democracy we have in our union. It is too rare these days for so many workers to come together to decide on the future of their own unions, and we should honor that action regardless of the circumstances or consequences.
Workers are taking matters in to their own hands because a faction of former HERE leaders are determined to take over the entire union for their own benefit, with little regard for former UNITE members, their assets and their industries. These workers want to end the merger to protect their history and their futures, but President Wilhelm and the former HERE leaders refuse to negotiate a settlement to end this merger. In fact, continuing their pattern of stifling dissent and discussion, they have filed suit to stop the votes. Without even knowing what these members would decide, before even allowing them to have their meetings and hold their votes, they have asked the courts to intervene and stop them.
I am not happy that our union is falling apart. And I hate that things have gotten so bad that members are coming together to possibly end their relationship with our union. But there is nothing I value more than workers' right to set the direction of their own union and their own lives. Therefore, I want these meetings and votes to happen. I recognize them as an opportunity to hear from our members, and as General President of UNITE HERE I plan to deal with the results, whatever they are. I think that my belief in our members and the democracy they participate in demands nothing less.
It is helpful to look through the documents on
http://www.oneunitehere.com/
(go to "Important Documents")
rather than taking Bruce Raynor's press releases at face value
munroe's point about HERE in BC was interesting since I didn't know much about them and a little googling revealed the local out there has a lot of trouble that's must have been embarassing the labour movement out there for a while.
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=b2ef9933-bbd8-4693-b77b-b19d18d955fa&k=15103
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=51c6a2fc-38ea-4bb7-9731-d408ea50c2d2
In BC I'd say the truth has been coming out for a while now about the HERE local there and it isn't pretty.
It seems this fight is vast, well outside the one leader said this/dueling websites etc. It is pretty clear this merger is done and once again, I think it should be the members of this union who decide their future and that the rest of us in the labour movement should respect their wishes. Isn't that what democracy in the movement demands?
There are various references throughout these postings to 'democracy' and the 'will of the members' as well as references to 2 unions.
UNITE HERE, with all it's faults, is one union. That happened the day they merged back in 2004. To my understanding there was no pre-nup. So at what stage do they become recognized as a new single entity?
And how has the will of the members and democracy been respected by Raynor and Stern independently working out a new merger?
While Andy Stern negotiates and leverages the secession of the old UNITE faction he ardently opposes the right of the UHW to dissaffilate from the SEIU. What about democracy and the will of those members? Stern appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.
And I hope Bruce Raynor is going to champion the democratic right of the members of the UHW. Somehow I think he`ll stay mum on that one.
Having said all that it does appear that Raynor and Stern do operate from the same playbook as both are top-down trade unionists who seem to have a propensity towards sweetheart deals that limit the rights of existing members - such as denying workers the right to withdraw their labour, a non-negotiable right in my book. It appears they are suited for each other in their belief that the interests of workers and bosses can be alligned - sadly it will continue to be at the expense of their members and the rest of the labour movement.
sunday hat. thanks for the article at:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/129176/constitutional_crisis_sparks_all-out_war_for_control_of_powerful_union/?page=1
I found it useful in it`s analysis of the cultural differences between the two factions. Such as the excerpt below.
``Paul Durrenberger, a professor of anthropology at Penn State University, who studies the labor movement, said that UNITE embraces an organizing model that doesn't sit well with HERE. The idea is for the union to approach the management directly and convince the company not to oppose unionization.
"The top-down idea is that if you could get management to recognize the union, you wouldn't have to spend lots of effort and money organizing," Durrenberger explained. HERE subscribes to a more bottom-up approach that involves convincing each rank-and-file worker to commit to fighting for a contract against potentially hostile management.
The two approaches don't mesh any better in practice than the do in theory.``
I became a member of HERE Local 75 July 17th 1999.
April 2004 Fort Erie Racetrack was locked out. We were told we'd start getting strike pay on the 14th day out. Contract was settled on the 13th. Have since found out Local 75 never had a strike fund until they merged later in 2004 with Unite.
On July 15th 2003, 4 years after joining the union, I filed a Section 74 against Local 75. Being that Local 75 never sent any members to the CLC training courses our stewards were uneducated and our rep was never around. I did call Frank Perschia to tell him I was filing a section 74 and he told me "to go ahead and file it he was going on vacation and he'd deal with it when he got back from vacation." I filed it.
At the same time as filing it I also started a displacement of Local 75 but being uneducated didn't know I was suppose to do this during our open period which was October. I started this in July. The reason being we were paying union dues to a union that had NEVER represented us. Took our money in a heart beat but left us hanging. They act like a management friendly union.
I am now a proud member of Local 2347. Last April I had the opportunity to attend a Local 75 membership meeting. At this meeting the chant was HERE. No mention of Unite Here just HERE. We from Local 2347 weren't allowed to speak as Paul Clifford informed us. Only members could speak. We had a Local 75 member with us and when he tried to speak he wasn't allowed. Only those selected by Paul Clifford were allowed to speak. True democracy I think not. This meeting was held to kick off his roar of the Lion, might have the name wrong, campaign which was going to start with a rally at the Royal York the same day his Local was suppose to be at Ontario Council. They didn't show up at Ontario Council. We from Ontario Council Local 2347 did support our brothers and sisters at their rally in front of the Royal York.
At this time Paul Clifford decided HE wanted out of Ontario Council but to stay under the international umbrella. He wanted his own bank account. The last time he had his own bank account Ontario Council sucked up a 2.2 lots of zero's debt. He started a petition to divorce. We from Unite Here Ontario Council Local 2347 spent months going to Toronto along with other brothers and sisters from all over, to try and stop this from happening. We wanted them to stay in Ontario Council. We now realize and should have known from past experience with Local 75 that it's all about Paul Clifford. He selects people to committees, they aren't voted in democratically. During this he posed the question to Alex Dagg " What has Niagara done?" We have actual honest representation. We have honest organizing of unorganized worker's. We have education for all members wishing to attend. We have Leadership training, something else Local 75 members were invited to but Paul wouldn't inform his members of this training. All this education was available when we were Local 75 but for some reason they never used their education fund, at least not for what it was suppose to be for EDUCATION. He also sent a list of properties he wanted Ontario Council to hand back to Local 75 thank God Local 2347 wasn't on that list. But one must ask themselves why not Niagara properties back. I'll tell you why we are EDUCATED. We think for ourselves Alex Dagg DOES NOT control our voices and in fact encourages us to speak. Another thing Local 75 only allows the chosen few to do.
This is not just former Unite members wanting this demerge this is also former Local 75 members who are in favour of this demerge. We know how HERE works and we want no more a part of them now then we did in 2003.
This has absolutely nothing to do with raiding this is the MEMBERS speaking. It's what the MEMBERS want. After all it is the MEMBERS that pay the wages of the staff. We have our own voices and we are using them loudly and clearly.
One last thought if this isn't about taking control of Unite's assets why not just grant the demerger and allow Unite to leave with what they brought in and be done with it.
Vivienne Crawford
Unite Here
Ontario Council
Local 2347
Unit Chair, shop steward Fort Erie Racetrack and Slots.
Unite
AFL official blasts SEIU for interfering in UNITE HERE internal matters:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_ayers_statement.html
full text of AFL Memo from AFL Building Trades Dept
MEMORANDUM
March 2, 2009
TO: National and International Unions of the
AFL-CIO and All Building Trades Affiliates
FR: Mark H. Ayers, President
Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
RE: Interference into Internal Union Affairs
A guiding principle of American trade unionism is and always has been that one union or federation of unions must not interfere in the democratic processes of another union or federation.
This is a non-negotiable principle that the unions of the Building and Construction Trades, by unanimous vote on February 24, emphatically reaffirm.
The fact that one large international union has chosen to insert itself into the affairs of UNITE HERE is deplorable and arrogant.
We believe and hereby reassert our firm support for the leaders and members of UNITE HERE, and trust, through this union’s own democratic process, it will self-determine its course for the future.
We stand in solidarity with the members of UNITE HERE as their union resolves its internal differences.
@ Willow
A few comments:
1. The Ontario-specific video at nextforunitehere.org features 5-6 workers from UNITE-side shops, two of whom claim to have been formerly represented by HERE before the merger. No offense, but this is hardly a sufficient sample size. There isn't a union (or any other organization on earth, for that matter) that doesn't have a small number of dissatisfied members. This is not to downplay the concerns expressed in the video, but come on...
2. You keep repeating the talking points about HERE's lack of organizing, and the corollary claim that UNITE is an organizing machine, but it looks like the data just doesn't support your claim. See the Merger is Working document posted by stop raiding.
3. You keep repeating that the merger is clearly done. I'd like to ask, according to whom? To the UNITE leaders and their supporters? According to Andy Stern? Please don't reference the same workers I mentioned in my point 1 - I'd like you to back up your assertion with something more convincing.
@ Vivienne
1. I hear that you felt unrepresented by HERE prior to the merger, and I won't dispute your experieince. However, I do take issue with your description of the Local 75 meeting you attended. You say, "Last April I had the opportunity to attend a Local 75 membership meeting." How did you have the 'opportunity'? Are you a member of Local 75? Could a busload of Local 75 members go down to Niagara Falls and expect to take part in your regular membership meetings there (you do have regular membership meetings, I assume). This sounds pretty fishy!
2. What proof have you been given regarding HERE's alleged financial irresponsibility? It's a pretty major accusation, and if I were you I'd want to see something in writing and not just take Alex Dagg's word for it.
3. You claim to belong to a part of UNITE HERE that is member-driven and democratic. I have a few questions for you:
Does your union hold regular workplace meetings? When was the last one?
Does the Ontario Council of UNITE HERE meet regularly? Is there an agenda? Do you vote on key items like union finances? Have you ever voted on a budget for the Ontario Council of UNITE HERE? Do you see an exact accounting of the union's funds on a monthly basis?
4. There are accounts that the UNITE side of the union unexpectedly walked out on a recent national convention of UNITE HERE. Is this true? If so, why? If the UNITE side of the union wanted the merger to work, why would they refuse to participate in such an important event?
5. Finally, Vivienne (and others), I want you to do a google news search for the term "unite here." Here's what you'll find - a bunch of reports on internal UNITE HERE merger politics, and an equal amount of press stories about HERE-led campaigns to fight bosses, organize workers, support community organzing efforts and fight against cuts due to the economic crisis. So I have to ask you - in this difficult time, why is UNITE focusing its staff, resources and time fighting for Bruce Raynor and Alex Dagg's job security?
So the AFL-CIO says Stern should "mind his own business".
Of course, in doing that, they are failing to "mind their own business".
I doubt Stern's motives are pure but UNITE HERE isn't even affiliated to the AFL anymore. Where do they get off weighing in on the affairs of another labour federation?
I don't think a central labour body making a statement admonishing a labour leader can be deemed equatable to the blatant self-serving efforts of Andy Stern to leverage the break-up of another Union for his own union's benefit. Buzz Hargrove attempted to do the same thing to the SEIU that Stern is doing to UNITE HERE. Stern's hyprocracy continues to baffle.
I hope the CLC and other labour bodies come out with similar statements.
These sound like battles where workers' interests and voices are secondary, or lower down yet.
Union leaders who worry about raiding (doing it, or defending against it) should be asked to look for other occupations.
Care to elaborate Unionist with your reasons why, both for and against, as I'm not completely clear what you mean by that.
Re: Vivienne's comment that at Local 2347, "we have honest organizing of unorganized workers"
Here is an account of a recent Local 2347 organizing campaign
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/PrintArticle.aspx?e=1421320
Two comments.
First, at some point members (of SEIU as well as UNITE, it appears) should ask some hard questions about the money and time being spent on this: www.fixourunion.org
as well as this:
nextforunitehere.org
The first is blatant union-busting, and it's just indecent. The second - IMHO not much better. That's not "leaving it up to the members."
Second comment, unrelated: Let's dump this marriage analogy. These are not two people with assets. This is a movement we're talking about, and the members are not property (nor children!). I don't even want to get into the gender analysis.
edited for hyperbole and venom. yep the original was worse
Re: Vivienne's comment that at Local 2347, "we have honest organizing of unorganized workers"
Here is an account of a recent Local 2347 attempt at an organizing campaign
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/PrintArticle.aspx?e=1421320
where "employees voted 35 to 1 against joining Unite Here" aka UNITE
I have managed to keep up with the reading, but I have fallen silent on this thread, partly because I have been busy as hell with work and life, and mostly because it has been taken over by partisans referring everyone to their own website and propaganda (and of course providing a critique of the other side's propanganda). I don't know who's staff and who's not (although I know damn well a bunch of you must be) but as Michelle indicated it doesn't matter anyway and all are welcome on the site and all are welcome to post. It's just not that engaging...
Thank you to Vivienne though for your post. It's pretty clear you're a partisan with an axe to grind too, but at least no one is paying you a salary to say it. When you pay the dues you have the right to bitch and the right to fight. It's the few iron clad true things I know from 15 years of being a member activist. Definitely ignore TW's knock that your concerns aren't all that important because you don't represent a large enough "sample size".
Sample size??? What the fuck TW, this is the labour movement not your Master's thesis. Every member's concerns are important and they should be applauded for speaking their mind. It is the last refuge of the labour scoundrel to dismiss unsatisfied members as representing only a small number of unplacatable cranks. That sad reality of the movement is common among far too many staff and local officers (from all unions) who wish the members would just shut up (unless they're towing the leadership's line) and march in lockstep behind them.
As for Truth will out, it is you who've managed to draw me out of my boredom with this thread (against my better instincts). I have no idea who or what you are, except that you are clearly so caught up in this fight that you are willing to use vile arguments that are poisonous to the basic principals of the labour movement to advance your cause.
A worker is fired in the course of an organizing campaign and the union is subsequently defeated soundly in a vote. AND YOU SEE THAT AS AN INDICTMENT OF THE UNION!
The union then files charges at the OLRB (which had enough merit to win interim reinstatement - not easy to prove) and goes the extra mile to launch a public awareness campaign to defend this woman's rights, and the rights of all workers to organize free from fear and intimidation. AND YOU SEE THAT AS AN INDICTMENT OF THE UNION!
Some poor woman, who was probably shit scared and thinking she could protect her job by currying favour with the boss, accuses the union of "bugging" workers. AND YOU SEE THAT AS AN INDICTMENT OF THE UNION!
You know what I see?
I see a woman who wanted a union, who wanted to earn a decent wage, some benefits, hopefully a pension to retire on some day, and to be treated with dignity and fairness at work.
I see a woman who was brave enough to sign a card, and probably to collect cards from her co-workers, so they could all have the same things she wanted.
I see an employer who was willing to violate that woman's fundamental human right to freedom of association and free collective bargaining, just so he could save a few bucks and maintain absolute control of his little fiefdom.
I see a whole system of inadequate labour law, inadequate enforcement and political indifference that encourages scumbag employers to think they can get away with it ('cause mostly they do).
I see a group of workers who were brave enough to sign enough cards to force a vote. Probably a good chunk of them too, since I don't know many Unions that will file with less than 60% anymore.
I see a workforce that got scared off of pursuing their rights when a co-worker lost her ability to pay the rent and put food on her kids plates for doing just that.
I see a campaign that went south because workers heard loud and clear that supporting the union might cost them their livelihoods.
I see a union that filed charges at the board, that built a campaign to publicly protest the injustice of the firing and to advance the cause of the right to organize in this province.
No doubt you see a campaign that wasn't run properly, one where the committee wasn't strong enough, one where the organizers hadn't done their job to prepare the workers for the onslaught of the employer. A campaign you could have won because you would have organized it the "right" way.
Maybe you're just better than the rest of us, because I see a scenario that plays itself out all across this country everyday. I've helped out on lots of well run campaigns, and I've seen things like this happen sometimes, especially in relatively small workplaces. I know lots of good organizers, from many different unions, who've won many tough fights where people got fired and worse. And yet they all have stories like this too.
You see this as an indictment of the union. I see this as an indictment of the employer, of the government and of the low regard this country has for the right to organize without fear.
The sickest thing about this whole shitpile is that I bet there was great jubilation among HERE partisans when the cert was defeated so soundly. Clearly you see it as something to gloat about, Truth will out. Perhaps it would be the same with the UNITE partisans if the shoe were on the other foot. From the rhetoric I've seen in this fight, that might well be the case. More's the pity.
I wonder if anyone was thinking of Diane Barnim when the champagne corks were being popped.
I'm glad this site is anonymous Truth will out, because I might just be marching next to you on a picket line or a protest someday soon, I might call you Sister or Brother and exchange a few kind words.
And if I knew that you were the kind of person who sees using employers busting unions as a legitimate opportunity to score points and advance their own internicine agenda in an internal fight where members are clearly being used as fodder, it would make my skin crawl.
And that's probably enough of this thread for me for sure.
@ hammerhead
Perhaps your 'boredom' led you to mis-read my most recent post - I didn't accuse Vivienne of not representing a large enough sample size. I was addressing that comment to Willow, who was trying to claim the UNITE sponsored video featuring 5-6 UNITE partisans (your word, hammerhead) amounts to a landslide of anti-HERE sentiment among the membership. This is the impression Willow and the video are attempting to make, and I think it's wrong.
In fact, hammerhead, if you read my post closely, you'll see I totally support Vivienne's right to express her negative experience with HERE, and I see no grounds to refute her - I wrote "I hear that you felt unrepresented by HERE prior to the merger, and I won't dispute your experieince."
Finally, hammerhead, I hope you hold true to your word when you say, "And that's probably enough of this thread for me for sure." There are people on this thread who really care about this issue (from both sides!), and your faux-'boredom' and self-proclaimed outsider status are not all that helpful.
Regarding the link provided by Truth will out, and the story of the organizing drive in St. Catharines, I think it's an important incident and one that kind of goes to the heart of the whole UNITE HERE struggle. It's about who the union is organizing and why, and how the union and workers go about doing it.
Further, hammerhead, I totally reject your insulting diatribe. You wrote - "I wonder if anyone was thinking of Diane Barnim when the champagne corks were being popped." Who are you, Rosie DiManno? Rhetoric alert! The fact is, it seems like the UNITE side was surprised and a little hurt that the boss in St. Catharines fought back, and they hadn't really prepared for it.
Well guess what - it's called capitalism, and the corporations always fight back. As intelligent unionists, we shouldn't be surprised. Further, we should prepare for this fight in advance. I'm not going to get drawn into a 'who supports the workers more' contest - I expect most people on babble agree that ALL workers should be in a union, but that the system (especially the OLRB) tends to make this unnecessarily difficult and risky.
Firstly it wasn't just myself that felt we weren't being represtented by HERE. When I started the displacement I had in 2 1/2 weeks 100% cards signed......At that time we had well over 400 employee's who obviously felt the same way......
Next what does T W stand for why not use your name...
We did not send bus loads of people to this meeting. There were maybe 5 including a LOCAL 75 member who we drove up. We were not asked to leave until lunch arrived...This was not a membership meeting. This was the chosen few meeting. My question to you T W does Local 75 hold regular MEMBERSHIP, not the chosen ones, meetings???? Would we welcome bus loads of Local 75 members to our meeting. Local 75 doesn't know where Niagara is????? Hence the section 74 and the displacement.
Financially
While we were locked out our customers were tipping us at the gate. We got almost $2.000.00 that money went to Local 75. As I stated we were out 13 days without an income. One member got $40. for gas the rest of the cash went to Toronto never to be seen again.....NO STRIKE FUND, NO EDUCATION FUND, least wise as I stated not used for education.......How else do you think I know about HERE Local 75 finances......They never filed grievances, they wine and dine people they think they can control or would like to control.....That is speaking from experience....Going to Red Lobster for lunch with [name removed by moderator] and a 75 member, order anything, drinks sure...How did [name removed by moderator] pay for that I know it wasn't out of his own pocket it was out of our dues.....
At least the Unite side EDUCATES ALL MEMBERS if the members want the education, including leadership training....
Yes we have regular General membership meetings that ALL members are invited to attend, we also have individual Unit meetings and regular executive board meetings.....The last general membership meeting was in fact yesterday.
Ontario Council does have regular meetings that HERE Local 75 doesn't attend, least not the ones I've been to. Yes I've seen financial reports, of course T W I imagine you'll say they were altered reports.
Did the Unite side leave the Canadian Conference? Yes. For a year the by-laws were worked on by Alex Dagg and Nick Warhaug to be voted on at the conference. The night before the Conference Nick Warhaug had made changes to the by laws, on his own..One being anyone can leave Ontario Council. That was a violation. And let me inform you that Unite members decided this on their own. The meeting did continue and HERE was going to hold a VOTE till they were questioned about quoram....Like they didn't know they couldn't meet quoram, yet were going to continue with the vote.....
Lastly T W how do you know that UNITE is focusing its staff, resources and time fighting for Bruce Raynor and Alex Dagg's job security?
Also for T W re: HERE finances
In 2003, however, Yale was once again opposing the union's bid for a contract, and HERE, its treasury diminished by the post-September 11 downturn in tourism, put out an all-points-bulletin to other unions for assistance. The union that helped out most was UNITE, the New York-based union of clothing and textile workers, which provided both financial assistance and thousands of troops.
But HERE was a union of shaky finances when Wilhelm took it over, and they grew shakier still after the September 11 attacks.
Raynor faced the reverse dilemma: He headed a union with significant financial resources.
Note the finances discussed. This is from the article in the American Prospect, Disunite there.......That was in writing and not told to anyone by Alex Dagg..
HERE was in financial problems before the merger and obviously very well open to the public to read so really T W don't assume that we are lead around and told what to say as I said, Alex Dagg doesn't tell us what to say and we do know how to get information.....
Please do not insult my intelligence by implying that anyone including Alex Dagg controls me, my knowledge, my voice or what information I'm allowed to have... SHE AND THEY do not.....
Vivienne, just a word of warning - I appreciate your posts and your point of view here, but you can't post accusations against individuals (such as claims that they misuse funds) here because that leaves our site open to libel claims. I've removed the names from your post above. If you want to make those kind of accusations against individuals, you will need to do it on your own web site, not ours.
Sorry about that the only thing I didn't see at Red Lobster was the name on the credit card he used to pay for my lunch and the other members lunch.
I notice Truth Will Out, you failed to mention the other 123 new members we have in Local 2347...How many members were lost in Toronto to decerts????????
Thank you Hammerhead for your comments to Truth Will Out's misleading comments about that St.Catherines Standard artcile. I thought I would lose it when I saw them using a piece about a worker fired for trying to organizing to score political points.
For those reading this and wondering what the heck is up, a quick google search brought up IStandWithDiane.ca (thanks Hamilton and District Labour Council), which talks about the public awareness campaign to support this worker who was fired for trying to organize a union.
The website calls for people to show their support for Diane and let her employer and all employers in Ontario know that firing one worker to stop a union drive will raise the ire of all of us in the province who care about labour rights. I'd suggest everyone checks it out, signs on and passes the site on. That is the kind of work trade unionists in Canada should be doing and if Vivienne and her local are doing that work I say good work! And to those using that to score points in an internal union fight, I say you should be ashamed.
Sorry if the comments by members aren't to the liking of TW etc. but they are real. One of them is commenting now on this thread and clearly saying, this isn't just a conflict between Raynor and Wilhelm. Honestly, not a lot of us in Canada really know who either Raynor or Wilhelm are but we, especially those of us in and around the Hamilton area here in Ontario, know folks like James Deane who is on that site. See him at labour council meetings all the time. He isn't some disgruntled member. He's been a rank and file leader of that union for decades, probably longer than you've been alive. (his union's name may have changed over the years but his dedication hasn't).
Sorry if the truth hurts but that is what happens when you start threads like this. You tried to find a place to put up your propaganda and now folks are bursting your bubble. Gotta love babble.
I simply think Unionist is correct. Forget the institutional bullshit and let the workers decide their own future.
Thank you, munroe, and it's great to hear your voice here. I've been missing it.
Anyone who thinks their union is better than someone else's union is mistaken. It's the same with religion.
I tend to read and follow the posts and arguments, friend. I also want to limit comments unless I have something to (in my opinion) add. My first desire is to ensure workers have a home and a voice. Workers should be allowed to mould their own organisations and control their own agendas. I get very concerned when any "elites" put their agendas ahead of the workers.
I have seen lots of nonsense from the Carpenter International through to the nonsense that killed Mine-Mill. My only belief is in the workers themselves. If they agree with my thinking or not is not important - they have been engaged or allowed to decide. The key here is building a LABOUR MOVEMENT, not a bunch of edifices friendly to workers' apparent desires.
Well said.
Thank you.
I will say the same again and again and again. I penned a briefing note that said the same thing today - the issue is allowing workers access to collective bargaining and controlling their own lives, not which organisation wins or loses.
I have spent my life building. First in construction, then in organisations. In a few weeks I retire. I really hope the buildings and organisations I have been privileged to help build survive.
There are no correct or wrong answers. There are only directions and "best" options. The only correct answer is always the same - ask the workers and do the best to make their direction work. Do the BEST for the workers you may represent or be paid by.
One thing I have learned in the decades spent in the labour movement is that it is never about you, never about "this" organisation and never about the ebb and flow of politics. It is about today, the job, the person and the reality. Connecting that with the broader world is a different and important question.
Sorry to bore and run on. Retirement does that....
Thanks, brother (I think). Your perspective is refreshing. You're right, it is never about you, and when it is (for whomever it is), it becomes soul-destroying. Congratulations on your retirement, and may you enjoy the ownership of your own time.
Apropos: Harold Meyerson Part III, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=where_are_the_workers.
Teaser:
Critics charge that "let's make a deal" unionism leaves no real role for workers in the organizing process and minimizes their involvement in negotiating their contracts. In addition, they argue, the employers' ability to maintain unorganizable, nonunion workplaces depresses the wages and benefits of the workers in the unionized facilities. SEIU officials, while privately conceding that top-down contracts are less than stellar, argue that their critics offer no plausible alternative to this organizing model. Given the current state of labor law, these half-a-loaf arrangements are both the best that can be achieved for workers and the only way the union can gain a foothold to win better contracts in future years.
Sometines I wonder how democratic labour unions survive with these kind of tactics being used against them. And don't think for a second that these tactics are not used here in Canada as well. Firms bought secret personal data on staff - privacy chief
Major companies accused of colluding to 'blacklist' troublesome workers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/06/data-protection-construction-industry
The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, will today publish a list of the companies he believes may have broken data protection laws, after an investigation by his office that was sparked by fears that many workers were being unfairly "blacklisted".
The commissioner alleges that the firms, including Balfour Beatty, Sir Robert McAlpine, Laing O'Rourke and Costain, have, for many years, covertly bought details of workers' trade union activities and their conduct at work.
Thomas believes that workers have been unfairly denied employment because they have had no chance of challenging any inaccurate information, some of which has been stored for decades.
Asked by the Guardian to respond to the claims, many companies refused to comment. Others denied using the data to "blacklist" troublesome workers covertly, or said they had stopped buying the data.
The commissioner has already taken action rapidly to close down a private investigator who is accused of clandestinely compiling an "extensive intelligence database" of 3,000 workers with details that stretch back to the 1980s.
The commissioner is to prosecute the private detective, Ian Kerr, who is accused of selling the information to companies in the construction industry when they wanted to vet potential staff. Thomas said he had seized documents which, he says, show that files on individuals included comments such as "communist party", "ex-shop steward, definite problems, no go", "do not touch", "orchestrated strike action" and "lazy and a trouble-stirrer".
-------
Construction workers have long complained that they have been stopped from getting work because companies were covertly turning away people they believed to be active trade unionists. Hard evidence has, until now, been hard to come by, and the construction industry has always denied it.
Steve Acheson, who believes he has been blacklisted, said he was "absolutely thrilled" by the findings of the commissioner's investigation.
The electrician, 55, from Denton in Manchester, said: "I've been angry for so long. It affects your character and demeanour - it's the fact it's so blatantly unjust. I was disgusted that one man could make a living from denying other men the right to work".
The Labour government has been criticised for passing a law banning the practice of so-called blacklists in 1999, but then, in a U-turn, deciding not to take the final step of implementing the law on the grounds that "there was no hard evidence that blacklisting was occurring". Technically, therefore, "blacklisting" is still legal.
Last night, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said it was prepared to review its position.
"The government is committed to monitoring any evidence that blacklisting is resurfacing in the UK," said a spokesman for the department. However, the information commissioner has powers to take action if he believes data protection laws have been broken.
His officials raided the offices of Kerr, the private investigator, in Droitwich, Worcestershire last week, seizing what the commissioner calls "an intelligence database" of 3,213 individuals.
Thomas said the "comprehensive card index system" held "sensitive" personal data, including details of trade union activity, employment conduct and personal relationships.
He added there was also information about whether the individual "may pose a threat to industrial relations between an employer and its employees". Some information was more than 30 years old, he said.
He has also seized invoices, which he says were issued by Kerr to companies for checking names on his database. He said they showed that the companies had paid Kerr an annual subscription and then a fixed fee for each name they wanted him to run through his database.
The Guardian understands that, in what appears to be a system for centralising records in the construction industry, companies sent information to Kerr so that it could be pooled with other firms.
Kerr agreed to close his business after the commissioner ordered him to stop selling the contents of the database on the grounds he had broken data protection laws.
Yesterday, Kerr said he was not operating a "blacklisting" service as he never made any judgments about the individuals and instead left it up to companies to decide whether to employ them.
Thomas launched his investigation last summer after an article in the Guardian about alleged blacklisting in the construction industry. The commissioner intends to order the construction companies to stop buying workers' personal data.
Munroe, I wish you the very best in your retirement. Just please don't retire from here!
While doing a google search, I came upon this comment about Unite Here and this website. After reading each and everyone's response, I just had to register and add my own "2 cents". Just to let you know alittle about myself first. I am a unionized worker and a member of Unite Here. Before the merger of the two unions, I was a member of H.E.R.E. I am letting you know this so all of the readers can accertain whether I have direct or indirect interests in writing here and if I have a prejudicial or alterior motive in my comments. I would like to think that I have neither of the afore mentioned.
A union was created to protect the employee's from maybe a few employers who did not realize that their prioty task is to take care of the employee's first and to let the employee's do the job task at hand.
There are some businesses where management have been properly hired and trained to do their job. When this is present, a unionized workforce is not necessary. In St. Catharines, this may just be the case of Local 2347. Of course, we realize that many management have not been properly schooled in this philosphy, due to the many different Unions and Locals that are present in the workforce.
I must try to keep this brief, so as not to lose anyone's interest in this subject. I am finding this very hard to do here. In my own personal interactions with H.E.R.E., I found both positive and negative aspects of the Union. After the merger, I also found both positive and negative aspects of the new Union. To list these experiences with both the old and new Unions would seem to be inappropriate. If I myself, can see the problems that existed and still exist, then the current management team of the Union have failed to run this marriage properly for whatever reasons they may or may not have. However the battle being currently staged ends up, the worker will still be the loser and won't benefit until these problems that exist are corrected. Before the merger, I noticed that the unionized employee's needs were not being addressed fully and to their own satisfaction. Time lines were not being met. After the merger, I noticed that the unionized employee's needs were finally being addressed, union stewards were being trained and meetings starting to be created more often. The employee's finally had more to say in the Union that they, themselves created. The new Union looked to be growing and learning from each other.
Now, as a very special man once said, "Now you know the rest of the story", here it comes. And I know I must be careful in my words here.
There may already be individuals for Unite and for H.E.R.E., that are engaged in the divorce of Unite Here. You know who you may be. You may of failed to protect the rights and future of the workers that did not speak or could not speak for themselves. You may have taken upon your own agenda to prosper at the cost of others and in the process, may of hurt the very workers you were put there to protect. Take a moment, and reflect back upon the things you may have said or done. When the next meeting or negotiation comes to fruition, THINK! Think of the worker. You, and only you, may be able to make a difference. For if you cannot see this, then marriage or divorce, it won't matter in the end. You will walk away from this without learning and we all lose. There is no magical "undo" arrow where you can erase the past but there is still the future which has not been written.
Good Luck,
Unionized Worker
To Rogerk why do you mention St Catharines and Local 2347. If you're from Niagara and especially the Falls you should know the fear of lay off and no recall if you talk Union.....St Catharines is a bump in our road and not the only place we organized as a Local..Today a first contract is being negotiated....We have had successes maybe not thousands organized but quite sure it was more then Local 75 has organized and in fact I keep reading about Local 2347 and St Catharines and yet nothing about Local 75. How many properties have they lost ...Or lack of organizing done by them.....
Getting back to the fear factor it is real and does exist. One tourism operator I worked for threatened to shut the restaurant down if we tried to get a union in. Another hotel I worked at in Niagara Falls fired a person and yes said they fired him for trying to organize a union....Yes they paid him....
I don't believe Local 2347 is the only Local or Union for that matter that hasn't run into this bump in the road.....As I said we do have successes and you never know St Catharines may very well turn out to be a success..If not Local 2347 unionized by any Union at least .....
It's a shame there isn't a magic undo button....Quite sure Local 75 would have used it last year to leave Ontario Council.........
"An SEIU 'invasion'?"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/An_SEIU_invasion.html?showall
Excerpt re SEIU spokersperson commenting on their involvement:
"They do, however, "have some organizers on the ground in Pennsylvania to defend some of the bargaining units there from attacks from HERE," she said. In particular, she said, they're defending the units from attempts to decertify them -- that is, push them out of the larger union, adding that at least some of those units work with SEIU under Service Workers United agreements. [HERE's Weiss disputes that last assertion, which Ringuette says the issue may not have been decertification, but said that their goal is only to "maintain the status quo" and defend the UNITE side."
Let's hope that SEIU Canada does not attempt to "defend the Unite side" by allocating resources and thus further exacerbating the relationship between SEIU and UNITE HERE.
As unionfriend poignantly stated in the initial post to this thread that:
Stewart must know that if SEIU Canada is seen as raiding, or assisting to, raid a CLC affiliate it will provoke calls for SEIU’s expulsion from the CLC. Other unions, especially the CAW, would probably be more than happy to see SEIU lose the anti-raiding shield of the CLC.
It would be a sad irony that after rebuilding from the raids of the late 90’s SEIU Canada could see itself facing the same charges that it leveled against the CAW. The difference this time is that if removed from the CLC, SEIU would undoubtedly face raids from CLC affiliates interested in gaining members from SEIU.
It's a bit...crass? but a very detailed, and often funny, blog that covers both the UHW situation and the emerging SEIU interference in the UNITE HERE internal debate: http://www.perezstern.blogspot.com/
To date SEIU Canada and its Ontario locals have had nothing to do with this, as far as I know. After all, they've taken a leadership role against raiding.
@ Vivienne
It sounds like you really don't like Local 75 of UNITE HERE. I'm interested to know why this is such a big deal, since your Local is under the Ontario Council. You obviously have a lot of anger towards Local 75, but I'm wondering why there's a problem if you're no longer under that Local. In fact, it sounds like by moving to the Niagara Local, your own personal concerns with your old Local 75 were addressed pretty well! Where is the dictatorship or favourtism there?
IMO this isn't divorce fight, where two side want to split up and are fighting over resources. Rather, there is a minority faction of the union, led by a small inner circle of leaders, who are trying to peel away members, assets and resources in order to join with what they perceive to be a larger, more powerful union. I am concerned that your unsubstantiated accusations and claims are undermining the importance of this discussion.
For instance, you wrote: "The night before the Conference Nick Warhaug had made changes to the by laws, on his own..One being anyone can leave Ontario Council. That was a violation. And let me inform you that Unite members decided this on their own. The meeting did continue and HERE was going to hold a VOTE till they were questioned about quoram....Like they didn't know they couldn't meet quoram, yet were going to continue with the vote....." I count at least four factual claims you've made there, with ZERO proof. It's one thing to offer your opinion on this thread, but another to seemingly make stuff up.
You also wrote, "How many members were lost in Toronto to decerts?" I'm not sure. How many members have the Ontario Council lost to decerts? You also wrote, "We have had successes maybe not thousands organized but quite sure it was more then Local 75 has organized and in fact I keep reading about Local 2347 and St Catharines and yet nothing about Local 75. How many properties have they lost ...Or lack of organizing done by them..." If you're so interested in numbers, I'd like to see some for both sides of the UNITE HERE internal fight.
Also, why the constant comparison to Local 75? I'm not sure if it just hasn't come across clearly in this discussion forum, but is Local 75 trying to attack your Local? Have they released attack material or leafleted your shops making wild and unsubstantiated allegations? Are they calling your members at home? You clearly have a lot of problems with Local 75. I'm just not sure this fact has any bearing on the larger discussion regarding the UNITE HERE internal fight and a small UNITE faction's attempt to leave the union.
Finally, if you want to read some interesting stuff on Bruce Raynor's leadership of UNITE HERE's Amalgamated Bank, read 'Activist credibility gap' at Pensions & Investments online: http://www.pionline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090309/PRINTSUB/303099996/1020/TOC
@ November5
Thanks for posting the link to the Meyerson article - very interesting reading.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...[Oh, I think not. Post removed, people can read it at your link if they want to read unsubstantiated gossip. - Michelle]
nice post November 5th.
its great to see union activism amongst union staff.
I heard that HERE is very much like a CULT and is very anti-union, and often times union busts its own staff. I've also heard that HERE staff, most of them - those who drink the Kool-Aid often are anti-union, and believe in self sacrafice.
In fact, wasn't there an organizing drive by COPE 343 in Ontario of the UNITE HERE staff, and HERE IU organizers and researchers, who work with Local 75 - ran a devisive anti-union, union busting campaign?
I think Viv's concerns are valid.
According to sources since the merger HERE Local 75 has had a net loss in membership - of over 400 workers at the Sheraton-Gateway and the Park Hyatt. Those hotel workers are now members of the Steelworkers, and they are very happy.
HERE was nearly bankrupt before the merger, and now they are trying to get away with highway robbery - they are nothing but Bank Robbers. They have no sense of integrity or any sense of financial stability, and have showed no results for all the resources they've drained from the former UNITE.
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this discussion board to post any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory. You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling"). You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law. You understand that racist, sexist, homophobic, classist (e.g. poor-bashing) and other excluding language is not appropriate on babble. This policy applies to both public and private messages."
November5's referal to the rules of rabble are a bit thick, given that November5 is posting stuff directly from an anti-Stern/anti-SEIU staff site that in its own disclaimer says it is a "labor union related gossip site which publishes rumors, speculation, assumption, opinions and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts."
When the accurately reported facts are the afterthought in the disclaimer, it tells you a lot about the source. November 5 should consider the glass house right about now.
Just a note - I'm keeping an eye on this thread. Please do not post scurrilous, unsubstantiated rumours and gossip on our web site. If you want to link to this Perez Stern thing, fine, I suppose, but we don't need it reprinted here.
It's one thing to post your own experiences (as long as you're not posting defamatory stuff like unsubstantiated allegations of specific wrongdoing against individuals) but it's something else entirely to post heard-it-through-the-grapevine character assassinations. Let's try and remember that although we have huge differences with each other that we're all on the same side overall as workers.
T W I joined this and stated my experience with my former Local being 75 and my new Local being 2347. You then posted 5 questions which I answered including 2. What proof have you been given regarding HERE's alleged financial irresponsibility? It's a pretty major accusation, and if I were you I'd want to see something in writing and not just take Alex Dagg's word for it. Implying that I only get my information from Alex Dagg. When in fact it's public knowledge. Then I mention to truth will out that we have had 123 success in organizing and then asked the question how many decerts had local 75 had. That was answered by JJ Fusser Marky 400 members...I then ask rogerk why only St Catharines was mentioned with Local 2347. Yes I asked about Local 75 again because so far I haven't read anything about their successes.....You claim you count 4 factual claims I made with zero proof.....My question to you is how would you know what proof I have???????
You lastly asked if HERE is calling our members at home. Yes our members were called at home including me and were told they were doing a survey, they beat around the bush a bit with questions about working part time full time and then got to Union questions one being how I felt my National Union was working for me, I asked who my national Union was and was told it was HERE. So if it wasn't HERE why would they say they were my National Union???
The fact also remains that last year Local 75 wanted to leave Ontario Council......So to constantly accuse a small faction of UNITE trying to pull their members out, that's what Local 75 wanted to do.
I fail to see where answering and asking questions is constant comparing...How else do I answer question or ask them???
To set the record straight I have no problem with Local 75 now as I did when I was a member. I in fact believe if this isn't about UNITE'S assets why not just demerge go our separate ways, take what each side brought in, let members decide what side they want to go to and build our Unions.
well said Viv.
this fight is over UNITE's assets - and thats what the merger was about as well. My question is - if HERE claims to have so many more members then the former UNITE, how come they are bankrupt? How come Local 75 was $2million dollars bankrupt? What does the former HERE do with its members' dues? It is a well known fact that the former HERE had rampant corruption and was mobbed up, there was actually a story in Chicago about a mobbed up lawyer working for HERE.
the sole reason HERE wants does not want understand the merger is over - because they understand without UNITE - they will again become bankrupt. i trully hope HERE members will rise up and take over there union, and ensure that dues are not drained by HERE top executives.
On March 9, 2009, UNITE HERE General President Bruce Raynor wrote a refreshingly honest memo to UNITE HERE Int'l Union staff in which he placed into a historical context his effort to lead some former-UNITE affiliates out of UNITE HERE:
"This schism is unprecedented in our union but it has historic parallels such as the secession of a large portion of the membership of the United Electrical Workers to form the IUE in 1949 and 1950."
This was a telling historical comparison. According to a UE-related website, the IUE split "was a tool used by leading sections of the labor movement, big business and the government in a union busting effort aimed at UE" in the U.S. (see www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_iue.html).
Just after World War II, the UE was "the third-largest CIO union with more than a half-million members. UE represented more than 90 percent of all GE and Westinghouse workers." In 1946, the UE participated in the largest wave of strikes in U.S. history, with over 2 million American workers striking in one year.
However, not long after the UE leadership refused to sign affidavits swearing that they were not members of the Communist Party, the CIO expelled the UE as a "communist union" and granted a charter for a new union - the IUE - to former UE President James Carey. Although the IUE had no members, CIO President Philip Murray "met with the heads of GE and Westinghouse to discuss the details of how to eliminate UE" and replace it with the IUE.
The corporations then used new rules under the Taft-Hartley Act to call for elections in their plants - claiming to the National Labor Relations Board that the UE no longer represented its employees. The UE was often not even allowed on the ballot for having refused to sign the anti-communist affidavits.
The vicious onslaught against the UE that followed included a deluge of employer-called elections, Congressional anti-communist hearings at which UE shop-floor leaders were ordered to testify, terminations of workers who refused to cooperate with the hearings, threatened and actual deportations of UE leaders, and an anti-UE public relations campaign by newspapers, clergy and politicians aimed at portraying the UE leadership as a threat to national security.
This brutal anti-union campaign took a serious toll on the UE, which lost many elections to the IUE throughout the 1940s and 1950s, especially as the infamous McCarthy hearings intensified in Congress.
What, then, is the legacy that Raynor is claiming as UNITE's own? Was the IUE split a genuine rank-and-file movement, or a company-sponsored union-busting campaign on a continental scale? Are the mass mailings and thousands of phone calls to UNITE HERE members implying corruption by former-HERE leaders a part of the IUE legacy? The original IUE had no members yet used the combined power of the largest employers and the U.S. government to claim that it was the democratic voice of the workers. By comparing himself to the IUE, what is Raynor really telling us?
My name is JJ, I work with UNITE HERE's hotel program in Toronto. I've been a member of the union for 12 years now. Someone is impersonating me on this blog by using a barely mispelt version of my name. I do not share the views of the person calling themselves "JJ Fusser" on this site. I am publicly asking you to stop impersonating me.
This phenomenon (ad hominem attacks from a source/sources who cloak their identity) has become such a common occurance in the UNITE HERE secession attempt that I worry we've gotten accustomed to it. But it's actually doing real, daily damage to the labour movement. And it's distracting everyone from some urgent and real questions about what it means to be a union member today, and how our movement should grow.
Speaking personally, there's a few things keeping me going during this generally ugly and disappointing time. In Toronto, we have a city-wide program involving thousands of members -actively, not passively- in a fight against pre-emptive layoffs in the hospitality sector. Unionwide, our organizing continues. In Vancouver, 700 Local 40 food service members walked out on Aramark and had a noisy, exuberant picket line yesterday. About a week ago, 800 people showed up to support non-union workers organizing in two San Francisco hotels with Local 2. Airport concession workers rallied last week at La Guardia in New York. These are members, not consultants, not lawyers, not press secretaries. And we are winning over and over and over again.
JJ, as someone who knows nothing about this fight and nobody involved, but wants to ensure that this discussion stays fair, it would be great if you could e-mail me at
michelle AT rabble DOT ca
and tell me privately why you feel you've been impersonated by the other "JJ" on this thread. (Since I don't know your real name, and you are under no obligation to disclose that publicly, it's hard for me to judge whether or not this person has attempted to impersonate you.) I will be happy to investigate and take appropriate action if I agree with your assessment.
LA Times: UNITE HERE Board votes to leave Change to Win, Rejoin AFL_CIO
However, not long after the UE leadership refused to sign affidavits swearing that they were not members of the Communist Party, the CIO expelled the UE as a "communist union" and granted a charter for a new union - the IUE - to former UE President James Carey. Although the IUE had no members, CIO President Philip Murray "met with the heads of GE and Westinghouse to discuss the details of how to eliminate UE" and replace it with the IUE. [...]
By comparing himself to the IUE, what is Raynor really telling us?
Good question.
Without wanting to intervene in this very interesting thread (because I know nothing about the internal challenges facing UNITE HERE), I thought I'd add a historical note. In Canada, several of the unions thrown out of the CLC (or more properly its predecessor Trades & Labour Congress) during the Cold War McCarthyite era - such as the United Electrical Workers, the Mine, Mill, Smelter Workers, and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers - ended up merging with the CAW in the 1990s.
Okay, it's been brought to my attention that the person using "JJ Fusser Marky Hollinson" as their screen name (which I've changed to "Username Removed") was too close to the other JJ's real name in this thread to have been a coincidence, and I agree. And apparently the second two names is similar to the name of someone else who isn't posting here either.
I've removed the name, and locked the account. We will not tolerate such behaviour here. If you want to post here, great, please do. But you will not impersonate other people involved in the dispute (or mock them by using close approximations of their names) here.
In a memo dated March 13, 2009, Raynor continued his Cold War-era terminology when he referred to recent anti-secession votes by the majority of the UNITE HERE General Executive Board as "Soviet-style democracy."
What does Raynor's positioning himself as an anti-communist union leader reveal about the UNITE HERE internal dispute?
What does 21st century red-baiting cover up?
Why does Raynor place UNITE's efforts on the same historical team as the company-sponsored, government-backed IUE raid against the UE - then one of the strongest, most progressive unions in the U.S.?
Looks like a part of the membership in Canada has also voted to leave UNITE HERE. http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2009/16/c9237.html As I've said before, I don't really know Raynor or Wilhelm and the interesting history lesson is cool, but this seems to really be a question of what the members of this union want. Seems like they are voting and signing petitions (if anyone has seen one, it would be interesting to read it) and saying they want to leave. To 3-1 majority I'd answer your question simply with I don't care what Bruce Raynor thinks or if he is positioning this or that. I care about what the members think. A distinct group of them wants to leave. They've voted to leave. They're signing they want to leave. They should be able to determine their union for themselves. I don't know many workers who want to debate red-baiting and the what not, especially when they are worried about losing their jobs as too many are today. In that very real world, workers want unions that work and I think it is obvious a group of them think UNITE HERE is not working.
I'd be really interested in your honest opinion, Willow. Is it going to be Buzz or Andy? Can't be both...
November5 I don't understand the question completly but I suspect this is speculation in the labour soap some folks want to make this whole thing where personalities mean more than members. I honestly have little time and even less interest in that kind of inside baseball.
I believe in democratic trade unionism and letting the members decide for themselves their current and future representation and leadership. In my honest opinion, that is all that really matters.
Willow,
Could you define democratic trade unionism? What members get to decide - the majority? a majority of a minority? anybody? At what point does the will of the majority enter in to the equation - if at all? At what stage is it acceptable to disregard a collectively agreed upon Constitution?
Are you suggesting that any individual or group can separate/disaffiliate from their union, regardless of due process, whenever they like? What if a minority of members decide they don't like union's or being represented by unions? Can they just exercize their democratic right and leave?
The petitions were signed by members....The members were told what they were signing and in fact the petition stated the reasons. For anyone to bring up the Constitution now is kind of lame. Especially since no-one from HERE mentioned the Constitution last year when Local 75 wanted to leave Ontario Council..And yes I spoke to Local 75 members last year who signed something but they didn't know what it was for.....That was Local 75 petitions to leave Ontario Council......It wasn't explained to all the members what they were signing....Every member who signed our petitions did so knowing what they were signing and agreed to sign.....
Delegates were angered that a faction of the international union, led by
former HERE President John Wilhelm, had voted to revoke the charter of the
Ontario Council at a General Executive Board meeting on Friday, March 13th.
Was that Constitutional of President Wilhelm to revoke the charter of the Ontario Council???????
As I've said if this isn't about the money each side needs to take what they brought into this merger and leave so the members can be represented fairly and properly....Easy as pie.....Unless of course you're the majority without any money..
I think Vivienne dealt with the Constituion of convenience issue so I won't go into that stopraiding but your issue on the minority/majority is quite interesting.
Very bad things have been done in the name of majority rights and I confess I get a little chill down my spine when I hear people talking about not respecting minority rights though I'm sure that isn't what you mean stopraiding.
In this case, it seems clear that 150,000 members of this union want to leave. Since the union has about 400,000 members according to an AP piece I read yesterday, that is a sizeable minority. It is also clear that this is more about a merger of two unions not working. Some might not like the marriage analogy but it seems to work here. One partner might not want to accept the marriage is done but when the other leaves them, the marriage is over and the rest is just about the details of the divorce.
I get that the complete failure of this merger is hard to accept for some people, especially those on this discussion who clearly work for one side or the other. But stuff happens and ultimately, the members are the ones who need to be served and listened to and that is my pretty simplistic definition of democratic trade unionism stopraiding.
"Service Employees Union Joins Move to Break Up UNITE HERE"
http://labornotes.org/node/2141
Excerpt:
"The votes to secede were cast by around 1,000 delegates nationwide, who are elected in some regional boards and handpicked in others. In Philadelphia, 14 of the 21 voting delegates were paid staff. At the Pennsylvania-wide meeting, however, hundreds of elected delegates voted unanimously to leave UNITE HERE."
Great thread.
And oh BTW -- that bank that UNITE owns? Is no microbank. Holy crap:
Raynor is insisting on dissolving the "marriage” and has filed court suits to support his right to remove his 150,000 members from the organization. At the same time, he has made a deal with Andy Stern to join the SEIU, bringing along UNITE’s ownership of the Amalgamated Bank, the only labor bank in the United States, with assets of five billion dollars and valuable property. As part of the deal, Stern is expected to charter a new union to challenge Wilhelm in the hotel industry.
http://www.laboreducator.org/ctwfails.htm
I've seen that "assets of five billion dollars" figure bandied around before but I have to ask how current it is? A lot of banks are worth a lot less now than they used to be.
Out of the pan and into the fire.
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=6728
The Shocking SEIU-CNA Alliance
Excerpt:
"Finally, Andy Stern and SEIU have gotten some of their worst publicity in recent months over a variety of incidents. These range from corruption in their Los Angeles local, to the trusteeship of UHW and its still nasty aftermath, to the union’s controversial intervention into the internal affairs of UNITE-HERE.
These events have left the Change to Win labor federation, initiated by Stern, in tatters. Prior to this agreement, SEIU was increasingly perceived as divisive, and unable to work collaboratively with other unions."
Looks like UNITE HERE has split into its two original parts and that Danny Glover has come out on the side of UNITE.
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090320_UNITE_HERE__now_uniting_s...
UNITE HERE! now uniting separatelyThe ugly divorce of an international union became final last night.
UNITE HERE! - the result of the 2004 merger of two unions, UNITE, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, and HERE, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Workers - wasn't so united after all.
After a five-year unhappy "marriage," one-third of the merged union, which had represented 440,000 members, left to create a new organization called Workers United, the new union announced yesterday in Center City.
Lending his support and celebrity to Workers United was actor, film director and political activist Danny Glover, whose parents were active in the postal workers union and the NAACP.
"I chose this side because of their fresh ideas and meaningful response to the work of union organizing," said Glover, who joined UNITE in 2002 and fought for immigrants and other workers' rights in textile, hotel, laundry and food industries here and around the world.
The entire UNITE HERE! Philadelphia membership of nearly 9,000 joined the new union, said Lynne Fox, manager of the Philadelphia Joint Board of the new Workers United.
"It just didn't work out," said Fox, who gave up her seat as an international vice president of UNITE HERE! "We had just big philosophical differences between the two unions.
Their differences included how to spend money, how to organize and how to treat staff, Fox said.
Sniping between the two unions reached a fever pitch recently, prompting two union heavyweights to plead for their separation in the interest of the union movement.
"When a merger doesn't work, it is in the best interests of the members to break it up," according to a Mar. 13 letter from United Steelworkers and the United Auto Workers Union and sent to UNITE HERE! leaders. *
"It just didn't work out," said Fox, who gave up her seat as an international vice president of UNITE HERE! "We had just big philosophical differences between the two unions.
Their differences included how to spend money, how to organize and how to treat staff, Fox said.
It lends a whole new meaning to "philosophy".
Workers need selfless leaders who forget about organizational sectarian loyalties and administrative trivia. There is no reason, ever, for workers united in a single trade union to divide into separate parts (with the exception, of course, of situations where national sovereignty is required to avoid foreign control).
All these differences, whether huge or trivial, should be sorted out through democratic debate and consensus (or majority rule, when consensus fails).
These raids, counter-raids, and splits make as much sense as different parts of a city disaffiliating from each other.
At least, that's my opinion, having been through more than enough of all of the above over my lifetime.
I don't understand - the larger labour movement is saying the merger is over, but why does HERE still believe its not? Perhaps, perhaps, its about money. HERE was bankrupt before the merger, and UNITE had all the money, assets, property, and the bank. Seems like HERE is trying to STEAL and robb UNITE of all its assets.
http://sev.prnewswire.com/government/20090318/DC8569018032009-1.html
Growing Chorus of Labor Leaders and Independent Observers Call for End to Unite Here Merger
Join 150,000 workers in calling for split
NEW YORK, March 18 /PRNewswire/ -- After months of infighting and years of disappointing results, labor leaders and insiders have told the Presidents of former UNITE (Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees) and HERE (Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees), in no uncertain terms that the merger should end. Five international union Presidents, from both Change to Win and AFL-CIO allied unions have indicated their support of dissolution of the merger that created UNITE HERE.
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20070817/CLF013LOGO)
"When a merger doesn't work it is in the best interests of the membership to break it up. The continuing public escalation of your internal battle, when there are reasonable alternatives, threatens members' interests and reforms that would benefit the entire labor movement."
-- United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, letter dated 3/13/09
"In speaking with colleagues in the United States it is evident that this merger, despite best of intentions, has clearly failed."
-- President of National Union of Public and General Employees (Canada) James Clancy, letter dated 3/16/09
"I am saddened that the merger has clearly failed. I made the best case I could, along with others of you, at our December Public Review Board meeting, encouraging the two presidents to try harder to find a path to reconcile the differences between them and the two unions. Developments since December have now made it clear that no such path has been found, nor is it likely that such a path will be found"
-- Reverend Nelson N. Johnson of the UNITE HERE Public Review Board, letter dated 2/8/09
United Food and Commercial Workers President Joe Hansen and well known labor mediator Larry Fox have both led mediation sessions between the two sides of the dispute, and now agree that a split is the only workable solution. President Hansen proposed a split in the most recent mediation session he held, and Fox indicated that a divorce was the only possible resolution when he ended his mediation back in November. Teamster's President James Hoffa also called for an end to the merger in a recent letter to UNITE HERE leadership.
These leaders join over 2,500 elected leaders representing 150,000 union members who voted to disaffiliate from UNITE HERE. With these actions, delegates representing nearly 40% of the union's membership indicated their desire to leave UNITE HERE and go their own way, including nearly 40,000 former HERE members. In an unprecedented display of rank and file union democracy, 75,000 workers have personally participated in the process through votes at their workplace or by signing petitions, with more joining each day.
Despite the will of the workers and the growing chorus of labor leaders, former HERE President John Wilhelm and his faction have refused to recognize that the merger is over, and instead have tried to punish these affiliates and to take the treasuries and buildings their members built over the last hundred years. They have challenged the actions in court, as well as threatening to take control of local unions away from their elected leaders and to seize their assets.
"Even as many of our members are leaving our union, I know that it could take years to sort out how to separate and restore our individual unions if we leave it to the courts or an acrimonious internal process," says Bruce Raynor, General President of UNITE HERE. "Wilhelm has shown no interest in my opinion, the opinion of the former UNITE HERE Vice Presidents who asked for an end to the merger, or the opinion of more than 75,000 of our own members who have signed petitions or voted in support of an end to the merger. But I am hopeful as more and more people who care about the labor movement and working people indicate their desire to see us settle this situation, we can move past this moment and on to a better future for both of our unions."
www.amalgamatedbank.com Here is information on the bank and really what difference does it make what it may be worth.....There is a reason HERE doesn't want this demerge to happen and it certainly isn't about what the member's want....President Wilhelm's push to revoke the Charter of Ontario Council, this he was doing in America not Canada. We at Ontario Council are humans we do exist and will continue to exist, but here he was voting to dissolve us and our MEMBERSHIP like we didn't MATTER OR EXIST. Tell us who was going to represent us, when in fact HERE doesn't want us at Local 2347 and a few other Locals back. And trust me the feeling is mutual. How is this Democratic. Him voting in America to revoke a Canadian Council without concern for what the MEMBERS thought or what the MEMBERS might want. I know I wasn't asked by him if I wanted Ontario Council revoked.....So once again I'll say, if this isn't about money and Wilhelm doesn't want the Ontario Council to exist why not just take what assets he brought into this merger, let the member's decide who they want to be represented by and dissolve the merger not just Ontario Council.
It has become painfully obvious that there are those shelling for the UNiTE leadership faction that are continuing to try and appropriate identities of real people or are attempting to ridicule those individuals as they resurface in various identities in this thread. It is quite obvious that "jumping janice" is the same individual that was admonished by michelle recently and had their username removed. More importantly this speaks to the infantile and gutter like approach that has been an all too common a component of the UNITE campaign.
note similarities in the below postings:
"username removed" previously named as jj fusser before michelle removed their username wrote:
"HERE was nearly bankrupt before the merger, and now they are trying to get away with highway robbery - they are nothing but Bank Robbers. They have no sense of integrity or any sense of financial stability, and have showed no results for all the resources they've drained from the former UNITE."
"usename removed" previously named as jj fusser before michelle removed their username wrote:
"the sole reason HERE wants does not want understand the merger is over - because they understand without UNITE - they will again become bankrupt. i trully hope HERE members will rise up and take over there union, and ensure that dues are not drained by HERE top executives. "
Jumping Janice (initials JJ) just wrote:
"HERE was bankrupt before the merger, and UNITE had all the money, assets, property, and the bank. Seems like HERE is trying to STEAL and robb UNITE of all its assets."
Unless she's actually impersonating someone, she's not breaking babble policy. Deal with the substance of her posts, not who you think she might be. Attempting to out people's real identities is not allowed on babble.
Willow,
You repeatedly refer to the democratic rights of the members and that this is your primary concern. You attempt to position yourself as someone who is impartial, an outsider looking in, that only wants what is best for the members and the labour movement.
Therefore are you not concerned about the fact that only 1000 delegates are determining the fate of 150,000 members or the fact that many of those delgates were paid staff? You refer to the 150,000 members who want to split when even Raynor concedes that they only have upward of 75,000 names on petition. What about the other 75,000 UNITE side people that haven't signed? Also considering some of the sleazball tactics being used why wouldn't you question the authenticity of the 75,000 signed as possibly being inflated - if you are indeed impartial? There are numerous allegations about the authencity of these petitions and how the signatures were acquired.
On my question of the adherence to the Constitution you deferred to Vivienne as sufficient evidence that it needn't be adhered to as it had previously been violated. Your burden of proof seems to be easily attained. It only requires one source.
Also there seems to be a lot of backroom negotiating going on between Stern and Raynor long before any votes or petitions were signed. Why are you not indigant about the obvious topdown conspiring that is going on? Where is your concern for the will of the members as Stern and Raynor plot the future of these members in isolation?
People on this website have been quite clear on who they support and why - including myself. That includes commenters like TW, Vivienne and others who are clearly conveying where they stand. Although I don't agree with Vivienne on many of her posts I respect her as she is at least not pretending that she is neutral and solely interested in "democratic trade unionism" - she is openly fighting for the faction that she is part of.
I find your postings to be disingenuous and they are consistent with misrepresentation tactics being utilized by the UNITE faction. I also note that you have only posted to this thread and you have no history of posting to other threads. That is the case of many of us on this thread but we came here and have made no bones about admitting that we are here because we believe in a particular model of trade unionism and a desire to see UNITE HERE remain a single entity or those who came specificially to this thread to promote a demerger.
Also, if you are so concerned about the democatic rights of union members why have you never posted in the 7 years you have been a babbler to any of the other threads - it seems a little odd? Just come clean and let's get on with the debating - there is a lot at stake for the the members in question and the larger labour movment on both sides of the border.
"Service Employees Union Joins Move to Break Up UNITE HERE"
http://labornotes.org/node/2141
Excerpt:
"The votes to secede were cast by around 1,000 delegates nationwide, who are elected in some regional boards and handpicked in others. In Philadelphia, 14 of the 21 voting delegates were paid staff. At the Pennsylvania-wide meeting, however, hundreds of elected delegates voted unanimously to leave UNITE HERE."
Although I don't agree with Vivienne on many of her posts I respect her as she is at least not pretending that she is neutral and solely interested in "democratic trade unionism" - she is openly fighting for the faction that she is part of.
I'm saving this gem.
Here is Wilhelm's Statement that preceded the Raynor release posted by Willow earlier today. Posted in the interest of balance. It is from Politico.com and can be found in its entirety at:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/A_convention_in_Philly.html?showall
"Bruce Raynor’s splinter group is holding what it calls a convention this weekend in Philadelphia. With the open backing of Andy Stern, who is the featured speaker at the meeting, this is little more than an attempted hostile takeover by SEIU. Without Stern’s backing, the Raynor splinter group would go nowhere.To wit, the splinter group represents fewer than one third of UNITE HERE’S total membership and is taking this action in blatant disregard of the law and the Union’s Constitution. Local Unions representing more than 2/3 of UNITE HERE want no part of this SEIU takeover. Significantly, a number of former UNITE Joint Boards, and former UNITE Locals affiliated with Joint Boards, have refused to participate in this charade. Raynor’s claim that tens of thousands of members have voted to secede is bogus by any objective measure. There has been no rhyme or reason, let alone constitutional process, to Raynor’s voting methods. For example,
· In some Locals advance notice of votes was given to members; in others no notice was given.
· In some Locals, votes were held on outdoor sidewalks.
· In other Locals, petitions were circulated rather than votes held.
· In some Locals, the written advance notice of membership meetings said the agenda was contract negotiations; when members arrived they were asked to sign a petition to disaffiliate.
· In still other Locals, no votes of any kind were ever held.
This is not democracy. This is electoral fraud.
The real hand guiding this activity is SEIU and Andy Stern. He has seized upon the inherent weakness of the splinter group as his opportunity to reach into UNITE HERE’s hotel, gaming and food service jurisdictions. Stern plans to swallow Raynor’s followers into his union and take the Amalgamated Bank in the bargain. We’re not going to let this happen.
It is now well documented that SEIU has a history of mounting brazen onslaughts against other unions in the hope they will surrender to his crushing direct mail, robo-call, and mud-slinging tactics. Since 2000, Stern has employed these undemocratic tactics against the Engineers and Architects Association (EAA), New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA), California Nurses Association (CNA), Federacion Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR), United Domestic Workers (UDW), and the Security Police Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA).
While he poses in public as a champion of “free choice” for workers seeking to unionize, he tramples workers rights behind the scenes with the same tactics used by anti-union employers: intimidation, mudslinging, and threats.
Today, Stern’s prey is UNITE HERE. But every day, more and more members and Local Unions in UNITE HERE are withdrawing from the Stern/Raynor splinter group - members and Local Unions that Raynor falsely counts as part of his splinter faction. These Locals include Local 688 in Bay City Michigan; Local 1481 in Northfield, Minnesota; Local 634 in Philadelphia; Local 631 in Phoenix,; Local 24 in Detroit; Local 17 in Minneapolis; Local 21 in Rochester, Minnesota; the Chester, Pennsylvania Gaming Local; Local 353 in Dallas; Local 75 in Toronto; Local 25 in Washington, D.C.; Local 27 in Washington, D.C.; and Local 7 in Baltimore.
These locals are sticking together with locals representing more than two-thirds of the members of UNITE HERE in rejecting this charade."
When you're all done with your dispute here, you might want to visit some other threads and realize our way of life faces the same threats.
Good luck to all. Treat each other well. Management is the enemy. Solidarity.
unionist,
i've got a feeling a few things will be biting me in the butt.
When you're all done with your dispute here, you might want to visit some other threads and realize our way of life faces the same threats.
Good luck to all. Treat each other well. Management is the enemy. Solidarity.
Thank you, RP. Couldn't have put it better.
At Ontario Council AFTER Wilhelm's vote to revoke Ontario Council we the MEMBERS not STAFF represented our members who signed the petitions. Had we taken bus loads of members to Toronto to sign these petition the UNITE faction would have been accused of wasting money on buses....Had STAFF gone to all our workplaces to get signatures the same accusation would be made...
To Stop Raiding, thanks for the respect, to get something straight I am fighting for FAIR REPRESENTATION of our member's. My first experience with a Union was with HERE Local 75 had the merger not happened I would have gone on with another displacement. Since I wasn't sure what I was doing with the first displacement but did learn then where I went wrong...Instead HERE merged with UNITE and we finally got proper representation. So for the 10 years I have been in a Union the first 5 there was no representation, no grievances filed, no meetings, no education. We didn't even know that 20 minutes down the road was another Local 75 shop the Niagara Parks Commission, or around the corner from there was CNH another Local 75 shop....That's mighty sad....Since the merger and us in Niagara forming our own Local we not only know every shop in our local but have met many members from all over Ontario through educationals. Members coming down to our 1st and 2nd Labour day march. Supporting members on different strike lines. These things did NOT happen during my first 5 years as a member. If that makes me an obvious supporter of the UNITE faction so be it. To me it makes me a supporter of members rights to fair representation which we as dues paying members are entitled to.
When you're all done with your dispute here, you might want to visit some other threads and realize our way of life faces the same threats.
Good luck to all. Treat each other well. Management is the enemy. Solidarity.
Thank you, RP. Couldn't have put it better.
Meh, I have some decent mentors I pay heed to even when I disagree.
Hey stop raiding
Just want to clarify a few things.
1) I didn't post Raynor's statement - I don't much like the posting back and forth of press releases, since, like the real JJ mentioned, this shouldn't be about waring press secretaries. I posted an article, from a newspaper, that I thought would be of informative to this discussion. Newspapers are partisan but rarely to any part of the house of labour, so I thought that was you know, fairer. Plus I thought that Danny Glover thing was interesting.
2) On my recent babbling status, I have been a reading babbler for many years now, as you noted. As you also noted, I have not been a babbling babbler till now, but I confess that yours and a number of other clearly partisan commentators signing on to obviously wage this war here on rabble (as Hammerhead noted so long ago in this thread) drove me to active babbling. Thanks for that. I've never been comfortable writing outside essays and this new medium is hard to adjust to (sorry to all for not getting those hyperlinks right) but I am enjoying the chance to express myself all the same.
3) As for democratic trade unionism, I think Vivienne is pretty well showing you what it means. She says she and other members are going around, talking to their coworkers and getting signatures on petitions. If they've gotten 50% of the people signed on so far (75,000 of 150,000), in the short time this has been going on then I say, that is impressive considering it is members, who also work other jobs, doing the work. Good work Vivienne and I say keep it up. It may not seem like this in these dark times, but the work you're doing now, talking to members, empowering them to take action in the determination of their own union will make your union ---whatever it may end up being --- stronger in the end. It is the foundation of democratic trade unionism, whether folks like stop raiding know it or not.
4) As for the Raynor/Stern thing I must confess I don't get it stop raiding. You have ample evidence, from members just like Vivienne, that this division is deep, at all levels of the union and yet you cling to this idea that it is just about these American, male, union leaders, pulling everyone else's strings. I don't get a puppet vibe from Vivienne or the other rank and file leaders of this union I've known from around the labour movement for years who also clearly want this merger to end.
Finally, on the bank stuff folks are talking about now, I'm with triciamarie with the wholly cow, these guys own a bank and it is worth what? Boggles the mind and an impressive feat since it was built by garment workers, who years ago didn't make a lot of money. Even you stop raiding must admit, an impressive feat by those UNITE folks and their predecessors. It will be sad if this thing gets nastier and even more public just because of money but I'm not optimistic that the better angels of all involved in this will prevail.
Like many on this post, I'll be searching the net tomorrow for articles about this convention.
Thomas Walkom, "A union divided," Toronto Star, March 21, 2009.
Is this an expression of self-determination or a set-up for a raid? If I were a gambling man, I would put all my money on the raid.
Pete deMay, an "organizer" drumming up support for secession, tells Labour Notes: “We’re not relinquishing that jurisdiction,” said DeMay. “You can call it raiding if you want—call it what you want to call it.” http://labornotes.org/node/2141
So Raynor finds himself facing a convention and not having the votes. Suddenly, he pronounces the merger a failure, tries to break off with the remaining light manufacturing workers who have been the mainstay of the ILGWU and ACTWU (plus the hospitality workers who are embedded in the joint boards), find, as one former UNITE HERE staffer called it, a "big brother," and try to re-enter through the back door. "Call it what you want to."
In his haste, though, Raynor has been taking shortcuts. Shortcuts in procedure - "· In some Locals, votes were held on outdoor sidewalks. In other Locals, petitions were circulated rather than votes held," (see full text posted by Stop Raiding) - and shortcuts in organizing (see the venom spouted by "username removed" for an example). These kinds of shortcuts weaken the seceding membership - there is considerable doubt whether this heist will succeed as planned, their numbers are small and isolated, and they've been subjected to organizing that will weaken rather than strengthen their faith in unions. This is the last thing that manufacturing workers need in this economy. Meanwhile, thousands of hospitality workers (Vivienne excepted here) are trying, and succeeding, in peeling off from this undertow every day to secure their home in the union that represents most of the hotel and food service workers in North America.
So yes, Willow, I think it's important to think about what else may be going on.
When you're all done with your dispute here, you might want to visit some other threads and realize our way of life faces the same threats.
You're right, and to my mind, this dispute is tangled up in other disputes that have occured over the last decade in Ontario. Unionfriend's original post commented on some of these connections, which I think it's time to re-introduce.
Unionfriend: "Already in Toronto and Ottawa there are accusations that the recently formed Canadian Hospitality and Entertainment Workers Union is one such front. While the leaflets, which have been handed out at Hotels organized by HERE, have a picture and statement by Buzz Hargrove on them, it is believed that it is front for the UNITE end in Canada. The reason for these rumors is that organizers for this new union (which has no members) have been showing up on HERE members doorsteps and have remarkably accurate membership lists – suggesting a high degree of inside help – presumably from UNITE in Toronto."
Where have we seen something like this before?
"In February, the CAW advanced one million dollars to the newly-created Canadian Construction Workers Union (CCWU) led by deposed Local 183 Business Manager Tony Dionisio.
The CCWU used the money to hire other former Local 183 officers and staff who began attempts to raid their former union. After two months of effort, they have persuaded only one group of eight Local 183 members to move to their CAW-funded union. Even that certification is on hold as the Ontario Labour Relations Board has only given the CCWU conditional status as a legitimate trade union.
“The Autoworkers’ leadership, especially Buzz Hargrove, have somehow lost their minds,” says Joseph Mancinelli, LIUNA’s Director for Central and Eastern Canada.
“They attacked our union without the slightest provocation or rationale. They allied themselves with people who for years betrayed the trust of their own members in an astonishing number of ways. With all the challenges now facing the CAW in the auto industry, it is incredible that they would spend so much of their members’ money trying to destroy another union in an entirely different industry, one in which they have zero experience.”
“A million CAW dollars and what have they gained? Eight new members, maybe.”
Mancinelli says that three years of independent investigations and hearings, including numerous decisions of Ontario courts and the Labour Relations Board “prove beyond any doubt, except to the willfully blind,” that Dionisio and his ruling circle in Local 183 were guilty of numerous unethical practices that severely violated Canadian trade union values."
http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/article/20070416300
[I will pause here and tip my hat to Lewenza for his determination to steer the CAW, a good and strong union, back to its roots.]
Scroll forward to Toronto, January 2009. After investigating this attempted raid, UNITE HERE found that it was staffed by employees of the Direct Organizing Group, a "hire-an-organizer" outfit that SEIU has used "to assist on multiple union-takeover campaigns, including SEIU’s campaigns against the SPFPA, the Engineers and Architects Association, and the California Nurses Association." (Growing Pains, 3/12/09).
Now Hargrove's infamous "Framework for Fairness" deal with Magna sounds like the same kind of approach that some commentators have identified with SEIU's Stern (what Harold Meyerson has called "let's make a deal" unionism). See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071030.wcolabour30/BNStory/specialComment/home
But I doubt enough time has passed for SEIU to forget that it lost around 20,000 members in Ontario working in the health care sector to a CAW raid (under Hargrove's leadership). http://labornotes.org/node/1364/print
Anyone want a trojan horse?
HERE Pink Sheeting and Cult
HERE is nothing but a small cult in the labour movement.
HERE practices something called "pink sheeting", and there is currently a legal case against HERE from former staff and members regarding the practice of pink sheeting.
Essentially pink sheeting is when HERE Management forces staff and members to tell them about deeply personal matters including family dysfunctions, health and financial troubles, spousal abuse, addictions, and childhood traumas. These conversations are then written on an HERE pink sheet and it is used to manipulate the staff or member. If you do not share these personal stories you are FIRED.
This is a quote from a former HERE organizer who was pink sheeted:
"I was forced to share things that had been painful for me in one-on-ones with my supervisor Brendon Walsh and also group staff meetings where I was pushed until I broke down in tears. I was forced to tell people about my struggles with depression. Yet I was still told that wasn't deep enough. My supervisor kept insisting that I must resent my parents, that there must be some dirty family secret I wasn't sharing, that I must have something more personal and diffiucult to share" - Amelia Frank-Vitale, Testimony to Vice President of UNITE HERE
This invasive practice is coercive, despicable, and intolerable. The BOSSES within HERE Local 75 have been identified to craft and practice this method. They infact practice pink sheeting on a daily basis in there offices and this is now going to be taking place at the OFL building. Those of us working at the OFL building should go and investigate this illegal practice of pink sheeting.
I would like to see your source for this. These are strong allegations and you should be providing evidence to support your claims.
Better yet, Michelle, this factional squabbling should be sent to one of the many sites out there where sectarian forces battle each other rather than let workers self-determine. They invariably find far more colourful adjectives and accusations against each other than they do against the (long-forgotten) common enemy. What I find really repugnant is the importation of U.S. squabbles into Canada.
On the contrary -- I think this is great. It's a window for all of us into the nitty gritty of competing unions, with maybe some wisdom to be gleaned about the essential nature of business unionism.
I hope some of you guys stick around when the dust settles.
I'm going to close this thread since it's over 100 posts (to the new folks in this thread, this is regular practice around here). Please feel free to continue the discussion by starting a new thread.