Our logo is bigger now

Will UNITE HERE split open up rifts in CLC?

105 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2009-02-27 16:09

#1

unionfriend

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

Fri, 2009-02-27 16:13

#2

aka Mycroft

Is there something you'd like to share with the rest of the class?

Fri, 2009-02-27 16:16

#3

unionfriend

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

Fri, 2009-02-27 16:19

#4

Unionist

Fri, 2009-02-27 16:19

#5

unionfriend

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

Fri, 2009-02-27 16:28

#6

unionfriend

Sorry was cutting and pasting it looked ok in preview both times. Finally realised need to disable rich-text.

Apologies again

Fri, 2009-02-27 16:42

#7

aka Mycroft

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).

Fri, 2009-02-27 17:20

#8

Unionist

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.

Sat, 2009-02-28 00:45

#9

hammerhead hammerhead's picture

hammerhead's picture

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

Sat, 2009-02-28 01:04

hammerhead hammerhead's picture

hammerhead's picture

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...

Mon, 2009-03-02 14:38

stop raiding

Latest release from UNITE HERE - "A Merger That is Working" - An Analysis

http://oneunitehere.org/detail.asp?prid=15

Mon, 2009-03-02 15:30

hammerhead hammerhead's picture

hammerhead's picture

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.

Mon, 2009-03-02 19:11

November5

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).

Tue, 2009-03-03 00:47

hammerhead hammerhead's picture

hammerhead's picture

November5 wrote:
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...

Tue, 2009-03-03 10:08

TW

@ 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.

Tue, 2009-03-03 11:17

stop raiding

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.

Tue, 2009-03-03 12:04

Michelle

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.

Tue, 2009-03-03 14:19

Willow

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.

Tue, 2009-03-03 14:44

Sunday Hat

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.

Tue, 2009-03-03 18:47

munroe

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.

Tue, 2009-03-03 20:29

Sunday Hat

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.

Wed, 2009-03-04 10:53

Willow

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?

Wed, 2009-03-04 12:53

stop raiding

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.

Wed, 2009-03-04 13:09

stop raiding

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.``

Wed, 2009-03-04 16:37

Truth will out

AFL official blasts SEIU for interfering in UNITE HERE internal matters:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_ayers_statement.html

Wed, 2009-03-04 20:08

stop raiding

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.

Wed, 2009-03-04 21:04

TW

@ 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?

Wed, 2009-03-04 22:27

Sunday Hat

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?

Wed, 2009-03-04 23:02

stop raiding

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.

Wed, 2009-03-04 23:12

NorthReport

Unionist wrote:

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.

Wed, 2009-03-04 23:35

November5

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.

Thu, 2009-03-05 01:22

Truth will out

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

Thu, 2009-03-05 01:23

Truth will out

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

Thu, 2009-03-05 02:27

hammerhead hammerhead's picture

hammerhead's picture

Truth will out wrote:

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.

Thu, 2009-03-05 02:29

hammerhead hammerhead's picture

hammerhead's picture

edited for hyperbole and venom. yep the original was worse

Thu, 2009-03-05 08:56

TW

@ 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.

Thu, 2009-03-05 11:36

Vivienne

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.....

Thu, 2009-03-05 12:28

Vivienne

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

Thu, 2009-03-05 12:30

Michelle

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.

Thu, 2009-03-05 12:42

Vivienne

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.

Thu, 2009-03-05 12:51

Vivienne

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????????

Thu, 2009-03-05 13:06

Willow

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.

Thu, 2009-03-05 13:26

Vivienne

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?

Thu, 2009-03-05 13:50

Unionist

munroe wrote:

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.

Thu, 2009-03-05 17:38

munroe

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.

Thu, 2009-03-05 17:39

Unionist

Well said.

Thu, 2009-03-05 17:57

munroe

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....

Thu, 2009-03-05 18:43

November5

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.

Thu, 2009-03-05 18:55

November5

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.

Thu, 2009-03-05 21:22

Unionist

Munroe, I wish you the very best in your retirement. Just please don't retire from here!

Thu, 2009-03-05 21:24

NorthReport

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

Quote:
More than 40 major British companies face legal action for allegedly buying secret personal data about thousands of workers they wanted to vet before employing them.

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.

Pages

Topic locked