The CAW and Union Democracy
by Bruce Allen
The New Socialist Magazine, November / December 2000
The SEIU is a right-wing led, anti-democratic union
with an unimpressive record of fighting for workers.
And no one can deny workers the right to choose which
union to belong to.
Nonetheless, this doesn't make the CAW national
leadership's crusade for "union democracy" a righteous
one. To understand why simply consider the SEIU-CAW
dispute in relation to union democracy in the CAW.
Appearances can be deceiving. And the meticulously
crafted image of the CAW national leadership as
champions of union democracy is definitely deceptive.
Yet many workers aren't deceived by this ruse,
including CAW members. Indeed, the national leadership
has a credibility problem and if direct elections were
held for the national leadership they would lose to
credible opponents. But the CAW national leadership
has never faced and has no intention of facing such an
election.
This raises the issue of elections in the CAW at the
national level where the ruling CAW Administration
Caucus has firm control. Elections at that level are
so abnormal the national leadership has not always
known how to run them when compelled to by malcontents
willing to contest them.
At a CAW Council meeting in August 1998 I ran against
the Administration Caucus' candidate for a minor
position on the CAW Council Executive. Buzz Hargrove
arbitrarily decreed that the votes be cast in the
open. Each local had to go to the microphones to say
in front of the national leadership how their
delegates voted. A secret ballot wasn't allowed.
Things got so absurd that the then Financial Secretary
of my local sought to impress the national leadership
by announcing that my local's delegates were all
voting for the Administration Caucus candidate,
including me.
Simply holding this election created near turmoil as
the votes were cast. The national leadership was
hardly pleased because a majority of the delegates
from more than 10 locals voted for me and by the time
their candidate had a majority of the votes I had over
20% of those cast. Later the National Secretary
Treasurer answered CAW Left Caucus protests and
admitted the election was conducted wrongly.
Nonetheless, the results of this "democratic election"
stood.
This sordid episode didn't alter the prevalence of
intense intolerance towards anyone challenging the
Administration Caucus in an election. This was evident
a year later when I ran again. Specifically, I ran for
one of the open spots on the CAW Council Resolutions
Committee. A secret ballot was held this time and I
again got over 20% of the vote. But the pervasive hate
evident towards me, and those campaigning for me,
belied how genuine the national leadership's
commitment to union democracy is. And yet in the
dispute with the SEIU and the CLC the same people say
they're fighting for union democracy and, in effect,
the rest of the Canadian labour movement is against
it.
Another critical point must be made concerning the
national leadership's claims about being champions of
union democracy. Namely, whether an election is held
by secret ballot or not, at the national level the
process is effectively rigged because of how the
Administration Caucus holds "elections".
When the Administration Caucus meets at a Council
meeting or a Convention to choose its candidates, the
outcome is a foregone conclusion. This is because at
these caucus meetings CAW National Staff, who aren't
delegates and owe their jobs to the National
President, get voice and vote in the "election". And
at Administration Caucus meetings national staff
normally comprise nearly half of those present and
many of the others present aspire to national staff
jobs in the future. So it's practically impossible to
elect anyone but the National President's choice to
run as an Administration Caucus candidate. And once
the candidate is "elected" the national's political
machine mobilizes to insure the delegates back the
Administration Caucus candidate.
This is why, in recent history, the national
leadership has always overseen the election of only
the people they want. And it follows from this that
anti-democratic practices pervade the CAW at the
national level. Consequently, the national leadership
doesn't lose votes on resolutions or policy documents
at CAW Council or at conventions. At the national
level union democracy means having the right to rubber
stamp what the national leadership wants or become an
outcast.
Knowing this is vital to assessing the conflict
between the CAW on one side and the CLC and SEIU on
the other because properly judging their actions
requires knowing how democratic they are.
It is especially instructive to contrast the CLC and
CAW with respect to union democracy. Unlike CAW
Conventions, at CLC Conventions the leadership often
encounters fierce, organized opposition. And unlike at
CAW Conventions opposition from the left has, at
times, forced the leadership to amend or withdraw
policy papers or resolutions and even defeated the
leadership. That is a real measure of union democracy
brutally absent in the CAW due to the national
leadership's pervasive, anti - democratic control.
Two key points must be made concerning credibility.
One involves noting a revealing clause in the CAW
Constitution central to the question of union
democracy and the workers' right to decide which union
to join. Article 11 Section 5 (a) reads, "No member is
eligible for any position in the union if s/he is
trying to decertify the National Union or any
subordinate body or is helping a group or union that
wants to replace CAW-Canada as the recognized
collective bargaining agent."
How can the CAW national leadership criticize the SEIU
for denying SEIU members the right to choose which
union to belong to with such a clause in the CAW
Constitution? Did they forget it's there? Hardly. And
because they didn't it isn't possible to take what
they say at face value.
Likewise, the CAW national leadership sent its
organizers to recruit members of SEIU Local 204 in
Toronto. Local 204 isn't one of the 8 SEIU locals in
this dispute. Its members expressed no desire to leave
the SEIU for the CAW. Yet CAW organizers were sent
into Local 204 workplaces. It's little wonder Hargrove
is accused of raiding.
When questioned about this action Hargrove called it a
"pressure tactic". Even if this was his intent this
action shattered the credibility of CAW claims that
this dispute is about workers' democratic right to
belong to the union of their choice.
This dispute was almost resolved. Negotiations were
held involving Canadian SEIU leader Sharleen Stewart
and one of Hargrove's assistants. They reached a point
where the SEIU agreed to end the trusteeships of the 8
SEIU locals and allow their members to vote on their
union affiliation. CLC sanctions against the CAW would
have ended.
But the talks failed over one revealing issue. The CAW
wanted the SEIU to rehire the ex-SEIU staff and
officers who led the 8 SEIU locals out of the SEIU and
into the CAW. In effect, the CAW wanted the SEIU to
accept something the CAW Constitution forbids CAW
officers from doing. How could the CAW table such a
demand and retain a shred of credibility?
Organized labour is bitterly split. The prospect of
raiding wars between an isolated CAW and many other
unions looms on the horizon providing sufficient
reason to fear a permanent split. Otherwise, no
credible basis exists for an alternative labour
central and strong reason exists to believe a CAW led
central would be even more undemocratic than the CLC.
Bruce Allen is a member of the CAW left Caucus