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