<html﻿>﻿

﻿<head﻿>﻿<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/bundle-playback.js?v=2N_sDSC0" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/wombat.js?v=txqj7nKC" charset="utf-8"></script>﻿
﻿<script>window.RufflePlayer=window.RufflePlayer||{};window.RufflePlayer.config={"autoplay":"on","unmuteOverlay":"hidden","showSwfDownload":true};</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="﻿https://web-static.archive.org/_static/﻿js/ruffle/ruffle.js"></script>
﻿<script type="text/javascript">
  ﻿  __wm.init(﻿"https://web.archive.org/web"﻿);
  __wm.wombat(﻿"http://www.newsocialist.org/old_mag/magazine/09/article02.html"﻿,﻿"20100626205601"﻿,﻿"https://web.archive.org/"﻿,﻿"web"﻿,﻿"https://web-static.archive.org/_static/"﻿,
	      "﻿1277585761﻿");
</script>
﻿<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/banner-styles.css?v=1utQkbB3" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/iconochive.css?v=3PDvdIFv" />﻿
﻿<!-- End Wayback Rewrite JS Include -->
﻿

﻿<title﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, Labour's Last Chance? - Article﻿</title>﻿

﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="description"﻿ ﻿content="New Socialist Group socialism communism  socialists communists "﻿>﻿

﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="keywords"﻿ ﻿content="socialism, communism, socialists, communists, marx, marxists, marxism, Marx, Marxists, Marxism, Canada, politics, anarchism, Trotsky, trotskyism, NDP, radical, revolution, revolutionary, Lenin, leninism, leninist, Luxemburg, working class, 1917, syndicalism, radicalism, union, labour, anarchy"﻿>﻿

﻿</head>﻿


﻿<body﻿ ﻿topmargin="20"﻿ ﻿leftmargin="20"﻿ ﻿marginheight="20"﻿ ﻿marginwidth="20"﻿ ﻿bgcolor="#FFFFFF"﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="5"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿

﻿<center﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Labour's Last Chance? 

﻿<br﻿>﻿</b>﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="2"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿

by Julia Barnett and Steve D'Arcy﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<i﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, July - August 1997﻿</i>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿</center>﻿


The Ontario government has unleashed a new attack on public sector workers and their unions. Basic democratic rights, including the right to strike, will be effectively suspended for thousands of workers if recently proposed legislation is implemented. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The response of the labour movement over the next few months could determine the future of trade unionism in Ontario. If no effective defense of workers' threatened rights is mounted, the labour movement could be headed toward long term decline. But if a serious fightback is built, it could mark a turning point in the political situation and a revival of union militancy.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The Harris government's assault on trade union freedoms This latest attack is hardly a surprise. The Harris government has been picking fights with organized labour since coming into office in 1995. One of its first acts was to repeal the anti-scab law the NDP had passed and, indeed, to repeal much of the labour legislation of the previous 40 years. A lopsided, pro-employer labour law regime has been restored.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Another of the Tories' first moves was to announce several thousand layoffs of Ontario public service workers, deliberately provoking the OPSEU strike. The government apparently expected to inflict a humiliating defeat on the union, making it an example to intimidate other unions into simply accepting concessions. OPSEU's membership put up a major fight, surprising many, including the government.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

More recently, a Tory private member's bill would have abolished the Rand formula, the ruling that makes union dues mandatory in unionized workplaces. It was defeated by 5 votes because, for now, even some Tories voted against it. The government has also introduced a "Public Sector Accountability Act," which forces public sector employers to provide services at costs comparable to private sector providers of the same service, including private employers who pay non-union or legal-minimum wages. This measure would force municipal governments to privatize most public services.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The latest and most threatening assault on organized workers in Ontario is Bill 136, "The Public Sector Transition Stability Act." This legislation would be imposed on all unionized public sector workers in the province whose workplaces are restructured, "downloaded", 

amalgamated, or closed. It would affect municipal workers, teachers, healthcare workers, construction workers on public projects, and thousands of others.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The first part of the Act, the "Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act," would establish a Disputes Resolution Commission, to which employers would have the right to refer unresolved bargaining issues. If an employer did so, the union would lose the right to strike, and the matter would go to binding arbitration. Effectively, this means that workers could only go on strike if they first got their employer's permission. Even if the employer agreed to allow a strike, it could change its mind at any time and refer the matter to the Commission, stopping the strike.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Worse, whereas the mainstream arbitration system is supposed to be "neutral", the new Commission arbitrations are to be done by Tory political appointees serving at the pleasure of the Tory cabinet. These hacks are required to make judgements based on the criterion of "affordability" for "taxpayers". The Commissioners are also allowed to consult whomever they regard as "experts" say, on healthcare "efficiency" and base their decisions entirely on this "expert's" advice.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

There is no attempt to make the Bill look fair. It states that unions will have no right to make submissions to the Commission, nor any right to present a rebuttal of employers' or so-called experts' submissions. The entire process is to be determined at the whim of the 

Commission, and no appeal to any other forum is allowed, neither to the courts nor to the Labour Relations Board.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The second part of the legislation, the "Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act," would establish a Labour Relations Tribunal Commission (LRTC), a temporary body to deal with the "high volume of labour relations issues arising from the restructuring of the public sector." 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The LRTC is to have the mandate of determining which union if any will represent employees in restructured workplaces. The LRTC will also resolve questions of seniority without being required to recognize any previously negotiated seniority provisions.

The legislation is complex, but the thrust is simple. "This legislation is clearly designed to cut off our legs at the knees," a union researcher told delegates to CUPE's Metro District Council in Toronto. She added: "The only reason they would introduce this legislation is in 

order to gut our collective agreements." The Tory government wants to "download" the costs of public services onto public sector workers, their families and communities. More generally, the aim is to ensure that workers' rights are no "barrier to restructuring", privatization and layoffs in the public sector.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿The smell of defeat: the wages of demobilization﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The magnitude of the attack contained in this legislation calls for a determined and united response from the labour movement. The question many trade unionists are asking is whether their officers are willing or able to lead this fight.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) and its affiliates have squandered much of the momentum gained through the Days of Action, and have allowed or encouraged a significant demobilization since last fall. Now, fewer members are actively involved in their unions and the anti-Harris movement. Union members have less confidence in collective struggle than they did immediately after 200,000 people mobilized in workplaces and communities for the October Metro Days of Action in Toronto.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Despite the last OFL convention's commitment to Days of Action for building an escalating campaign up to and including a province-wide general strike the official leadership has effectively pulled the plug on the strategy. Earlier this year, the Sudbury Labour Council 

refused to endorse the Sudbury "Celebration of Resistance." The Windsor Labour Council cancelled at least temporarily the planned Days of Action in that city.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

For some time, the OFL has been divided. A large minority of so-called "Pink Paper" unions (led by the Steelworkers) favoured an electoral strategy of supporting the NDP and opposed the Days of Action. The majority of OFL-affiliated unions (including the Autoworkers [CAW] and public sector unions such as CUPE) favoured a strategy of extra-parliamentary mobilization and work-stoppages rotating, single-city Days of Action.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

There has always been another tension within the OFL. Top union officials at best see struggle as a way to regain a seat at the table for themselves, so negotiations with employers and governments can return to "normal". But a significant minority of militant activists and rank-and-file members see collective struggle as the only way to defend the living standards and minimal rights workers have fought hard to win. This divisi﻿on came to the forefront when the CAW-dominated Windsor Labour Council cancelled if temporarily the city's planned Day of Action on the grounds that it would undermine campaigning for the federal New Democrats. So not only the "pink" union heads, but also the leadership of the CAW as well as elements within CUPE, have come to see the Days of Action as an obstacle to supporting the NDP. In this sense, the electoral focus of the union bureaucrats has been a barrier to strengthening the extra-parliamentary struggle to defend workers' rights. As a result, the capacity of organized workers to defend themselves against this legislation has been weakened.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

True, there has been some important mobilizing by sections of the official union leadership in Ontario. Both CUPE and high school teachers (OSSTF) have been holding "strike votes," in which members are asked to give their leaderships a mandate to organize work-stoppages to legislation. These votes have met with success, leading to a series of resounding votes in favour of possible strike action. Some CUPE district councils have begun "card-signing" campaigns, where members are asked to express a commitment to the fightback by signing special fightback cards. Both CUPE's Ontario Division and the OFL have called special emergency conventions in July. If nothing else, this demonstrates some recognition that the new anti-union legislation is indeed an "emergency."

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

But the overall response of the official labour leadership has been completely inadequate. After a recent meeting of OFL "heads of unions", OFL President Gord Wilson publicly rejected the possibility of province-wide or even sectoral strike action. Although the "heads of unions" will put forward an action plan at the OFL emergency convention, it falls far short of the demands of this "emergency". While calling for "bold action", "work stoppages", and "whatever it takes", the plan is carefully hedged with qualifications, such as requiring the approval of the OFL union leaders for most actions. It also makes a pointed distinction between "unions which choose to shut down their workplaces" and "unions which unconditionally support them" in other words, this is seen as a strictly public sector fight.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The public/private sectoral split remains a key obstacle to mounting an effective fightback, but even public sector union leaders are retreating. OPSEU's Leah Casselman has said she will "follow the leadership of the membership" but won't try to mobilize OPSEU members in defense of their rights. Sid Ryan of CUPE's Ontario Division, who has been more in favour of mobilizing members, is talking about sectoral or rotating strikes rather than building toward a province-wide shutdown.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Labour leaders on the "left" now find themselves isolated and under attack from the right, because the membership has been demobilized to the point where there is little organized pressure from below for real action. This is true even where members might be open to fighting back. The official leaders' focus on elections has exacerbated this problem.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿It's war, stupid: mobilizing from below﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The "heads of unions" cannot be counted on to lead the fightback many activists know is needed. So what can we do in our unions and communities to push the struggle forward from below?

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

First, we need clarity about the kind of action necessary to defeat this legislation: an escalating campaign of mobilizations, culminating in an unlimited province-wide general strike, focussed on the goal of bringing down the Tory government and defeating its agenda. Anything less will not be sufficient to stop this determined, authoritarian government's assault on our unions.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Simply identifying this goal does not take us very far. If we are to make a general strike more than a slogan, we have a lot of hard work to do. To convince rank and file unionists that it is a viable strategy, we need to translate "action plans" put forward by union leaders into real campaigns that mobilize members effectively, even when this means going beyond the limitations of the official plans.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Activists need to work in the coming months on three fronts. First, we need to attempt to broaden and politicize the fightback. A general strike strategy needs the support of activists and organizations outside the labour movement. The Days of Action have made important progress forging links between unions and community organizations, especially through the formation of fightback coalitions in several communities and the revitalization of social justice committees. In Toronto, much of the support for the anti-Megacity campaign was based on the sense that defeating the Tories' megacity plan would help to stop cuts to healthcare and education. By continually emphasizing the link between the defense of labour rights and the anti-cuts movement, we can strengthen these ties and tap into the anti-cuts sentiments of unorganized workers, students and the poor.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Second, we need to take advantage of official structures in the labour movement. The special conventions of CUPE and the OFL are a priority. Although debate and democratic decision-making will be obstructed by the bureaucratic process, we have to seize every opportunity to argue the need for militant action and for building toward a general strike by a particular date. Individual labour activists need to connect to talk about strategies and to support each other's organizing after the convention's end. The many campaigns, committees, and fightback meetings being organized in our unions are also important opportunities for activists to push for militant action and to do the necessary work of actually building actions that are planned. And we need to demand that more of them are organized, across sectors where possible.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Finally, while we defend the official mobilizing that does take place against attacks from the right in our unions, we must also argue that the fightback needs to go beyond the limitations of that mobilizing. We cannot withhold our criticisms of the leaders when their actions or inaction weaken the fightback. Activists especially need to underline the need for solidarity instead of sectionalism and for member-driven, grass-roots organizing over top-down bureaucratic methods of organizing.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

To say we need a general strike is to say we need to begin defending our union rights with the same single-minded determination the Harris government has shown in attacking them. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<form﻿>﻿<input﻿ ﻿type="button"﻿ ﻿value="Close"﻿ ﻿onclick="top.close()"﻿>﻿</form>﻿


﻿</body>﻿

﻿</html>﻿<!--
     FILE ARCHIVED ON ﻿20:56:01 Jun 26, 2010﻿ AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
     INTERNET ARCHIVE ON ﻿09:44:09 Mar 05, 2026﻿.
     JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

     ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
     SECTION 108(a)(3)).
-->
<!--
﻿playback timings (ms):
﻿  ﻿captures_list﻿: ﻿1.433﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots﻿: ﻿0.04﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots.policy﻿: ﻿0.03﻿
﻿  ﻿esindex﻿: ﻿0.01﻿
﻿  ﻿cdx.remote﻿: ﻿10.313﻿
﻿  ﻿LoadShardBlock﻿: ﻿56.522﻿ (﻿3﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.datanode﻿: ﻿80.33﻿ (﻿4﻿)
﻿  ﻿load_resource﻿: ﻿113.026﻿
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.resolve﻿: ﻿22.976﻿
﻿--�