Gretchen Dulmage works at Women's and Children Hospital in Vancouver and is an officer of her local of the Hospital Employees Union. She was interviewed about the HEU strike on May 18. Harold Lavendar interviewed her on May 25, 2004 following the Hospital Employees' Union (HEU) strike.

HL: Why did the HEU go on strike?

GD: In my own local, the bottom line was no concessions without job security. The BC Liberal government had enacted Bill 29, which gutted our contract. It basically made it legal to contract out our work. In my local, we had 400 people laid off as a result of contracting out in food services and hospital cleaning. When it came to bargaining, we weren't asking for wage increases... We were seeking to halt some of the damage being doing by privatization. When we were asked to take a wage roll back we said we'd consider it - but you have to put something on the table. We demanded they agree to stop lay-offs while bargaining was taking place. This was a basic good faith gesture, which the employer flatly refused to do. They came to the table with 140 pages of concession demands. They wanted us to take a longer week with less pay and major concessions to benefits. They were committed to privatization.

HL: Could you explain how privatization and the attack on health care is an attack on women?

GD: Our union is 85 percent women. I would expand a bit and say it is also an attack on workers of colour. Most of the wage gains we have made since I have been an HEU member, which is about eight years, have been through pay equity settlements. Pay equity is the best way to address the wage and gender wage gap. You look at work that is being done by women and workers of colour and you look at the equivalent work being done by Caucasian groups and men. You look at the remuneration they receive and see if it is equitable. What we got was not riches, but it was enough to feed and clothe your children and pay for some of the extras and save some money for your kids' education.

Now the government has in effect said that the work of large numbers of women workers and workers of color can be gotten a lot cheaper. Women workers of colour predominate in those departments where the layoffs have been taking place. The government believes they can get us for about half the price. They have also been making noises about going after our clericals next, which is hugely dominated by women. I think there is a sense we do not deserve to make a living wage. One of the Liberal cabinet ministers, when talking about privatizing our work, said that HEU members are housewives working for pin money and we don't really need the money. And he slagged women workers and their families getting benefits, hinting we are not the major wage earners and suggesting there is something unfair about this.

HL: Can you describe the main provisions of the back-to-work legislation, Bill 37?

GD: We had to go back to work right away. We went from a 36 to a 37.5 hour work week, which could potentially cause the loss of four percent of our membership. We would have to take an 11 percent wage cut or 10 percent cut to benefits retroactive to April 1. And we had to get back to work right now. This was after being out for three days.

HL: Can you describe the mood when you were out on strike?

GD: It happened in stages. We were out and were legal, although we knew they were going to legislate us back. But when it happened, it felt shocking. We were being threatened. Our employer was coming out to the lines and trying to serve people with letters saying we were illegal and people must return to work immediately. There were special letters for the shop stewards threatening us with discipline. We refused to accept the letters. People were scared but they trusted that the union was advising them right.

It was so wonderful when we began to hear that other unions were walking out and coming down to our line to give us support. Friday, April 30, was just a wonderful day. The level of threat from the employer was escalating, but the mood on the line was buoyant. I have never seen anything like it. People who are normally quite conservative and I have never seen at a union meeting were telling the employers they wouldn't go back. People were so amazed and transformed that other workers would do this for us, that they would actually put their jobs on the line when we were being attacked very badly. I heard people from other unions interceded when management tried to serve orders. They would hold hands with picketers so they could not take the letters. They forced management and labour relations to back off a lot of their very confrontational and aggressive tactics.

HL: Can you explain what happened in terms of the almost general strike and sell-out?

GD: We could really feel the support. CUPE, the buses, the ferries, the CEP - I know I am missing some, but it seemed like so many unions were ready to go. We were told there were walkouts lined up with actions on Monday, May 4, Tuesday and Wednesday. And it was building.

So I was amazed at the offer taken by the provincial executive Sunday. I couldn't believe the government had moved that far in a couple of days. I think that's what fueled the intense outrage of so many union members, particularly my own. If they would go that far in four days with the threat of Monday, I think they had more to give - a lot more to give.

We were told that the private sector unions were preparing to pull their support if we didn't take the offer. They had weathered worse storms and had taken bigger roll backs and they had no further interest in putting their members at risk. But what was different this time was, it wasn't the union leaders telling their members to support us. It was union members supporting us and telling their leaders to support us. I feel that the BC Federation of Labour, the NDP, the Fed officers - all the key players -felt there was this runaway grassroots thing going on. I think they were worried they couldn't tell their members to turn it off and stop. I think the only way to stop what was coming was to take away the focus, that is, by bullying our provincial executive into taking the deal. That's what happened. I don't believe the real issue was a collective bargaining issue, as some say. It became a violation of our rights - of our right to strike and collective bargaining. This didn't happen after we were out for six weeks but only four days. It was pre-planned.

HL: What do think can be done now?

GD: The next time we will have a chance to deal with anything like this is the next time the government pushes somebody too far. The HEU provincial executive signed this deal. The members did not get a chance to vote. If they did, I am quite confident they would have voted it down by a wider margin than they voted down the last deal. But what we have gained from the strike is an incredible level of solidarity, consciousness and involvement, at the local level. I believe that our leaders made a bad decision, which the members were very upset about. Will this translate into a change in the leadership at the next convention? That's up to the members. Reasons were given - but are they good enough for the members?

The locals have to cope with the consequences. In addition to the loss of pay, which is really important, more jobs will be lost. Going to a longer work week will lead to a loss of four per cent of the membership of our local. And 600 full-time equivalents allowed under the cap actually means a loss of 1,000 jobs. The cap really isn't a cap. The cap is only for contracting out. It doesn't cover restructuring privatization, it doesn't cover facilities closures. So any kind of restructuring - going to a longer week, deciding we don't provide this service now - isn't covered. Employers can also reassess and downgrade the level of jobs so people would have to reapply for them at lower levels. Bill 94, which the Liberals passed in late 2003, expands the definition of privatization and separates it from contracting out. Nothing in Bill 94 comes under the cap. If a private contractor wants some of our work and they agree they will put money in some kind of capital investment, do renovations, purchase equipment, then they are outside the cap. This is a win for the government.