The following article was written for the Voice of New Directions in response to Canadian Auto Workers President Buzz Hargorve’s letter to activists, also reproduced below.

Diane Albrecht is a rank and file activist and Co-Chair of the CAW Left Caucus. Anyone wishing to comment on this article can reach the author at dalbrecht@cyg.net

Increasingly a growing number of activists within the CAW are asking the same question. Why is Buzz Hargrove insisting that this issue is about democracy while avoiding the tough questions that need to be answered? He has yet to respond to questions such as who all would be involved with this new labour central? What would be the consequences of a protracted civil war within the labour movement? Or in relation to setting up of a rival central labour body - whether it is realistic ?

Buzz gives the impression that ALL Canadian SEIU members are unhappy with their union. The fact remains that there are 90,000 SEIU members in Canada,54,000 IN ONTARIO, what about the 24,000 other Ontario members or 60,000 in Canada who (according to even Buzz) choose to remain members of SEIU?

Buzz cites distant dictatorial leadership, poor service, and a fundamental lack of control as reasons that the members wanted out of SEIU. ANY CAW MEMBER, who has fought for the betterment of their union either within their local or at the National level, have dealt with the exact same problems.

Yes the CLC overreacted when it imposed expedited sanctions, but was it (as Buzz stated) fear on behalf of the most of the other unions who endorsed this position, or disgust at the blatant disregard and overconfident approach of the CAW?

How can Buzz say he is “working anxiously to attain a negotiated resolve”, while at the same time passing a Resolution opening up talks with the intent of creating an alternate labour central?

In Buzz’s words unions need to “respect the democratic wishes of union members.” However most CAW decisions, like the decision to bring 30,000 SEIU members into the CAW, are presented to local leaders for ratification after the fact without rank and file members even knowing it was happening. Only after, when dissenting opinions surfaced did he respond with letters to activists, like the one published here.

While the CLC and it’s affiliates need to recognize that the current ineffective right wing agenda does not best represent the needs of the working class, Buzz Hargrove needs to look at grass roots democracy within the CAW. According to Buzz grass roots and elected leadership at the local levels are one and the same. Has he been so far removed from the rank and file to forget what it is like? He talks about wanting to be part of a CLC - but only one that respects the democratic wishes of union members. Is he talking about the same type of democracy that allows him to agree to abide by the decision of an arbitrator only to change his mind?

If this present course is continued Buzz Hargrove’s claim to fame will not be as a militant aggressive union leader, but as a union leader who assisted in furthering the right wing neo-liberal agenda of breaking working class solidarity.

Letter from Buzz Hargrove

August 18, 2000

Dear Brothers and Sisters;

The Canadian labour movement has gone through a wrenching debate during the past several months. This debate has been sparked by the decision of 30,000 Ontario members of the Service Employees International Union to disaffiliate from their union and join the CAW.

This decision does not constitute a membership “raid” in any meaningful sense of that word. The CAW did not try to recruit these members. In fact, for several years we resisted approaches by dissident SEIU leaders to join our union, encouraging them to try to find a resolve to their long-standing grievances internally.

But after years of distant, at times dictatorial leadership from Washington, poor service, and a fundamental lack of control over their Canadian affairs, the leadership of eight SEIU locals in Ontario, supported by the overwhelming majority of their members, felt they had no choice but to leave. Worse yet, aware that many of their Canadian members were contemplating disaffiliation, the American leadership of SEIU was planning far-reaching constitutional changes which would have further undermined real Canadian autonomy.

It was now or never for these union members. They knew, realistically, that they couldn’t survive alone in the face of the intimidation, lawsuits, and attacks that they could expect from their own union. They also knew, realistically, that the CLC’s archaic rules governing membership disputes would not offer any meaningful protection against these reprisals.

So the SEIU members-wanting not only a Canadian union, but also a militant union that would lead a real fight against the concessions and wage freezes they have endured for years-voted to join the CAW. This democratic expression has been made in several ways, including a unanimous vote in February by over 800 elected rank-and-file leaders from the eight locals involved, a near-unanimous vote by over 11,000 members in workplace ballots in March, and ongoing support for the CAW in government-sponsored workplace certification votes averaging over 95 percent.

No-one can possibly claim that the desire for fundamental change, and the desire to join the CAW, is not shared by virtually every one of the 30,000 members in question.

Many CAW members know first-hand the difficulties of dealing with U. S. union officials. We formed an independent union 15 years ago precisely because U. S. union leaders-even in a relatively progressive union, the UAW-refused to give up their control over our affairs. Since then, numerous other groups have joined the CAW, many after enduring decades of misrepresentation, poor service, or outright corruption and repression at the hands of U. S. unions.

In virtually every case, the U. S. unions involved pulled out all the stops in an effort to forcibly retain their Canadian members and their dues payments. The current dispute is no exception. The Washington leaders of the SEIU-also one of the more active and “progressive” of U. S. unions-has seized local union assets, fired staff, and sued dissident leaders personally for millions of dollars.

It is astounding that any union would fight tooth-and-nail to forcibly retain the membership of workers who want nothing more to do with it. Even worse is that this position is being endorsed by most other union leaders in Canada. Many worry that their own disaffected members, after years of poor service and concessions on the part of their leaders, will make similar choices.

Largely because of this fear, the CAW was effectively thrown out of the CLC on July 1 because of the SEIU membership dispute. This was an unprecedented decision by the CLC, which faces dozens of raiding charges every year, involving virtually every one of its affiliates. The SEIU dispute is virtually indistinguishable from many others that have come before the Congress, yet no other affiliate has faced such extreme and accelerated punishment.

We are working anxiously to attain a negotiated resolve to the current dispute within the CLC. We are concerned about the impacts of a split on labour councils, provincial federations, and the other grass-roots activism that is essential if we are to build a more active and effective labour movement. On the other hand, labour unity is worth nothing in and of itself, if that “unity” is rooted in an inactive bureaucracy that sees union members as little more than dues-paying poker chips, to be traded around the table as leaders see fit. We want to be part of a CLC-but only one that respects the democratic wishes of union members, and commits itself to fighting for workers and their communities rather than accepting concessions as long as the dues money keeps pouring in.

These are worrisome times for the labour movement in Canada. But change never comes easily. The CAW is not interested in “poaching” members. We are committed to a labour movement that is democratic, active, and principled. We can’t sit around a common table, in the name of “unity,” if that means betraying the hopes, dreams, and democratic expressions of Canadian union members.

We’ll do everything we can not only to resolve the current dispute at the CLC, but also to make the CLC a more effective, active, and democratic labour central. Failing that, we’ll simply continue to do what we’ve done since our inception-promoting a fightback style of unionism that relies on our educated, active membership. If necessary, we’ll do that from outside of the CLC, working with other unions and social movements that are also committed to activism and democracy.

Thank you for your continuing support and activism.

In solidarity,

Buzz Hargrove
President