The Unrealized Power of the Working Class

Lessons from the 2005 CLC Convention
By Alex Levant
From briarpatch Magazine

Solidarity Forever – the anthem of the labour movement – begins with the following words: “When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run, there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun.”

Today, there is very little inspiration among the Canadian working class, and our power remains largely unrealized. The question is: Why?

The Current State of the Labour Movement
My recent experience at the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) Convention in Montreal in June, where I served as a delegate from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), sheds some light on the current state of the labour movement.

The most significant event was the election for President – the first in 15 years. The incumbent Ken Georgetti beat challenger Carol Wall with 1084 to 643 votes (62 percent to 37 percent). However, it was Wall and her supporters – mostly public sector workers from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), CUPE, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), some Steelworkers, and many others – who were celebrating, while the winner appeared sullen and defeated. Why? Because the vote was stacked.

The incumbent had the support of virtually the whole labour establishment, which ensured his re-election. The CLC's 20-member Executive Committee selected Georgetti to head the slate of the establishment, which included Secretary-Treasurer Hassan Yussuff and Executive Vice-Presidents Barb Byers and Marie Clark Walker (all incumbents whose positions were not contested). The leaders of all the largest unions (with the notable exception of CUPW's Deborah Borque) instructed “their” delegates to vote for the incumbent. Several major unions, including the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW), Steelworkers, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and the Union of Needle Trades, Industrial and Textile Employees, went so far as to bar Wall from addressing their caucuses. Indeed, the challenger was never permitted to address the convention. instead, she shuttled to all the various evening caucuses and forums to speak to as many delegates as possible, while the incumbent presided over the whole convention.

Under these circumstances, all Georgetti had to do to win was breathe. While not technically an election victory, Carol Wall's 37 percent – the highest recorded percentage against a CLC incumbent – represents a crushing defeat for Georgetti.

Delegates' frustration with the labour establishment is entirely understandable. It is no secret that our labour movement is losing ground. Since the mid-1980s, the percentage of unionized workers has dropped from 40 percent to 30 percent overall, and from almost 30 percent to only 18 percent in the private sector. Public sector density has remained steady, but governments now routinely break strikes using back to work legislation. We are working longer hours with less job security, and our social services continue to be cut and privatized.

The CLC's response to these grave problems has been timid and largely ineffective. There were many good resolutions passed at this convention, but little was said or done to show how they would be actualized. The CLC has focused almost entirely on lobbying governments rather than mobilizing its members, and this dead-end strategy continues to guide its work. Its “Action Plan”, which was unveiled on the final day of convention when many delegates had already left, clearly demonstrates what type of action it intends to pursue:

“These actions will include advocacy and lobbying; education and training of activists, labour councils, staff and affiliates; political action and campaigns; local actions such as demonstrations and rallies; coalition building; communications and media campaigns; and international solidarity actions.”

What is particularly disturbing about this “action plan” is that it does not mention even once the one action that is the greatest strength of the labour movement: strike action. Given this ineffective strategy, it is no wonder that many of the 3.2 million workers represented by the CLC do not even know that they are members, or what the CLC even is.

Despite the sorry state of the labour movement, Georgetti campaigned on his record of “results,” and urged delegates to focus on the positive. The election results, however, demonstrate that a significant number of union officials (a layer comprised largely of local executive officers) are not falling for it.

Wall is certainly far more progressive than Georgetti, and would inject some desperately-needed life into the labour establishment. Her achievements are quite impressive: former CLC Vice-President representing workers of colour, national negotiator for PSAC, Communications Energy and Paperworkers' first Human Rights Director, and the list goes on. She also understands that the CLC must shift its focus from lobbying to mobilizing:

“I believe that the single-minded focus on back room lobbying has been to our detriment. Lobbying government is important, but we need to mobilize our members if we want to be a force for change in society.”

In some ways, this election was a near coup, which put Wall in a strong position to run for President again at the next convention in 2008. However, it is unclear how she would be able to actualize this objective if she had been elected, or if she wins next time.

The Problem Is Not Just Bad Leadership
This convention demonstrated not only the weakness of the labour establishment, but also the weakness of the opposition. This weakness is not simply a matter of failing to successfully run progressive candidates for leadership positions. Some of the top CLC brass are yesterday's radicals who were supported by the opposition. As Wall correctly states, many of them “came to do good, but stayed to do well.” But even the most progressive leaders, once elected, find themselves isolated in a vast bureaucracy that is much more powerful than their individual abilities and best intentions; they often end up blaming their activist base for abandoning them.

In contrast to the analysis advanced by Geoff Bickerton, labour critic for Canadian Dimension, the problems of the labour movement are deeper than bad leadership. Rather, it is the relationship between the leadership and the membership that requires our attention.

If the opposition to the labour establishment is serious about shifting the focus from lobbying governments to mobilizing members, it will have to force structural reform onto the agenda in order to democratize the labour movement. The shift from lobbying to mobilizing simply cannot happen within existing structures because mobilization requires the meaningful participation of the broadest layers of union membership, from the top leadership, to the leaders of union locals, to rank-and-file activists and members. The current structural relationship among these layers of the labour movement frustrates union democracy, as was clearly evident by the way in which the election for President was managed at the recent CLC convention.

This structure (which has been in place since the “postwar compromise” of the mid-1940s) establishes a whole layer of union officials whose interests differ from the majority of union members. While rank-and-file members make a living from their places of work, and directly benefit from the collective agreements they manage to win, the top union officials make their living from the union itself. Consequently, they do not experience attacks on workers in the same way as rank-and-file members, and, indeed, have a special interest in maintaining the union institution in its current form.

In his recent analysis of the Hospital Employees Union strike in 2004, professor of Labour Studies David Camfield explains this phenomenon as follows:

“The union institution provides officials with their livelihood… For officials to keep on being officials, the union institution must be preserved… strikes and other forms of mass direct action that fall outside labour law's narrow definition of a legal strike bring with them the risk of huge fines or other serious damage to union institutions. Officials generally try to preserve good bargaining relationships with employers, which militancy can hurt.”

This structure has a debilitating effect on the membership as well, disconnecting the majority of members from their unions. As sociologist Clarice Kuhling has pointed out, in today's unions the terrain of struggle has increasingly shifted from the workplace to the arbitration hearing. Consequently, the agents of struggle are no longer the workers themselves, but a whole layer of professional union staff representatives who administer and often negotiate collective agreements on the members' behalf.

This alienation of the rank-and-file from their unions, coupled with the disconnection of the leadership from the membership, has created a situation where electing progressive leaders like Wall, on its own, would not suffice to transform the labour movement into an effective fighting force for working people. This effort can only work as part of a broader strategy that is oriented towards transforming the relationship between the leadership and the rank-and-file, which would require considerable structural reform.

From Postwar Compromise to Post-Compromise War
Labour historians like Craig Heron, Errol Black and Jim Silver have identified the “postwar compromise” of 1945-48 as a key turning point in the history of the Canadian labour movement. Bolstered by growing working class militancy, the labour movement won legal concessions that forced the bosses to recognize unions. Rather than having to “strike for recognition,” workers could now vote to form a union. Moreover, unions no longer had to collect dues payments on the shop floor, but were legally guaranteed automatic dues payments from all union members, which ensured their financial security.

But this victory came at a price, because it fundamentally transformed the way unions function. Everything from how to organize a union, to when to go on strike, to how to resolve on-the-job disputes with the bosses was now governed by a set of legal procedures.

As a result, union leaders no longer had to rely on inspiring and mobilizing workers in order to settle disputes with employers, but could focus almost exclusively on navigating the legalese of labour relations. This is why the need arose to rely on staff and labour lawyers, and why the battleground shifted from the workplace to the arbitration hearing.

Furthermore, this shift in the terrain of struggle also created a new policing role for labour leaders. The vast bureaucratic apparatus consisting of elected officials and hired staff not only had to represent the interests of rank-and-file members within the new rules of legal struggle, but also to ensure that members adhere to these rules.

In a recent keynote address to the Alberta Federation of Labour, Canadian labour historian Bryan Palmer described the postwar compromise as follows:

“This was a victory for workers, won by wrestling concessions long denied from capital and the state. But it was largely won on capitalist terms. And a price was paid. The union check-off meant the old shop floor and workplace solidarities, garnered as shop stewards and activists collected union dues and talked to union members, faded. Complicated grievance procedures, the significance of lawyers, who played more and more of a role in defining the nature of contract relations, and the rise of an expanding layer of labour officialdom, all made unionism more and more distant from its ranks.”

Furthermore, over the last three decades this postwar compromise has become increasingly one-sided, as the ruling class has clawed back many of the gains won by workers in the aftermath of World War Two, resulting in a con-siderable drop in living standards since the mid-1970s. The unions, for their part, have largely continued to hold up their end of the “class truce,” playing by the old rules, and policing its members to do the same.

Part of the reason for this complacency has to do with the manner in which this claw-back has occurred. While many of our gains have been eroded, the bosses have not yet attacked the fundamental structure of the postwar labour movement. The laws that establish how to organize a union continue to exist, as do the automatic dues provisions. We have been left with the shell of the postwar unions: gutted institutions which union officials hang on to for dear life, while many of their members no longer see their purpose.

Ideas on How to Move Forward
The above critique of the postwar labour movement in no way suggests a return to pre-WWII unions. These problems did not begin with the postwar compromise, but were exacerbated by it. Moreover, neither the current form of the labour movement nor its predecessors can adequately address the unique challenges posed by the realities of work in the era of capitalist globalization.

Rather than concentrated in large factories, today's workforce is fragmented into smaller workplaces. This dispersion is further exacerbated by the relative rise of employment in the service sector. One in five jobs is now part time. Moreover, capital has acquired a new mobility to cross borders as a result of so-called “free trade” agreements, while workers' mobility is increasingly restricted. As a result, working class identity and solidarity have been eroded, and Canadian workers increasingly identify more closely with their employers than with workers of other countries, who are often seen as competitors for their jobs. This restructuring of work calls for a restructuring of the labour movement.

Some elements of an effective response have been suggested by writers like Kim Moody, editor of Labor Notes , who advocates adopting the principles and tactics of Social Movement Unionism – a new approach initiated in the mid-1990s in Brazil, South Africa, and South Korea.

In contrast to “business unionism,” which treats members like clients who receive a service from union officials in exchange for payment in the form of dues, Social Movement Unionism relies on rank-and-file members in the day-to-day struggle with the bosses. This entails greater internal democracy, which develops their capacities, and helps to overcome their disconnection from their unions.

In an effort to respond to the fragmentation of industrial labour in the current era of globalization, Social Movement Unionism attempts to broaden its agenda to include community interests. It also seeks to make international solidarity a cornerstone of its strategy, and avoids “partnering” with management against competition from workers in other countries. As Chris Schenk, Research Director of the Ontario Federation of Labour put it, “Borderless capital demands borderless unionism.”

Some aspects of Social Movement Unionism have already been taken up by a number of Canadian unions, such as CAW, CUPE, and CUPW. However, where we are weakest is in the fostering of internal democracy. This is partly because the current structure of the labour movement poses a barrier to such reform.

Because of labour officials' attachment to unions in their current form, Social Movement Unionism can only fully emerge in response to pressure from an opposition movement that is driven by rank-and-file members. But such an opposition movement will not fall from the sky. Given the current disconnection of the majority of union members from their unions, rank-and-file initiatives are exceptionally rare. Such a profound shift will require leadership and support from various layers of the labour movement.

In the absence of a rank-and-file opposition movement, however, all the best leadership in the world will still fall short. As we have seen, not only are our problems deeper than bad leadership, but these problems cannot be resolved by better leaders alone.

Consequently, an effective opposition must focus on developing members' capacities and building a membership-driven movement, as well as running candidates who share a vision of a fundamentally different unionism and who are willing to risk their privileged positions to attain it. While union conventions are a vital part of this effort, at the end of the day such a movement will not emerge in response to resolutions, but from the way in which we fight our struggles in the workplace.

This is a long-term project. But if our unions are able to break out of their current form, and can restructure to respond to the new world of global labour and global capital, the union's inspiration may yet run through the workers' blood, which is always the bosses' greatest fear, and still our greatest hope.