‘Keep rank and file structure’

The Labor Congress commission on con-
stitution and structure held a hearing in Bur-
naby June 9, one of several held across the
country. The commission was given a man-
date earlier this year to consider a variety of
questions but the one which has occupied the
greatest attention is that of bloc voting —
and issue which is of decisive importance to
the future character of the labor movement.
We reprint here the submission presented by
George Hewison on behalf of the United
Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union
which argues forcefully for maintaining the
present structure. It has been abridged only
slightly.

The Canadian working class in the 1980s
is seized with the biggest challenge it has ever
faced. The country is plunged into deep
economic depression. Workers’ living stan-
dards and rights won over 50 years of
relative prosperity are being eroded by a
combination of employer-government at-
tack abetted by the realities of massive
unemployment. Other sections of the
population are also suffering under. the
economic onslaught and the danger exists of
labor having to assume the additional
burden of scapegoat unless correct alter-
natives to the economic crisis are found. The
last great depression ended with a world war
because labor was incapable of preventing it.
Today, labor has an additional responsibili-
ty to lead in ensuring that the current
economic crisis does not end with the
destruction of humankind.

Labor in the 1980s stands somewhat dif-
ferently to labor in the 1930s. Today, in
Canada, labor is organized, three million
strong, and is potentially the most single im-
portant force for progressive change and a
new direction for Canada.

We say ‘“‘potentially’’, because for labor
to play this great historical role requires a
number of important ingredients — a cor-
rect and comprehensive alternative pro-
gram, a united leadership committed to it
and the mobilization of the full membership
of the trade union movement to fight for the
program (which includes the winning of a
majority of allies for labor at every decisive
stage). :

The failure to come to grips with the reali-
ty of the crisis produces divisions and
passivity on the part of the membership,
retreats and defeats for the workers and vic-
tories for the multinationals and their
governments.

It is no secret that in the labor movement
there exists two basic tendencies — the one
which. basically calls for mobilization of
labor and the other which may be styled
“tripartism”’ or “‘bipartism”’ (or variations
of the social contract between the worker
and the boss). That debate has not died
merely because tripartism suffered defeat at
the past two CLC conventions or because a
depression has occurred. If anything, the
debate has intensified as big business govern-
ments attempt to woo or bludgeon workers
into reduced living standards in the name of
international competitiveness (and the reten-
tion of jobs).

In this great debate, the structure of the
CLC has served the workers of Canada well.
The Canadian labor movement is unique in
all of the major industrialized capitalist
countries for having rejected the seductive
overtures of the employers to enter into a
social contract. It was the rank-and-file,
democratic nature of the CLC convention
which reversed what (they felt) was a
dangerous trend inside the Congress and
causes us to ponder whether or not Cana-
dian labor could acquit itself so well with
European-style trade union congresses.

An ancilliary matter of great importance
to the Canadian workers is the patient, but
inexorable, march toward a completely
sovereign Canadian trade union move-
ment. This march is still in the process of be-
ing consolidated, but we feel confident that a
qualitative turn has been made, that the
balance has shifted forever in the direction of
Canadian workers being able to decide what
is in their best trade union interests here in
Canada, whilst maintaining close, necessary
links with their brothers and sisters in the
U.S.A. Again, the structure of the CLC
has facilitated this independence process.
PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 10, 1983—Page 12 ©

Perhaps the biggest new challenge facing
the trade union movement during the com-
ing troubled years is the task of maintaining
worker confidence in their unions when the
going gets rough. As president McDermott
correctly stated at the last CLC convention
in Winnipeg, ‘‘workers don’t need.a union
to walk backwards.” It is extremely impor-
tant, therefore, that a tactical retreat at a par-
ticular moment to buy time, gain strength
and win allies in order to go forward again,
not be interpreted as ‘‘walking backwards.”
It is absolutely vital that the closest contact
between leadership and the rank and file be
maintained. Again, the structure of the CLC
with all of its imperfections serves us in good
stead.

At the 1976 convention of the CLC a pro-
posal was brought forward to change the
type of representation from ‘“‘local unions,
branches and lodges’ to “affiliated: and
chartered organizations’’ and to replace the
one delegate-one vote system with a “‘bloc”’
voting system of each delegate voting for up
to 1,000 members that he or~she
“Tepresented.”’ The reasons given were the

following:

@ It was argued that the Congress, because
of the growth of its conventions was becom-
ing undemocratic.

@ Secondly, it was argued that within the
International Confederation of Free Trade
Unions, the CLC was ‘‘the only labor central
which does not base representation of af-
filiate membership rather than local
membership.”’ (p.5, Report of the Commis-
sion on Constitution and Structure, 1976.)

- @ It was argued that most local unions
either through lack of resources or whatever,
failed to exercise their right to representa-
tion, a situation which would be corrected by
bloc voting.

@ It was advanced that bloc voting would
“ensure that every member of each affiliate
has an equal opportunity to participate ef-
fetively in the affairs of the Congress.’’

@ It was stated that there was concern ex-
pressed that ‘‘the quality of the convention
in terms of the issues discussed and the level
of debate’’ may be contributing to a lack of

participation of local unions and that this

could be addressed by screening local con-
cerns through the national or international
union or the local labor council and/or

than a delegate should forfeit his or her right
to speak simply because he or she chose not
to. It was argued by most that ‘‘bloc’’ voting
would replace one form of inequity with yet
another and lead to a less effective labor cen-
tral. ‘“Bloc voting’? would not, contrary to

its proponents’ claims, guarantee that every

member had ‘‘equal opportunity to par-
ticipate effectively in the affairs of the Con-
gress.”

The concept that the quality of debate at
conventions suffered because the rank and
file could submit resolutions and elect
spokespersons to address resolutions
without being screened by national or inter-
national head offices, labor councils or
federations was rejected by many on the
grounds that such local input was vital to the
effectiveness and progressive direction of the
congress so that the movement was a whole
was in tune with the rank and file and vice
versa.

The most serious issue raised in 1976, the
matter of locations suitable to host a large
convention, appeared to begin to resolve
itself as at least two more convention centres
presented themselves in addition to Win-
nipeg — namely Toronto and Quebec.

Needless to say, the resolution on “‘bloc
voting’’ was defeated. Perhaps a key ele-
ment in the thinking of delegates opposed to
‘bloc”’ voting was the feeling that it was in-
spired by those wishing to impose “‘tripar-
tism”’ and a return to the domination of in-
ternational ‘unionism on the Canadian
labor movement. That feeling persisted
despite the assurances that the ‘‘reforms’’
weré merely over concern for ‘‘democracy”’
and ‘‘equity’’.

Again in 1978, the commission on the
constitution and structure brought in pro-

-posals to amend the convention voting pro-

cedures. It tabled a resolution providing for
a ‘‘weighted roll call vote’’ (or voting the
membership) modelled after the European
style of trade union congress which many
felt would open the door to “‘bloc’’ voting.
Lost in the 1978 resolution C-1 was the con-
cern over the size of the convention since a
union cannot send only a few delegates and
cast a large number of votes. Indeed, for
unions sending few or no delegates there re-
mains an incentive to improve their atten-
dance. Perhaps lost by the proponents of

Py
A= LETTERS

Report was

off base,
says Fryer

John Fryer, president, National Union
of Provincial Government Employers, ||
writes: I have just finished reading jj”
William Stewart’s column headed ‘‘Bloc ||
voting raises its ugly head again” jj
(Tribune Apr. 15, 1983). The reason for jj”
this letter is to set the record straight on 4 |)
couple of matters dealt with by Stewart in |
his informative column.

The first time that a question of change ||
in the voting procedure was formally |}
presented to the delegates in the form of 4 |}
constitutional amendment was at the
Canadian Labor Congress convention i ||
Quebec City in 1978. Resolution C-1 at |}
that time received 1,399 votes in favor
and 723 against. As you can see, it fell
short of the required two-thirds majority
by avery narrow margin. A mere 24 moré
votes and it would have passed.

In 1980, at the Winnipeg convention, 4
proposal from the commission on con-
stitution and structure also had the sup-
port of the clear majority of the delegates
but failed by another small margin to ||
achieve the two-thirds. In 1982, the com: ||
mission of constitution and structure did |}
not put a specific resolution forward but I
instead suggested to the delegates that ||
hearings be held across the country on 4 |)
number of matters of current concern tO |
the movement — one of which, it is true, \
is the current voting system. We did so ||
because, as you can see by the 1978 and i
1980 conventions, the overwhelming ma-
jority of delegates supported change. _|}

On another matter, it is just not true as |)
Stewart writes, that “originally Donald | 4
Montgomery, secretary-treasurer of the ||

CLC was to have been chairman.” Thé |
facts are that I have been chairman of thé
constitution and structure since 1977
following the resignation of Lynt
‘Williams who was elected secretary of the

federation of labor. C-1 in 1978 was how 2.3 million workers in | United Steelworkers. Furthermore, ! |/
@ And finally it was argued that the size — Canada could collectively express their will | haveservedin that capacity for the last six
of the convention delegation narrowed the __to the leadership of the trade union move- | years during which time, I have been 4
number of cities in Canada capable of ment any better than they didontheissueof | vice-president-at-large of the CLC.
hosting such a biennial event. tripartism which was rejected overwhelm- It is therefore a little unfair to suggest
The 1976 convention rejected the argu- —_ ingly that year. In that case, the old voting as Stewart does that my chairmanship 0} ||
ment that by itself the size of a convention _ procedure worked very well. In 1978, the the committee on constitution and struc
was inherently undemocratic or that it failed — constitutional amendment was narrowly ture is of recent origin or that it is any
toreflect the wishes of therank and file. That defeated. In 1980 a similar proposal was | “part of the campaign to groom him fot
convention argued that the choosing of defeated by aneven bigger margin and were- office.”’
delegates from locals and broadening of the main convinced that this commission will Iam presently thenational president of }/
grass-roots character of delegations enhanc- _help clarify the question even further that as_ | NUPGE—a job which your readers wil |
ed the labor central. It was further contend- —_ imperfect atthe CLC constitution may be, it | understand keeps me more than busy
ed that simply because local units failed to _ will continue to serve the Canadian labor during this period of frontal assaults 08
field their full delegations, wasnoreasonfor movement well in the turbulent period public sector workers from governments
them to forfeit their righttodosoanymore ahead. across this country at all levels.
_—
: ees GREATER VANCOUVER OKANAGAN :
Time flies for everyone, and 5) Bennett 1,500 470 Kamloops 900 15
especially for those at the Burnaby 5,500 2,893 Penticton ae a
Coquitlam 2,500 1,927 Shuswap
Tribune. There are now only nuata oo ene Suan 1,300 946
two short weeks left before the :
N. Westminster 1,700 836 N. COAST/INTERIOR
end of the press drive and the Nigel Morgan 2,000 1,000 spit ne isin 2.000 4.703
final celebration, the Victory Niilo Makela 800 408 cme "400 150
Banquet on June 25. But there is North Van oy) Oe eee 250 301
: 5 Olgin 500 545 Powell Ri 550 847
still $35,387 to raise before that Richmond 1,500 900. oqeaves Aer a 292
date. Let’s make a vow not to let Seamen 400 POT ee mee ras 191
the ‘“‘spirit of $85,000’? down. Van. East OPN, BPs. Tal 850 564
Acts ae th ‘Il Van. Fishermen 700 114
eubiecne mare fo target Wul West side 3,500 2,229 VANCOUVER ISLAND
raise everyone’s spirits, and will ,, ASER VALLEY Campbell River 1,700 1,243
keep the Tribune materially —  Chiwack SS sp. Comex Valley ae pe
not just spiritually — in the Dela 800 Tile im 1500 "682
midst of people’s struggles for Langley 700 395 Victoria 2,500 2,657
Maple Ridge 3,300 1,561, : 2,959
1983. Survey 5.000 31561 Miscellaneous ;
White Rock 1,200 ‘594. Achieved to date: 49,613