Question 10
You asked: During the covid lockdowns the Unifor 111 actively broke Labour Law for not holding monthly GM's for months. Other unions held online GM's. Unifor 222 held a tentative contract meeting and vote online. It would appear Unifor local 111 is actively pursuing Voter Suppression. What can members do to stop it and make the local "leadership" provide online meetings and online voting?
Let’s get into it.
Thank you for your question.
Let me first say that your assertion that Unifor 111 “actively broke labour law” by not holding meetings is incorrect. “Labour Law”, in our case the BC Labour Code, does not require a union to hold monthly meetings. Those are issues governed by our Constitution and Bylaws. In that regard, I cannot comment as to whether or not the Local and the National made some arrangement regarding not having meetings during Covid. Just a comment, now on to the meat and potatoes of your question.
I understand completely why you and many other members think that the administration is “actively pursuing voter suppression”. I think that you are on to something, but it is not voter suppression.
There IS voter suppression taking place but that is incidental to the real agenda. The real agenda is to “manipulate” and “control” the outcome of significant votes. As you are very well aware there are two necessary components to controlling the outcome of a vote:
[1] Withhold information until as late as possible and be as vague as possible even when releasing the information. It is not unheard of to actually withhold information that the administration might view as tainting the desired outcome. (Hence the accusations in the last ratification vote of “no concessions” only to have a robust conversation about perceived concessions “after the fact”.)
[2] Reduce the opportunities for members to “participate” and “question” the recommendations of the administration. Instead of online voting - (which by now everybody knows is readily available and used by many other Unions) – limit the participation to one day only at one location only.
[3] Rely heavily on the “TRUST US” dogma that inevitably gets preached. After all, members WANT to trust their elected bargaining committee and chairperson. Most members do not have a clear understanding of all the complications that go into bargaining, but they want to believe that their leaders do. Many leaders take real advantage of the “ignorance” of the membership regarding the details and nuances of collective bargaining. Perhaps if leadership shared more information the general IQ of the membership would grow over time!
Answering the second part of your question about how to stop this practice and make local leadership provide online meetings and online voting holds the key to understanding why this local union has been using the “keep them in the dark and limit their ability to participate” philosophy for as long as I can remember to today.
WE the membership are completely responsible for being in this situation because WE are the only ones able to hold leadership accountable - and we simply have not done so.
Before continuing with the rather simple solution to this problem of “lack of voter participation” and “lack of information for making an informed decision” I must make a necessary observation.
The “style” of bargaining Local 111 has been using for as long as I can remember is referred to as “closed bargaining”.
The mantra of closed bargaining is:
“membership, trust your bargaining committee”.
The key word is “trust”. This is often followed by supporting comments that (1) they know what they are doing and have our best interests at heart, and (2) we “elected” them and we should support them by trusting their decisions.
The alternative to closed bargaining is “open bargaining”.
The mantra of open bargaining is:
“bargaining committee, trust your membership”.
The committee trusting the memberships leads to the sharing of information, in detail, right from the outset of bargaining. The membership knows the results of all surveys, they are given a list of the Union’s proposals, they are given a list of the employer’s proposals, and they are kept updated EVERY time the parties negotiate.
Knowing that Local 111 has always conducted the closed bargaining style, it is up to the membership to “direct” the Local to change the way they bargain.
How?
There are two ways.
[1] Electing members to the bargaining committee who are committed to open bargaining, including the chairman (the President). However, this runs afoul of two issues.
The first being that, because we have never had open bargaining, nobody knows how to conduct open bargaining!
The second being that because our chairperson is always thrown into bargaining right after being elected into office, they have no time to properly prepare. (I have another question in my blog queue asking just that….how should a bargaining committee prepare?) I will give an exhaustive answer when I deal with that blog question but for the purpose of this answer I will say that the lack of an ability to prepare and probably having no previous experience chairing bargaining introduces the necessity to have involvement from the National representatives. In my experience, the “National” or “International” priorities are not completely aligned with the priorities of the local union membership.
[2] The definitive answer to your question. The membership takes back ownership and control of the Local Union’s policies.
Without citing chapter and verse of the Constitution and Bylaws I can emphatically say that the membership is the ultimate authority in Local 111. The membership needs simply to do the following:
(1) Attend general meetings in sufficient numbers that there is always a quorum. (Yes, easier done if we have virtual meetings). Until then, get at least 25 butts in seats.
(2) Draft motions that “direct” the Union to take certain actions. Be as detailed as possible and include time limits.
Create an “IT Committee” for the purpose have having “virtual meetings” within “X” months.
Use virtual voting - both for meetings and ALL bargaining issues including strike votes and ratification votes.
Use an “open bargaining” style where the membership receives detailed information from the outset of bargaining, including knowing the results of all surveys conducted. (Note that this would require a change to the Bylaws as at the present the committee must reveal the results of the membership survey 30 days after the completion of bargaining, meaning the ratification date).
Schedule strike votes and ratification votes on multiple days and at multiple times.
A “detailed” information package must be provided to the membership at least “X” days prior to the commencement of voting for strike and ratification votes.
It is important to know that our Local has a history of “not implementing” legal motions that have been passed at meetings with a quorum. I have no need to elaborate on that. You may know of some yourself (arbitrations forced to arbitration never making it to arbitration?) Only an example. Other members are well aware of other motions passed but not implemented.
What to do in that case?
A continuation of the membership taking back ownership!
Not implementing passed motions is a breach of the Constitution and Bylaws. There are only two possible remedies for the membership;
[1] Impeachment, or
[2] Charges
Whether the impeachment/charges should be directed at only one individual or the entire executive board (after all, they have a SIGNIFICANT role in assuring membership motions are seen through to completion) – that will depend on the circumstances.
If this sounds harsh or extreme, then the reader is not understanding the structure of power in the Unifor Constitution. Holding members accountable, either through elections or charges, is the ONLY way to make REAL change. Otherwise, same old same old will prevail.
I hope I have answered your question.
Thank you for asking it.