Right On CUPW, Fight On

CUPW right to challenge Tories over back-to-work law

Having a majority government shouldn't mean the right to always have your way, even when you're wrong.

It's something that the Jean Chretien government never learned -- especially with its Hepatitis C shenanigans -- but it's something that the Harper government clearly needs to learn.

Many conservatives would likely be shocked to be told that they should actually support the Canadian Union of Postal Workers in their bid to challenge the Tories' back-to-work legislation in court. They should take it as far as the Supreme Court if they have to.

"This back-to-work legislation was unjust," declared CUPW President Denis Lemelin. "It was the democratic rights of workers that were attacked. There is a fundamental principle here -- the freedom of association."

CUPW isn't right about many things, and certainly not very often. The political activities of the union executive and far-left hardliners -- so often taken in the name of the entire union -- are certainly a big problem for the responsible governance of that union. But that isn't what was at stake with the back-to-work legislation, and anyone who thinks it is has confused the issue entirely.

Many conservatives have mistaken labour unions for their natural enemy. This isn't actually the case.

The labour rights that have made it possible for blue-collar, working-class people in Canada to succeed on their own terms were the result of agitation by labour unions.

Admittedly this was a long time ago, when labour unions were focused entirely on improving the workplace conditions of their workers. Now, many labour unions -- including CUPW -- are more focused on advancing the personal political agendas of their leaders.

Perhaps some Conservatives have concluded that the solution to this is to simply crush the unions outright. This is a mistake.

In cases such as the CUPW back-to-work legislation, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that this is precisely what the Tories have set out to do. It's important to remember that CUPW was not under a general strike when the legislation was introduced, they were locked out by Canada Post.

There is something very wrong with a government that has the power to direct the executives of a crown corporation to end the lockout they imposed instead imposing back-to-work legislation to send postal workers back to the job.

When union leaders note that the government's actions undermine the position of all labour unions in Canada to bargain collectively, they are entirely right. That the government seems so eager to intervene in the Air Canada flight attendants' strike is even more alarming. Air Canada may have been founded as a crown corporation, but it was privatized in 1988.

It seems that there's no limit to how itchy the Harper government's trigger finger has become, and no limit on when and where it's prepared to legislate workers back to work.

CUPW needs to win this court challenge for the benefit of all Canadian workers who have reaped the benefit of responsible collective bargaining. And frankly, this is one time that the Harper government needs to be taught a lesson.

Sack Balls, Screw the Unions

Ed Balls helped create British fiscal mess, cannot remain Shadow Chancellor

If Labour leader Ed Miliband has a single, overriding problem, it comes in the embodiment of his Shadow Chancellor of the Excchequer, Ed Balls.

As a former Secretary to the Treasury -- charged with heloing manage Britain's public finances -- Balls had a direct hand in the profligacy that has led to the current state of the UK's finances.

Yet he has the temerity to stand as Shadow Chancellor, even as he continues to avoid admitting his part in the ballooning of Britain's public debt.

Terry Smith, the President of Tullet Prebon, has had enough. He says it's time for Balls to depart from Ed Miliband's shadow caucus.

“He is in total denial about the fact that Labour was running a deficit years before the financial crisis struck and seems to think that we can borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by excessive debt,” Smith declared. "There is no avoiding the fact that Labour ran a growing deficit from 2002 as the economic boom was heading towards its peak”.

Smith charges that Balls, as well as Gordon Brown and those others tasked with keeping Britain's finances on the rails, put political expediency far ahead of responsible fiscal management.

“Moreover, the government spending which led to this deficit before the banking crisis struck was wasteful, unproductive and cynically aimed at buying the loyalty of a growing dependent section of the population to the Labour Party,” Smith continued.

Ed Balls wasn't the only thing on Smith's mind. He also declared the pensions owed to public service employees to be unviable, and suggested they should be cut back.

"Unviable because we cannot sustain a system in which people can retire and live for another 20 years at the expense of the state,” he explained. “This was never the intention of the original social security systems and it has been made unviable by improvements in health care and life expectancy.”

Smith has presented Ed Miliband with some difficult choices. Certainly, labour unions will never tolderate a Labour leader who pushes back against their unsustainable pensions. Certainly, the left wing of the Labour Party will bristle at Ed Balls being relieved of his duties.

Smith suggests that Balls should be shuffled to the most junior shadow cabinet post in existence. Ed Miliband would be better off shuffling Ed Balls out of politics altogether.

Balls, and his allegiance to the unions, are relics of an old left-wing politics that has catastrophically failed in Britain. If the Labour Party is to survive -- and its survival is far from guaranteed -- they will need to find a new brand of left-wing politics that can account for and repair the damage done by Ed Balls and his associates.

Dave Coles Sucks and Blows

It's ON

CAW President sounding the alarm of a blue scare

There's a provincial election, and it's getting serious.

How do you know an election is getting serious in Canada? When union leaders start sounding the alarm and calling for strategic voting. There's a blue scare afoot, and Canadian Auto Workers President Ken Lewenza intends to make it as scary as he possibly can.

"We're asking our members to get politically involved," Lewenza announced. "Look at the campaign and ask yourself... who represents your community and your household the best. I think (people will see) the alternatives are clear. We can't waste our vote on a third party candidate that could split the vote and allow a Tory to win."

Like Buzz Hargrove before him -- Hargrove was kicked out of the NDP for encouraging strategic voting during the 2005-06 federal election -- Lewenza has chosen to back away from being an NDP stalwart, and instead encourage members of his unions to blindly vote againt Tim Hudak and the Conservative Party.

"We marched the New Democrat line," he continued. "We thought, ‘this is our party,' but today we have to be more proactive. You have to think strategically to avoid a disaster... If I had it my way, I would try and convince the New Democrats and Liberals to form an electoral coalition so they're not knocking each other off."

Apparently, the prospect of a Conservative government in Ontario is so scary that Lewenza would, if he could, beat his head against the wall trying to convince the Liberals and NDP to work together to defeat them. He chooses to ignore the correlation between banging your head against the wall and headaches by blaming his headache on the Conservatives.

The Conservatives, it seems, aren't prepared to blindly commit themselves to further economic stimulus, even in the wake of a slowly-recovering Ontario economy. Lewenza would really like it if someone would.

"Even though some would suggest Ontario has recovered on a per capita basis... the fact of the matter is that most jobs being created are part-time and precarious in nature," he declared. "Government intervention in jobs is important."

The detail that the billions of dollars already doled out by the federal and Ontario governments has led to jobs that Lewenza considers "precarious" seems to have little impact on his assessment of it. He somehow thinks more of the same would somehow turn out differently.

Perhaps there's even more to it than that. Lewenza would clearly prefer a government that would bow to the demands of unions over the demands of the rest of Ontarians.

"Even though [labour unions] represent 30 per cent of the Ontario population, we influence 100 per cent of some of the public policy issues on things like minimum wage, pensions and health care," Lewenza added. "People are going to have to be reminded that if there's an aggressive challenge against the labour movement, it normally results in more lost time off work."

Hudak, it seems, is not that leader. He's willing to consider the views of people other than labour union leaders.

"We know the history of Mr Hudak in cabinet with [former Premier Mike] Harris," Lewenza recalled. "I remember it like it was yesterday. The first act Mike Harris introduced in the legislature was to dismantle legislation to allow workers to join a union harassment-free. They disbanded the wage protection program for workers."

In fact, Hudak voted with Harris for legislation that required secret ballot votes before a workplace could unionize, stripping unions of the ability to harass and intimidate workers who voted against unionization. It's no surprise that union leadership opposed such legislation.

The election in Ontario is getting serious. For Ken Lewenza, it's as serious as a heart attack. The prospects of a Progressive Conservative government threaten to undermine the disproportionate political influence of labour unions.

It's something that Ontarians should actually welcome. But Lewenza is too busy trying to make them afraid.

Nycole Turmel's Professionalism Problem

Public service union bosses should reject partisanship

In Canada, there is a problem that public service unions refuse to admit is a problem; it's because it chiefly concerns them.

Canada's political discourse is far too often -- near constantly, in fact -- littered with partisan messaging on the part of public service unions. Under the leadership of now-NDP interim leader Nycole Turmel, the Public Service Alliance of Canada was one of these unions.

During the time Turmel was President of PSAC, the organization was endorsing Bloc Quebecois candidates. Turmel herself held memberships in the BQ and Quebec Solidaire, and was a self-described "activist for the NDP".

But in campaigning for the BQ, Quebec Solidaire and the NDP, Turmel essentially campaigned on who she thought her bosses -- or at least those of the members of the union she represented as President -- should be. It's incredibly improper, and the President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada agrees.

“The professional institute is non-partisan and, when you become partisan - I am not going to speak about Ms Turmel per se - but when you display partisanship it impacts on your credibility,” Corbett mused.

“It is an issue for Ms Turmel,” he declared.

It would be a bigger issue for Turmel if she was still President of PSAC. Fortunately, she isn't.

The bigger question is whether the current leaders of PSAC can aspire to the higher standard of professionalism evident at PIPSC. It won't be hard to figure out if they do.

With Turmel occupying a high-ranking position with the NDP, a PSAC endorsement for the NDP will immediately fail the smell test. PSAC members and leadership will likely immediately excuse the funk, but it will give Canadian voters good reason to be concerned about the impartiality and professionalism of the public service.

Fortuantely, even though Nycole Turmel very clearly didn't care about this, Gary Corbett at least does. Hopefully current PSAC President John Gordon will aspire to Corbett's example, not Turmel's.

Conservatives Should Not Mistake This For Victory

Back-to-work legislation for locked out workers signals a lawless attitude toward labour

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party won a majority government in the May 2 election, many Canadians were wondering what to expect out of a government that could basically do as it wishes.

The mission for the Conservatives needed to be to do the right thing. To govern conservatively, but not to use the power of the government to conduct ideological warfare against the political opposition.

Ever since 2006 there have been accusations against the Conservatives that they have done the latter, and not the former. The cutting of funding to various far-left groups that had no business receiving public funds in the first place was treated as an outrage by the far-left. It wasn't.

The passage of back-to-work legislation sending Canada Post workers back to work is another matter entirely. It would be one thing if CUPW had ever gone on a full-scale strike. A comparatively small-scale rotating strike had been underway by members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

But in reality, postal workers in Canada have not been working because they were locked out.

The NDP attempted to filibuster the legislation vigorously. They were actually right to do so on this occasion. In introducing back-to-work legislation, the government is forcing postal workers Canada Post itself locked out to return back to work without satisfying their right to bargain.

Canadian law allows workers the right to organize, if they choose, and bargain collectively. The government's actions in frustrating the bargaining rights of CUPW signals an adversarial attitude toward labour unions -- not a good idea -- and a generally lawless attitude toward collective bargaining rights.

Some have tried to argue that the government is not responsible for the actions of Canada Post management. Considering that the operations of Canada Post fall under the authority of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (currently Denis Lebel), the government had the authority to order Canada Post to end the lockout and allow negotiations to proceed.

They declined, and proceeded with back-to-work legislation nonetheless.

Perhaps a relentlessly-adversarial attitude toward labour unions has fooled some conservatives into believing that anything that frustrates a union's ability to function is a good thing.

There may be a litany of political activities -- coercively funded by union membership, and directed toward the pet causes of union leaders -- to object to. But that doesn't justify attacking the basest rights unions possess, and that union leaders were attempting to exercise in this case.

This may be a victory for the Conservatives -- who very much seem to have gone looking for this fight -- but it is not a victory for conservatives.

Anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves.

Hands Off Canadian Pensions

Government had no right to seize pension surplus, must return it

Unbeknownst to many Canadians, there's a pivotally-important question at the centre of the ongoing -- and escalating -- postal workers' strike.

That question is: to whom do the pensions of Canadians belong? To themselves? Or to someone else?

In 1999, the Liberal government of Jean Chretien had an answer that should outrage all Canadians. They essentially decided that the pensions of public service employees belonged to them, to do with as they please.

They took it upon themselves to seize a $6 billion surplus in pension funds belonging to public service employees, the RCMP and the military and use it to eliminate the federal deficit.

"It was a money grab," fumed Public Service Assiance of Canada Executive Vice President Patty Ducharme. "The federal government has a responsibility to its employees, to the plan members; but they just took that money out of the plan ... and stole it."

"Stole" is a strong word. But it's bloody well close.

As the faceoff between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers draws on, it pays to remember that one of the issues at play in the strike is the state of the CUPW pension fund. The union wants to use funds from a profit-sharing program to restore solvency to the fund.

But they shouldn't have to. The funds snatched from the pension fund should have been returned long ago. They should have been returned, at the latest, five years ago.

It's largely Jean Chretien and Paul Martin who are responsible for this scandalous outrage. (It's one of many underhanded means they used to balance the deficit, including cutting transfers to provinces, raiding EI premiums, and cutting funding to health care and education.) But they don't carry it alone.

It's an absolute outrage that the Conservative Party has bothered fighting this at all. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty should have smiled and obligingly introduced a program to restore the pilfered pension funds in 2006. They didn't, and the government is fighting it still.

The figure under discussion? $30 billion. That's $30 billion being withheld from hardworking public servants, including the woman who brings you your mail (and in this author's neighbourhood, doesn't at all mind when a well-behaved dog accompanies her on her rounds), the RCMP officer you call when you need help (even if he occasionally writes you a traffic ticket), the military personell who risk their lives for us, and countless others.

It's absolutely mind-boggling that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice could decree that public service unions are not entitled to those surplus funds, and sign of a deep rot in that institution.

It's a simple idea: in Canada, our pension funds belong to us. It should be not a whit different for public employees. If their pension managers do such a splendid job that they have a $30 billion surplus, that surplus belongs to the fund, not to the government.

This doesn't mean CUPW is right about everything in this strike. But they are right about this.

Fair is fair. And it's beyond the time for the government of Canada to do the right thing, and restore that $30 billion surplus to these pension funds.

Over to You, Larry Hubich

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour President Larry Hubich likes Brigette DePape. He also seems to like Michael Moore.

So it seems entirely fair to wonder what he would think of Moore's job offer to DePape, considering his record as a bad boss.

As reported by -- of all outlets -- The New Yorker and Mother Jones:

"...as the staff of Mother Jones [a magazine that had fired Moore for being toxic in the office] had discovered, Moore wasn’t the ideal boss. Little by little, he began to alienate people. He disliked sharing credit with his writers. He would often come in late. He didn’t yell at people: if someone said something he didn’t like, he wouldn’t argue; he would simply not invite that person to the next meeting, or the person would be fired. … One day during production on the first season of the show, Moore called two of his writers into his office. It was, for both of them, their first job in television, and they had been hired with the title of associate producer. They were not members of the Writers’ Guild, the powerful union for writers in movies and TV, and thus were not receiving health benefits, and would not qualify later for a percentage of video and rerun sales. 'Michael said, ‘I’m getting a lot of heat from the union to call you guys writers and pay you under the union rules,’' Eric Zicklin, one of the associate producers, says. ‘I don’t have the budget for that. But if they keep coming down on me that’ll mean I’ll only be able to afford one of you and the other one’s gotta go.’

… One by one, his employees stopped believing in the Cause. The job became just a job, and Moore became just another boss in a business that had an almost limitless tolerance for bad behavior. But, because they had once believed in him, their disappointment was painful."

Particularly intriguing is Moore's speculation that he would have to fire one of his associate producers if he had to pay them Writers' Guild-mandated wages.

This becomes especially interesting when one considers Hubich's astoundingly-dishonest take on comments by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, whom he does not like.

Wall publicly speculated that, if Saskatchewan agreed to a contract with its teachers' union similiar to the one Alberta teachers have, his government would liklely be forced to lay teachers off, as has been happening in Alberta.

Hubich had a different take. He claimed -- quite falsely -- that Wall had threatened to fire teachers over negotiations.

Judged according to Hubich's rhetorical standard, Michael Moore's threat to his associate producers is very different. They weren't involved in any kind of negotiations with Moore (one can only imagine how Moore would have reacted if they'd even mused about unionizing). Moore's "threat" -- according to the Hubich standard -- was that one of the associate producers would be fired if the Writers' Guild (of which neither was a member) didn't get off his back.

Yet Larry Hubich seems to rather like Michael Moore, but dislikes Brad Wall to a rather comical degree, despite the fact that the people of Saskatchewan simply do not agree with him.

But Wall's 59% approval rating -- which Hubich seems to be having a hard time coping with -- is besides the point. Perhaps he could be troubled to tell Canadians how he feels about the prospect of Brigette DePape being offered employment by such a notoriously horrible boss.

After all, he threatened to fire his associate producers. By the Hubich standard, that is.

British Tories Gearing Up For Fresh Union Fight

British unions cautioned against facing off against the government

As British labour unions prepare to oppose vital austerity measures with a series of protest strikes, Business Minister Vince Cable is set to issue a warning to a union conference:

If they hold the delusions coalminers unions held in the 1980s, when they believed they could topple the Margaret Thatcher government, they need to think again. There are factions within the Conservative Party that are eager to crush them again, just as Thatcher crushed the coalminers' unions.

This leaves Cable in the position of the good cop to the Tories' bad cop.

In a leaked speech intended for an upcoming union conference, Cable is expected to state the following:

"The usual suspects will call for general strikes and widespread disruption. This will excite the usual media comments about 'a summer' or 'an autumn' of discontent. And another group of the usual suspects will exploit the situation to call for the tightening of strike law."

"We are undoubtedly entering a difficult period. Cool heads will be required all round. Despite occasional blips, I know that strike levels remain historically low, especially in the private sector. On that basis, and assuming this pattern continues, the case for changing strike law is not compelling."

"Should the position change, and should strikes impose serious damage to our economic and social fabric, the pressure on us to act would ratchet up. That is something which both you, and certainly I, would wish to avoid."

Among the Conservatives eager to strengthen strike law is London Mayor Boris Johnson, who wants legislation to declare that at least 50% of a union's members must participate in a strike vote. In other words, Johnson wants to ensure that a minority cannot decide for the majority.

It's a sound policy. And while Prime Minister David Cameron has stated that he prefers Thatcher's strike laws -- which limited the ability of unions to impose closed chops and increased the number of union members required for a quorum -- this would be a tremendous improvement.

The last time labour unions decided to take on a Conservative government they had backing from the Soviet Union, and they still lost.

They would be wise to listen to Vince Cable this time around, or Boris Johnson may succeed in making it harder for unions to intercede politically.

Time to End the Political Levy in Canada

In a recent episode of The Michael Coren Show, the issue of a donation by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to support a Canadian contribution to a flotilla to break the Gaza blockade became an issue of feirce contention.

Ontario Federation of Labour President Sid Ryan was asked if the donation represents tax dollars supporting Alternatives International -- a Montreal-based radical organization -- in international grandstanding against Israel.

Ryan insisted that this was basically the use of private money to support this cause by the workers' choice, not public money. And he's right. And also he's wrong.

He's right that while Canadian postal workers are paid with public funds, that money is no longer public funds once paid out to workers. It becomes theirs to do with as they choose.

But Ryan is wrong in insisting that this represents workers doing as they please with their money. That simply is not the case. This is a case of funds collected through union dues being used for political purposes, regardless of the view of individual workers.

The individual worker has limited opportunity to have a voice in whether or not the dues they pay will be used for these kinds of activities. That's decided by a relatively-small number of delegates at union conventions.

The worker doesn't have the opportunity to leave the union or withhold their dues if they object to these decisions -- the Supreme Court has allowed unions to force workers to pay dues in closed-shop environments, regardless of whether or not they're actually extended membership by the union.

This kind of story gives Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- governing with a majority -- the opportunity to do something that would aatisfy two ends: take a stand for thousands of disaffected union workers across Canada, and make the far-left really wail.

Harper's government should follow the British example of Margaret Thatcher and end the political levy in labour unions.

In Britain, the political levy was the use of mandatory funds collected from union members to fund the Labour party. As per the law, labour unions are not funding political parties in Canada. What they are doing is funding non-party political organizations.

The Harper government should pass a law that would ban unions using funds collected through mandatory union dues to fund political activities of any kind -- this includes third party campaigns at election time. If unions want to collect voluntary fees from members to fund those activities, that should still be permitted.

The far-left, quite naturally, will wail about losing their ability to force unionized workers to fund their activities regardless of their own will. Harper should simply let them wail. No one will care.

The thousands of workers in Canada, particularly those practically conscripted into union-coerced political bondage, will appreciate finally having the opportunity to decide if their money will fund far-left radical political projects or not. Perhaps union executive committees will even become a less-appealing job for demagogic leftists.

It's time to end the political levy in Canada. End it now.

What Is the Future of Labour's Finances?

Debt-riddled Labour Party refudiates former Deputy Prime Minister

With the British Labour Party's treasury swimming up to its gills in debt, tbe party has made the peculiar move of rejecting a former Deputy Prime Minister.

In doing so, the party also put some distance between itself and the spectre of New Labour.

Lord John Prescott, former Deputy PM under Tony Blair, was defeated for the office of party treasurer by Diana Holland, an official with Britain's Unite union.

Holland seems to share Prescott's dismal view of the party's finances, even if she doesn't phrase it in the same apocalyptic language as Prescott.

Her plan is to right the party's finances on the strength of small donors.

"I will work hard to build a stronger party in all respects, not just financial, and I will make putting us on a sound footing to win the next election my top priority," Holland announced. "I will make recruiting and involving new members a real priority, helping to build a mass membership movement and also helping to secure our finances by maximising small donations from ordinary members and supporters."

Holland was able to defeat Prescott on the strength of the votes coming from affiliated labour unions. Prescott received 60% of the votes from the party members, but only 0.14% of the vote from affiliated unions.

In other words, Holland received nearly 100% of union votes in the race, in addition to 40% of the votes from party members.

Even with the ballot favourably weighted toward party members, the math seems to add up to a near-overwhelming defeat.

Even with Holland's promises to correct the disastrous state of Labour's finances, the question remains as to what the future of Labour's finances will be.

Given the role the union vote played in her election, Diana Holland may have some favours to repay. Whatever effect that will have on Labour's finances remains to be seen.

David Cameron vs The Vested Interests

Cameron prepares to fight rhetorical war with labour unions

As British Prime Minister David Cameron prepares to roll out his government's austerity program, Cameron has declared his intent to take on Britain's "vested interests".

Roughly translated: unions.

"They got us into this mess and they haven't got any idea how to clear it up," Cameron insisted.

Across Britain, labour unions are lining up against the coming austerity program. Brendan Barber of the Trades Union Congress has warned of "social unrest" over government cuts.

"We have a duty to reflect the real worries and fears, and real anger that will grow as people see the impact of government policy," Barber insisted. "The Government has invested a lot of effort in trying to persuade people there is no option. That's not the case. The risks of going down this track are enormous and will make the situation worse."

"There is an alternative," he continued. "Don't be fooled by the barrage of propaganda by the Government, that all of this is simply unavoidable and there are no choices. There are real choices. These are not decisions made out of necessity. They are made out of political principle and choice."

Of course, the history of the actions of labour unions during times of fiscal crisis in Britain shouldn't fill anyone with a wealth of confidence in them.

As in almost all western countries, labour unions have proven to be especially ham-fisted when negotiating with governments. In Britain, labour unions have deliberately attempted to destroy governments that don't cave into their demands, no matter how arduous they may be.

For Barber, the "other option" is for government to stay the course, and continue spending itself into a Greek fiscal quagmire.

If anything reminds ordinary Britons that labour unions simply don't have Britain's best interests at heart, it should be this. Rather, British labour unions have their own interests at heart, and no one else's.

David Cameron needs to do more than simply battle these vested interests. He needs to reach into the Margaret Thatcher playbook, and find a way to defeat them.

Uncovering the Fingerprint of Communism on the British Coalminers' Strike

British coalminers' union accepted communist funds

A dirty secret of the cold war has come to light recently, as a study by Dr Norman LaPorte and Stefan Berger have revealled that Britain's National Union of Mineworkers accepted funds from East Germany in the midst of its 1984-85 coalminer's strike.

The revelation casts further light on a key page of cold war history.

The strike was considered a key ideological confrontation of the cold war. The British coal industry had been nationalized since 1946, when the Labour Party government of Clement Attlee passed the Coal Industry Nationalization Act. Coal mining in Britain would henceforth be managed by the National Coal Board until its privatization by the Thatcher government in 1987.

The strike began when the Thatcher government moved to close coal pits that were unprofitable, and had become a liability to the government. (The Tories had already attempted once to do this in 1981, but abandoned these plans in the face of a strike.)

The government's plan to close 20 pits -- at the cost of 20,000 jobs -- spurned the NUM to begin strike action.

But the Thatcher government was prepared for the strike. The conversion of many British power plants to oil, as well as pre-strike stockpiling of coal, allowed the government to ride the strike out and outlast NUM strikers.

If not for the financial intervention of the communist German Democratic Republic, one wonders how long the NUM could have held out.

The ferrying of these funds to NUM was seemingly an international affair.

"The documents talk about the possibility of using a 'go-between' from the French communist union CGT [General Confederation of Labour] who would deliver the money straight from Eastern Europe to representatives of the NUM," Berger explains. "They also allege that the East German FDGB union {Free German Trade Union Federation) helped the miners by providing free holidays for the families and children of British miners in the German Democratic Republic."

"The FDGB, the documents say, also co-ordinated the shipping of food parcels, clothing and so on to British miners," Berger continues.

The East German communists saw the coalminers' strike as a choice opportunity in the ideological struggle between communism and capitalism.

"The communists perceived the NUM as an ally in the international class struggle against capitalism - hence the close interest in the strike," Berger added.

Nor was the coalminers' strike the only time NUM associated with east European communists.

"Relations between the NUM and east European communism had been good since the 1960s," Berger explains. "It was among the first major trade union federations to call for the recognition of the GDR."

"However it was by no means the only union with a cosy relationship with East European communism," Berger continues. "By the late 1970s, 24 of 44 members of the general council of the Trades Union Congress represented unions which had 'fraternal relations' with East European communist unions."

"It was, above all, the anti-capitalism of left-of-centre British trade unionists which made them believe that East European communism was on the right path," Berger concludes. "The British Left ignored massive human rights abuses and the lack of basic freedoms behind the Iron Curtain because they believed that the basic development in the direction of socialism was right."

It was this same willful ignorance of the atrocities of communism that had turned George Orwell -- who helped popularize coalminers as a left-wing political cause celibre with The Road to Wigan Pier -- away from his admiration for socialism and led to the clear anti-communist attitude expressed in Animal Farm.

(Orwell, it could be said, may have been history's first neo-conservative.)

The revelations regarding the 1984-85 coalminers' strike could, in time, lead to deeper investigation of the 1974 coalminers' strike, in which NUM managed to bring down the Conservative government of sir Edward Heath.

With intrepid historians such as Stefan Berger and Dr Norman LaPorte exploring these issues, one can only wonder how many more such episodes could be revealled.

Remember Kids, It's Conservatives Who Are Thuggish and Violent ;)

John McDonnell muses about assassinating Iron Lady

One of the more interesting ways to assess one's character is to ask them what they would do with a time machine.

If they could go anywhere in history, and change anything they liked, what would they do?

Labour leadership hopeful John McDonnell has his answer. He says that he'd like to "go back to the 1980s and assassinate Thatcher".

As in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher -- one of the famed "big conservative three" of the 1980s, alongside then-US President Ronald Reagan and then-Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

McDonnell made the remarks to a leadership candidate forum for labour unions. His remarks reportedly drew applause.

McDonnell has yet to get on the ballot for the Labour leadership -- party rules dictate that candidates must collect 33 nominations from sitting MPs in order to be formally nominated. However, if fellow candidate David Miliband -- who, along with his brother Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, has received his 33 nominations -- has his way, all six declared candidates will appear on the leadership ballot regardless.

In McDonnell, it appears that the Labour Party has a problem. McDonnell, along with Diane Abbott, are clearly the candidates of left within this race.

It's a key demographic that the party needs to keep in touch with. But candidates like McDonnell musing about assassinating a former Prime Minister -- while hiding behind the notion of victimhood because he was employed by a union, not working in the industry the union represented -- will only drive much-needed moderates away from that demographic, and possibly out of the party altogether.

There's clearly a moral reason why McDonnell cannot be allowed to simply write the remark off as "a joke". But there are practical political reasons as well.

The Labour Party cannot afford to let John McDonnell simply walk with that particular remark. It may be better off if McDonnell never manages to reach the 33-nomination threshhold.

CUPE And the Truth -- Not a Good Combination

It's been difficult to escape a batch of recent ads released by the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

In the ads an interviewer talks to people who are made out to be random passers-by in public places. If not for the atrocious acting on the part of the interviewees, it might even be believable.

The least believable of these ads is one in which a woman sings some undue praise for Canadian health care. This isn't to say that Canada's public health care system isn't due any praise, but rather that the ad in question intentionally skates over some serious deficiencies in Canada's public health care system.

In the ad, the woman recounts a story in which her daughter breaks her ankle while skating at a local ice rink. In her story, the rink staff call 911, promptly receive ambulance service, and her daughter is home in a couple of hours.

In no way is this an accurate portrayal of Canada's public health care system.

Anyone calling 911 for someone with a broken limb -- unless it was a serious compound fracture -- would simply be advised to help the victim to get to a hospital.

911 services wouldn't send an ambulance for such an injury. Even if they did, the individual in question would be considered an extremely low-priority patient. Any patients suffering from life-threatening conditions or injuries would be helped well in advance of this patient, inevitably resulting in a wait of several hours for that ambulance.

Moreover, ambulance services aren't covered by the Canada health act. Some provinces pay for ambulance services in cases where the patient's condition justifies the use of the service -- an ankle break wouldn't qualify.

When the patient finally arrived in the emergency room, she could wait more than seven hours for treatment.

Given the evident differences between the tale recounted in the CUPE ad and a little thing the rest of Canada likes to refer to as "reality", it would seem that some questions for CUPE are in order.

But as it turns out, CUPE doesn't accept any comments that question the messaging of their advertising.

Which is rather unfortunate. CUPE itself tends to obstruct any efforts to cut the costs of middle- and upper- management in Canada's public health care systems. The costs saved, if diverted to front-line service, in the form of additional doctors and nurses, would solve a great many problems.

But CUPE is far too interested in preserving redundant bureaucracy than improving Canadian health care -- or even allowing the truth about this to be told.

CUPE Ads a Good Deal (Of Goods)

Few Canadians watching any amount of TV right now can escape the Canadian Union of Public Employee's "Good Deal For Canadians" ads, in which an interviewer (read: actor) asks an assortment of people-on-the-street (read: worse actors) whether or not they think Canada's public services are a "good deal for Canadians".

Unsurprisingly, all of the actors in the ad agree that Canada's public services are a good deal for Canadians.

For the most part, they're right. But the CUPE ads themselves are selling Canadians a deal of goods. (This is a painfully mixed metaphor, but there's a point to be made.)



Many of the services the ads allude to: water treatment, sanitation, libraries and health care, are indeed necessary and valuable services for Canadians.

But not all of Canada's Public Employees provide valuable services for Canadians.

Many of the "services" offered by Canada's Public Employees are little more than the appendages of the embedded state, and that state's embedded ideology. "Services" like the funding of advocacy (read: activism) by groups funded by the Status of Women, for example, provided very little in terms of service to Canadians -- unless they shared the state's embedded ideology.

Predictably, CUPE itself opposed changing the Status of Women's mandate from "advocating equality" to providing actual services of value for Canadians.

"Services" like the Status of Women's advocacy certainly had very little value for Canadians who are indifferent to, or opposed to, what had become the state's embedded ideology. It was difficult to support services like that on a logical basis.

But where CUPE can't appeal to logic, it chooses to appeal to emotion and vanity. The first CUPE ad closes with a subtle bit of branding, when the "interviewee" declares Canadians who support Canada's public services to be "awesome".

If this had come up with a legitimate person-on-the-street interview, that would be one thing. But in an ad that is scripted -- and scripted badly -- it's simply contrived.



In the second ad, CUPE touts the economic value of Canada's public services. Indeed, some of them have a tremendous economic value. The economic value of health care, for example, is obvious. Employers in Canada are compelled to spend far less on health insurance for their employees than employers in the United States.

Libraries help our youth advance their education, and encourage literacy later in life -- both of which are of inestimable economic value.

But then, there is what Brian Lee Crowley deems to be "pseudo-work". In his book Fearful Symmetry, Crowley recounts how the baby boom compelled the government to set up entire social programs in order to absorb baby boomers entering the job market -- worried that the free market would be unable to accomodate them -- and how needs that would otherwise be satisfied by part-time work were expanded into full-time jobs, or how needs that required full-time work were expanded to require an extra multitude of full-time workers.

These public services -- found in crown corporations like CN, Via Rail and HydroQuebec -- aren't merely of limited economic value. They're actually of negative economic value. Not only do they suck the funds necessary to pay these employees out of the economy, but they also suck the skills of these employees out of the free market, where they could be applied much more efficiently.



In the third ad, the interviewer talks to a woman who simply has to be the worst actor in all of these ads, who gushes about Canada's health care.

Canadian public health care is indeed a good deal for Canadians. But not nearly as good as this woman insists as it is.

The woman recounts a (fictional) story about her daughter breaking her ankle at a local arena. The arena staff call 911 (unlikely for a broken ankle) who then sends an ambulance (also unlikely for a broken ankle).

But a visit to a Canadian emergency room would quickly dissuade anyone from believing this woman's story. Seven hour waits don't tend to inspire Canadians with absolute confidence in health care.

Of course, this is not the fault of the employees working in the emergency room. They make do with the resources they are given.

However, a great deal of the resources pumped into Canadian health care are sucked up by a surplus of middle management. Whenever a provincial government in Canada makes a move to divert more resources to front-line services by laying off middle managers, CUPE or one of its provincial equivalents fires up a panicked campaign accusing that government of "attacking health care".

Moreover, some of the limits the unions themselves place upon their employees prevent them from working extra hours in order to serve Canadians. The impact of this on Canadian health care becomes most pronounced when one looks at diagnostic medicine.

Ironically, diagnostic health care in Canada would be of better quality without the unions. But CUPE won't tell you that.



In the final ad, the interviewer talks to an unemployed worker, who appreciates the support unemployment insurance offers to struggling Canadians -- particularly at a time of global recession.

No argument is necessary to this particular ad. Unemployment insurance has a tremendous value to the Canadian economy, particularly local economies. It prevents workers -- who often possess extremely valuable skills -- from leaving local communities, provinces, or even the country to seek work elsewhere, by providing them with aid to get them through tough times.

But aside from this, the CUPE ads go to great lengths to conceal the fact that many of the "services" -- appendages of the embedded state's embedded ideology and pseudo-work -- the ad is intended to defend either provide little value to Canadians, or are actually encumbered by the union itself.

To envoke a far less tortured metaphor, the CUPE ads are trying to sell Canadians a bill of goods. Canadians should continue to buy the ones that offer value, and reject the ones that do not.

CAW Has Done the Right Thing

But Chrysler will have to reciprocate in time

Re-negotiating CAW's lucrative labour contract with Chrysler must be the hardest thing CAW President Ken Lewenza imagined he would ever have to do.

Yet that is precisely what Lewenza has done. In doing so, he's saved thousands of jobs for his constituents in the Canadian Autoworkers Union.

In voting to accept a cost-cutting deal with Chrysler that will save thousands of jobs, the CAW have themselves an immense service.

Naturally, not everyone sees it the same way. Especially militant is former CAW President Buzz Hargrove, who blamed the government for the entire affair. "I'm angry as hell," he fumed. "I'm not angry at my union, they've done an incredible job. I'm angry at a government. A government that has used a heavy hand -- Mr. Clement and Mr. Bryant, the provincial government as well -- to force workers to give up things that they've worked hard and gained over the years."

It isn't surprising. Hargrove had already made an appearance on a special episode of CBC's Dragon's Den insisting that the government should extend automakers an unconditional bail out -- adamantly refusing to admit that extending such a bailout without a significant restructuring of the companies' operations would inevitably result in further financial trouble for those companies, and further lost jobs. Possibly even another bail out down the road.

Hargrove's sense of entitlement seems to have not wavered one iota. When he appeared on the Dragon's Den Hargrove showed up with his hands in his pockets, almost entirely unprepared to defend his position, and offering little to persuade anyone that such a bail out should be extended at all.

"It's unprecedented where a government would step in and say: 'You're going to cut your wages by $19 an hour,'" Hargrove grumbled. "You know, there's over 20 countries around the world -- France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand - all of these countries around the world are pumping money into the auto sector because of the worldwide economic crisis we find ourselves in."

Yet Hargrove overlooks the fact that it wasn't the government that demanded Chrysler cut its wage costs by $19 an hour -- that was Fiat, the partner in the merger that will hopefully save that company.

Despite Hargrove's objections, CAW has indeed done the right thing. But this is far from the end of the story.

In time, the onus will eventually fall on Chrysler to also do the right thing and reciprocate CAW's good will. This should come in the form of a structured plan to restore the conceded wages and benefits once the company becomes profitable again.

A situation where a labour union makes concessions to help a struggling company stay afloat shouldn't be tolearted. Having done the right thing for both themselves and Chrysler, CAW shouldn't be betrayed like many other companies have done in the past.

CAW May Let GM, Chrysler Die

Autoworkers Union unwilling to save workers' jobs

Without receiving bailout dollars, General Motors and Chrysler may both be in bankruptcy within the next 60 days.

If this happens, both companies would likely halt their operations while they are liquidated.

CAW, the Canadian Autoworkers' Union, could help prevent this by making key wage concessions that would allow Fiat to forge ahead with a merger with Chrysler that could save that company.

At $19 per hour, the concession being asked of CAW seems steep. But not when one considers that, between wages and benefits, the average CAW worker receives $76 in total compensation per hour, for a total of $156,000 per year. Under the proposed restructured labour deal, this average total renumeration would be reduced to $57 per hour, for a total of $112,000 per year.

Without these concessions, according to the judgement of nearly any economist, government bail outs of automakers would accomplish nothing in the end -- the companies would continue to be perpetually unprofitable, as they continue to undercut any potential profits by paying for overpriced labour.

While CAW has agreed to negotiate reductions beyond what has already been agreed to, it's unlikely that they will agree to give up the $19 per hour that Fiat is demanding. This makes it all the more likely that the company will be lost within the next month.

Unless GM receives a similar deal, it will likely be in bankruptcy one month after that.

All the jobs of those working on auto assembly lines for these two companies would be lost -- and all because CAW refuses to admit to the economic realities facing these two countries.

The government cannot afford to continually bail out perpetually unprofitable firms.

Only 13% of CAW's 225,000 members work for automakers.

Thus, the government stepping in with a bailout without CAW making the kind of concessions necessary to allow these companies to operate profitably could only really be for the benefit for those working for these companies -- approximately 29,250.

Canadian tax dollars should be spent for the benefit of all Canadians -- all 30 million of them -- whenever possible. Spending billions of dollars in taxpayers' funds to ensure that 29,250 people can continue to earn more than $150,000 a year is nothing more than spending superfluous amounts of government funds to ensure the extravagant material benefit of a tiny portion of Canadian society. Moreover, the government would be doing this only to have to inevitably have to do it again.

Only to CAW, an organization so chronically self-indulgent that only CUPE really compares, would something like this make sense.

Tony Clement's refusal to ride to the rescue in the absence of any realistica attempt by CAW to restructure its labour agreement so GM and Chrysler can afford to continue operating may not be popular with members of that union or their families, or even those who sympathize with organized labour.

But it is the right decision. To continually bail out less than 30,000 people to the expense of 30 million people is simply not an option for any responsible government.

It isn't Tony Clement, the Conservative party, or the Canadian government that are prepared to allow Chrysler or General Motors to slip into bankruptcy. It's the Canadian Auto Workers union that are allowed to let these companies -- and all the jobs they provide -- simply die.

Nice Teaching Job You've Got There

...Be a shame if something happened to it

The Canadian Union of Public Employees has a message for any Israeli academics who may want to teach or speak on unveristy campuses in Ontario:

Condemn Israel's military actions in the Gaza Strip. Or else.

CUPE drafted the proposal as a response to a December 29th attack on an Islamic University in Ghaza.

"Attacking an institution of learning is just beyond the pale," CUPE Ontario President Sid Ryan announced. "They deliberately targeted an institution of learning. That's what the Nazis did."

Of course Ryan is overlooking the fact that Hamas is widely known to use schools and hospitals as hideouts for their fighters, normally using the occupants of those buildings as human shields or to provoke international outrage when those buildings are attacked.

Reports that the University was being used to store weapons for Hamas remain unconfirmed.

But as debate over Israel's actions in Gaza become a matter of intense international debate, as they so often do, CUPE's move to force Israeli academics to denounce Israel's actions would ultimately have the effect of limiting this debate on University campuses across Ontario.

Moreover, Ryan is overlooking an important issue underlying the permanent state of affairs between Israel and its various Islamic militant foes: that is, a state of total war.

Canada has not been at a state of total war for well over 60 years. While Ryan's criticism may suit an ordinary country under ordinary states of warfare, but Israel is no ordinary country and its conflict with Hamas is no ordinary conflict.

If anything, perhaps Ryan should consider condemning the University in question should claims that it was storing weapons caches for Hamas turn out to be true. After all, any institution of higher learning that agrees to store weapons certainly surrenders its sancrosanct status.

While an air strike is most certainly an unsuitable method for dealing with such situations -- a special forces strike provides additional safety for civilians, although there are never any guarantees in war -- any University that chooses to provide material support to a combatant becomes a legitimate target in war time.

Academics -- be they Israeli or otherwise -- have the right to hold such an opinion if they so choose. For Sid Ryan to imagine that he can coerce them into saying otherwise is dangerous for the academic climate of any university.

Bill 26 Long Overdue

New day dawning for labour rights in Alberta

You mess with the bull, you get the horns -- or so the saying goes.

When the Alberta Federation of Labour and Alberta Building Trades Council oonstituted their "Albertans for Change" front group and aired ads accusing the Stelmach Conservatives of (among other things) being corrupt, they must have imagined that the government would look into some of their own practices and start dealing with some of their corrupt practices.

Now, that time is fast approaching as Bill 26 -- the Labour Relations Amendment Bill -- is set to be debated in the Legislature.

Among other things, the Bill designates Ambulance workers as an essential service, makes it unlawful for individuals who have been employed at a workplace for less than 30 days to vote in a certification vote, provides new opportunities for the revokation of a Union's bargaining power, and outlaws "Market Enhancement Recovery Funds".

Naturally, Alberta Federation of Labour is outraged, insisting that Bill 26 is an attack on workers' rights:

"The Bill does three things to attack worker rights:

1. It restricts the rights of construction workers to choose union representation. In the name of banning so-called "salting", the bill prohibits workers who have worked for a construction company for less than 30 days to participate in a certification vote. It also gives 90 days following the vote for workers to "change their mind" about joining the union.

2. It outlaws employer-paid wage-subsidy funds negotiated between employers and building trade unions. Market Enhancement Recovery Funds (MERFs) are a srategy employed by construction employers and unions to help unionized contractors win bids against non-union contractors. The Bill outlaws these legally negotiated funds.

3. It strips the right to strike from ambulance workers. Ambulance workers will now be forced to use binding arbitration, like the rest of health care workers, rather than be allowed to engage in a legal strike."

These particular objections really show a person where organized labour's priorities are in this particular situation.

First off, the practice of "salting" has long been a method by which Labour Unions have artificially expanded their membership by engineering a favourable confirmation vote. Now, Labour Unions will have to organize the old fashioned way: by convincing the employees of a workplace that Unionization is for them, as opposed to merely stocking it with their own people.

Secondly, the 90-day period in which workers may -- by majority vote -- reovoke a certification vote gives them an opportunity to prevent any unpleasant surprises being sprung on them, such as a Union immediately re-staffing a workplace with their own workers on the basis of seniority.

The AFL is also conveniently overlooking the fact that Bill 26 also requires that any employee voting in a certification revokation vote have been employed by that company for more than 30 days, preventing employers from stocking their workplace with their own people in order to engineer a de-certification.

Third, outlawing MERFs takes away an unfair advantage that Unions are using to render the contracting market less competitive. Now non-Union workers will have a greater opportunity to compete with Unionized labour: surely an unwelcome prospect for Unions that have often used their collective power to protect substandard workers.

Fourth, whether the AFL likes it or not, Ambulance workers are providing an essential service. That is a simple fact.

But the AFL's objections to Bill 26 go beyond that. They seem to be very worried about the prospect of actually having to compete with their competition:

"Bill 26 is a gift to the Conservatives' friends in the construction industry - a group of anti-union contractors and an "alternative" union have been agitating for these changes to hamstring the building trades unions in the construction sector.

The Merit Contractors Association and the Progressive Contractors Association (PCAC) have been lobbying for restrictions on certification votes and the elimination of MERFs for almost a decade. Both are avowed "open-shop" associations, which seek to undermine union representation and enhance employer rights in the construction sector. Members of both organizations are closely connected to the Conservative Party in Alberta.

A direct beneficiary of the changes will be the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC), an employer-friendly "alternative union" that preaches a more cooperative, collaborationist version of unionism. Because CLAC works more closely with employers, they stand to benefit disproportionately from employer-biased rules."

Perhaps if the AFL had spent less time campaigning and more time making itself legitimately competitive, it wouldn't have to feel so threatened by Bill 26.

In the end, Bill 26 is almost assured passage from the inability of the AFL and ABTC to organize an effective response to it.

Which is fine in the books of many Albertans. Certainly, workers do have the right to unionize. However, that right doesn't spare them the "indignity" of having to be competitive in the work market.