The provincial New Democrat affiliation committee's majority report continues to be shredded by labour movement members. Yesterday, in a comment posted on Public Eye, United Steelworkers of America research department staff representative Kim Pollock opined that the committee responsible for the report was "a rough, rude railroad job, not a reasonable meeting of (the) minds on a matter of cardinal importance to the future of the party." He also questions the political value of de-affiliation noting "my own analysis of recent BC Fed and NDP polling, for instance, indicates that there is little if any support for a change in the relationship between unions and the party among voters the NDP needs to win." And Mr. Pollock, who is married to New Democrat treasurer Cheryl Hewitt, calls on an elder party statesman "to mediate this matter before we hurt the party irreparably." Mr. Pollock's boss, United Steelworkers of America district three director Steve Hunt, was one of three union leaders on the affiliation committee who opposed the majority report. The following is a complete copy of his posting.
Name: Kim Pollock
Comments:
I think the point that is being missed, not only here but throughout much of the debate on affiliation, is that the NDP was originally formed as a partnership or federation. For instance, there were originally affiliates from the co-op movement and farm organizations as well as labour. That was the basis on which labour became a direct participant in the party.
The reason for this was that the union leaders and other builders of the New Party wanted to give it both the financial clout and enhanced access to the affiliates' members that might flow from a more direct relationship than was in place under the CCF.
Over time, the other affiliates back away. But the unions stayed. So for us, it remains a partnership, not just one more organization which we simply ask our members to join or support. Many union members become NDP members through involvement in their unions and they see their party involvement as part and parcel of their labour activities. They believe they have become members of labour's political party.
Unions are therefore still one of the main recruiting, information and ideology-disseminating and motivating vehicles available to the NDP. And many union workers frankly do not have the time or opportunity to take part in constituency associations. Most constituency organizations have their meetings on work-day evenings. That makes it difficult for shift workers or folks like the logging-truck drivers, loggers, etc. who get up and go to work at 3 a.m. or the growing number of people who work 10 or 12-hour shifts on a four-day rotation to take part. They still want to be involved in the NDP but it is unrealistic to expect them to participate at the constituency level, take it or leave it. Affiliation offers them that possibility.
At the same time, unions want affiliation so that they are not merely a "cash cow" from which the party can access funds without having in return some guarantees of labour involvement and participation in policy development and electoral strategy. We do not want an American-style system in which we bargain or even bid for the support or one party or another. We believe in the concept of a "people's party" which represents directly the interests of unionized workers in addition to its other members. That doesn't mean that we want to control the party -- 25% of delegates at conventions, coupled with OMOV for leadership selection, hardly constitutes control -- but it does mean that we want a significant role in its processes and activities.
All of this tells me that we need to rethink the current process before we create a severely-damaging and irreparable split. The party, as I have noted, is a partnership. If folks want to dissolve this partnership, they should perhaps do it some other way than via a split vote in a party committee in which the affiliated unions voted one way about their future in the party, unaffiliated unions or individuals voted another way. We should be clear, as well, that not one of the affiliated unions wants an end to affiliation. What we see here is effectively a rough, rude railroad job, not a reasonable meeting of minds on a matter of cardinal importance to the future of the party.
And to what end? My own analysis of recent BC Fed and NDP polling, for instance, indicates that there is little if any support for a change in the relationship between unions and the party among voters the NDP needs to win. The strongest support for the propostion that the party is "too close to unions" comes from the highest income-earners, unsurprisingly -- the folks least likely to vote NDP and most likely to vote Liberal. In other words, it's hard to understand what folks who want a change in the affiliation relationship actually hope to gain from it.
What we desperately need right now is someone to mediate this matter before we hurt the party irreparably. The caucus, which has been put in the uncomfortable situation of either harming their leader or harming the party, can't do it. Almost all the Table Officers and Executive have taken sides. We need some senior diplomats or elder statemen or women, therefore, to take both the affiliated union leaders, the leader of the unaffiliated BCGEU and the party leader aside and convince them how destructive this whole affair is to the party.
Permanent link
I think the voting public can easily be informed by stats which indicate that since unions are the biggest single contributor to the NDP party they must have undue influence. I believe the reform should focus on donations. Individual union members should donate to the party while the union administration should finance third party advocacy.
Union organizers and activists can still lobby and run to win seats on the executive and as MLA's but should not have automatic representation. This is where the appearance of fairness and democratic principles have suffered..it needs to be changed.
That has got to be the single most reasonable thing I've seen "sleepswithangels" post here.
As for Kim's argument:
I am a union worker and have a family income that puts us near $100K a year. I have never supported my union using my dues to support or get involved in political parties of any stripe.
Leave the decision to get involved in political parties to the individual. The history of the why's and wherefore's of union affiliation is really immaterial to the discussion. It's more important to figure out what makes sense to move the party forward now. And finance reform probably makes more difference than affiliation.
Pedro
At least give me some credit for exposing neocon agendas...I have a caustic/comedic style that isn't to everyone's taste. I do come by it honestly though.
I've had a longshoreman's ticket in the toughest local in the country..ditto LIUnion.
Prior to this I attended an exclusive private school, was raised in an enclave of European royalty and now work in the local TV industry. In other words..I've got a unique perspective..honed by extensive travel and study.
I've been involved as an organizer/fundraiser in the environmental movement and have managed political campaigns and worked with street youth.
My privately owned company trades with mid east regimes in defiance of Uncle Sam and I've earned the right to voice my concerns with neocon agendas.
I feel strongly the the NDP is our best hope for protecting Canada from the imperialistic designs of US neocons so I am passionate about making sure the party gets its act together. At the core of this is making sure the party is accessible to all and to do this the unions will have to back off a bit. This does not mean the party will cease to fight for the rights of workers and their unions.
Nope. Sleeps with angels wasn't being reasonable here, either (he/she never is). Labour isn't the biggest single contributor to the party. Individuals are. But enjoy carrying water for the Sihota/Perry funky crowd.
gee ibo dog
wanna explain how thousands of individuals are a single contributor?
no rush..take all the time you want..that's it scratch those itchy bits
no one is looking...you can stop holding in that giant gas bubble you call a brain..let 'er rip
sleepswithangels
(aka sucksfartsoutoffunkyvancouverbunch)
Look at the yearly financial returns for the political parties. NDP; 65% donations individuals. Liberals, 75% donations corporations)
You just don't like unions because they stand in the way of total 'urbanfunkyMoncky' domination. Muahahahahahaha!
easy boy...sit...shake a paw..that's a good mutt!
your knee is still jerking...baaad dog
get whoever is reading this to you to find where I have posted anything even remotely anti-union
then you can take your flea ridden ass outside
It has been fun provoking you into anger and into revealing your true agenda. ? yo quiero funky monckton ?
Delusion
Look it up
Then explain how I can be angry while I'm laughing my ass off reading comments from sore losers with marginal intelligence like you.
You might want to ease up on the steroids and eat a couple of dozen boxes of laxitive.
I don't know if it will ease your paranoia but it might drain your brain of excessively moronic beliefs.
The strangest thing about this exchange is the incredible similarity between the writing style of SWA and Taco Bell Dog.
ob
You are so full of shit and have absolutely no powers of deductive reasoning. The results and implications of all that has transpired in the last few days is going to rankle and disturb right of center supporters for years to come. Get over it.
It's either sepuku or go back to your daily regimen of pigs ears, Coors and Fox News.
Leave the political commentary to those with critical thinking abilities.
ob
Sorry guy..I got carried away with the 'rough and rude' theme of "Fighting Words".
While you might have thought that I would set up a phony dialogue just so I could make someone look like an ignorant pissant...it wasn't necessary.
There are more than enough half wit whack jobs posting on this site for trolls like me to feast on..I sure don't have to invent them.
Well at least you admit you're a troll. Whose bridge do you sleep under? Is it an urbanfunkymoncky bridge?
witness herbie..case in point
herbie do want me to ask neil if you can bl** him?
your childish repetition of your pet name for him reminds me of prepubescent types who would voice their infatuations by trash talking the object of their desire
herbie do want me to ask neil if you can bl** him?
Wow man. Where'd that come from? Uhhh, that's not the type of thing that a dude would say to another dude, dude.
I agree
We're getting off topic. The real architect of this affiliation fiasco is none other than David Perry. Between him and Raj Sihota, they've blown this one from the start and alienated everyone in the party from everyone else. With such geniuses at the helm, 2009 isn't looking so good.
you guys sound like fundamentalist christians, or fundy xians as I prefer to call them, who continually attack homosexuality... but behind closed doors..do it every chance they get
wot
a lot of things can change in 3-4 years
smile...be happy...neocons are self destructing everywhere
the concern is with how much 'collateral damage' they will do as they implode
And while the neocons are imploding, what is your bunch doing? Sitting around talking to the same 20 people in your little insular group.
And you people have the gall to say that unions are what's wrong with the NDP. It's your useless crowd. Unions held this party together long before you arrived on the scene, and will long after your crowd disappears into oblivion due to your non-existent political talents.
Repeat after me. Would you like fries with that?
This might come as a real shock to you herbie but I have yet to read anything negative about unions from the people you are refering to.
What I hear is a pathological hatred for things you don't understand..since that covers a lot of territory it's a real good idea that you have camoflaged your identity...you is one stoopid puppy.
Caustic. Right. Sleep believes "the NDP is our best hope for protecting Canada...". The fact that only 10-15% of the electorate agrees with him is probably the result of American mind-control technology. Or it might just be because of Svend "That was no ordinary ring, but a ring of POWER" Robinson.
Svend: We've lost it my precious. Gone. Gollum! Ack!
Frodo: The ring?
Svend: No. We've lost our seat. Taken it they have. They hates us. Ack! Gollum! Splutter...
Without getting into too much detail, I think one should note that the "minority" report and Kim Pollack's piece both make a point of hitting the "American" thing. That's supposed to be an automatic deal closer with most NDP and Labour types.
Pollack alleges "The strongest support for the propostion that the party is "too close to unions" comes from the highest income-earners...". For instance, those spoiled darlings of the labour movement, members of the notoriously NDP-friendly BCTF at top of grid get better than $65K/yr. This keeps them among the top 10% of Canadian incomes, and they're striking for a 15% raise. An NDP MLA gets a base pay rate of $75,400. But maybe Pollack is on to something. Carole James gets $114,400/yr, definitely in the high-income bracket.
Budd:
It's "Pollock" actually, as per the article and Sean's kind introduction -- Hunt and Cheryl being damned with faint praise, notwithstanding (actually, Steve is not formally my boss, since I work for the Canadian National Office of Steel, not District 3. But yes, I still generally do what he asks me to, though.)
Since you at least identified yourself, however, Budd, it seems reasonable to reply. I'm not anti-American, nor are Steelworkers -- it's an international union, after all. But it just happens that the way I described US politics is the way it is. Although labour generally supports the Democrats at the federal level, in state, local and Congressional politics there are dozens of exaples of favour trading in which unions bargain their support to both Democrats and Republicans in exchange for various sorts of political favour. To my eyes, not a terribly pretty picture!
I'll tell you why. I much prefer the current situation in Canada and much of Europe, for instance, where labour supports and is formally allied with the party most closely aligned with it politically and ideologically. The reason for all this stuff, after all, is not short-term political or economic advantage or gain but long-term transformation of society in a specific direction and away from other specific directions.
The direction toward which most labour activists and New Democrats presumably want to move, after all, is one in which workers can look forward to good jobs in safer workplaces with decent pay; respect for workers and their challenges accomplishments, both on the job and in civil society; decent child care and education for their kids and health care for themselves and their families; safe, secure, healthy, stable communities; sustainable use of land, resources and the natural environment and a good mix of human rights, democratic rights, civil liberties and social responsibility, rules and obligations that should be applicable to both citizens and their elected officials.
I could go on but I think you get the picture -- it's some version of socialism or at least as much as of it as is currently consistent with the brute reality of advanced, globalized capitalism. I don't honestly think we can make much progress in that direction in the context of a "log-rolling", favour-trading political system like that which is all-too-characteristic of American politics. There are many good things about the US, the US labour movement and US politics. But there are also good things about European politics and the current situation in BC and Canada. And it is that goodness of our system that is currently being tampered with -- perhaps unwittingly -- by some BC New Democrats.
I hope this helps clarify my position.
K.
KP
It must be a constant source of irony that while many socially progressive activists, who are also union members and organizers, frequently have to wrestle with the fact that their work contributes to the illegal and genocidal activities of the US government. Compounding this is the fact, as you state, that unions in the US make deals with Republicans in order to get what they want. In light of this I'm at a loss to understand why you have praised the US political system. I'm sure glad we don't elect sheriffs and police chiefs and prosecutors here.
I think the problem may be that the hypocrisies are so huge now that we just don't see them anymore. Just one case in point is that while marijuana is among the least toxic drugs on the planet (LD factor of 650), people are persecuted and rot in jail for posession of this benign herb while over 400,000 people in the US die every year from tobacco use while the Republican party protects it. Yeah..great country...wonderful political system.
I think unions are going to have to get off the ideological fence and take a stand or become irrelevant. If they stand for social justice they need to accommodate those in the NDP who don't have the kinds of conflicts of interest that some unions bring to the table. This means that they need to relinquish their claims to automatic representation in order to get the message out to non union voters that the NDP represents all people interested in social justice and is not controlled by a union agenda.
What is your problem with unions, sleepswithangels (aka trowelsinbowels)? I guess unions and regular people are the only thing standing in the way of your and your urbanfunkymoncky domination of the NDP. ell screw you. You all have buggered up enough elections.
You betcha, these funckymonckys have got to go! So do you, sleepwithangels.
Billy/gotcha/herbie/ryan/poppa/funky etc etc your schizophrenia can be treated but your're stuck with that tiny intellect..tough break.
Suck it up princess -- all 10CCs
I know your bus pass has probably expired and your funcky group is on the brink of oblivion, but don't get angry at us for pointing out the truth.
Word!
At the Rockpile
Broken News
Creatures of Government
Fighting Words
From the Gallery
Letter from the Editor
Loose Lips
Off the Hill
Public Eye Radio
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
Copyright © 2004-2006 Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks. Public Eye is graciously hosted by TransitionalMedia. Content management services courtesy of Ian King. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design, Victoria, BC.
This site is powered by Movable Type.