|
Vol 35 No 2
International says restructuring ‘not negotiable’
Washington denies member rights
On May 14, the restructuring negotiations, facilitated by former LRB chair Stan Lanyon, ended abruptly when the Provincial Council was informed that those issues of any real substance were not negotiable. In spite of the clear message the membership sent through our 1997 and 1998 conventions, in spite of the large majority opinion delivered in the responses to the membership survey last summer, and in spite of the conflict between its position and the Labour Code in BC, the International has decided that its way is the only way.
Ninth District board member Jim Smith, speaking for the International, told our Council president Len Embree and secretary-treasurer Dave Flynn, that the issue of dividing the province into three regional full-service councils complete with the 33 mandatory bylaws was not open for discussion.
The 33 contentious bylaws being imposed throughout North America and outlined previously in On the Level, provide a structure that centralizes authority and control in an appointed CEO-type position, making Local Unions almost redundant and certainly powerless.
Smith also indicated that he saw the Provincial Council becoming little more than a “service organization” with no power to negotiate, police or defend the agreement, and with no role to play in organizing. He said the Council would prepare briefs and administer some funds with no “direct or indirect control over any of the locals.”
The Provincial Council officers feel they must now take the issue to the membership so everyone can be aware of developments and be able to make informed decisions.
To that end, a series of special issues of On the Level dealing with the arguements around restructuring and renewal of our organization is planned. It is the Council’s intention to keep the membership informed and involved to the greatest extent possible.
The regular June issue of On the Level, coming out soon, will also provide a forum for discussion and member input.
Please take the time to study the questions raised in this special issue. Talk to your fellow Carpenter members.
International insists–no votes, lower wages
By Doug McCorquodale
The International Union’s intention to create three full-service regional councils in British Columbia should come as no surprise. (see above)
The American-run international office has imposed this structure without membership approval throughout North America ever since Doug McCarron was elected General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners in 1995. The common features are: no elections, no ratification process by the members, the gutting of Local Union funds, and the indiscriminate acceptance of the 33 mandatory bylaws.
Officials to be appointed
This means all officials are appointed by the International Union and the members lose their democratic rights.
In BC, the International Union intends to transfer “many (Provincial) Council functions” to three regional full-service councils, creating little fiefdoms in the province. The three appointed councils would perform all the functions that the Provincial Council of Carpenters presently does and more.
Under the new restructuring proposal the Provincial Council would be a mere service organization, administering some funds, representing the union at the BC Federation of Labour, publishing On the Level, and “preparing briefs and submission on behalf of the locals in the province,” according to International board member Jim Smith.
End of province-wide bargaining
The chief officers of the three full-service councils would handle bargaining in the province on their own. The International states that ratification of the collective agreement would be pursuant to “the 1982 order of the BC Labour Relations Board.” Magnanimous of them to volunteer to recognize the law. But they neglect 17 years of labour relations development since then and ignore the very existence of Bill 26 which quite clearly outlines how construction bargaining is to take place in British Columbia.
Expropriation of assets
Locals will be forcibly merged. Officials appointed. The International further states, “The elimination of offices and buildings and the reduction of support staff and business representatives/organizers will not be left to the discretion of the locals.” (Their emphasis) This is consistent with previous actions of the International throughout North America where assets and funds were transferred from the local unions to the full-service council. Additionally, the International, through its appointees, obtained control of the pension funds and transferred the funds to corporate pension administrators. Carpenter pension and benefit plans are being investigated by US federal authorities for alleged improprieties.
Illusionary successes
The International has been boasting of success with their full-service councils throughout North America. Contacting appointees of the full service councils reveals another story. Market share of union work is stagnant even in booming markets. The strategy of dropping the wage rates to entice contractors to become signatory is unsuccessful. The optimistic reporting of increased hours in places like Las Vegas doesn’t take into account the incredible building boom enjoyed by the area over the past three years. Yes, hours are up, but not necessarily as a percentage of the actual work underway. Yes union members are working, but so is everyone else, and there’s still more of them than us.
There are many legal and other questions unanswered in the International document. However a number of answers are clear. There will be no votes, the wage rates will be dropped to much lower levels, all officials will be appointed by the International, the pension plan will be controlled in the US, and the union will no longer be a union if the International prevails. It must be up to the members in BC to determine the fate of the Union—not some business unionism generated in a foreign country.
In short:
• The International seeks control of the union by imposing full-service councils throughout North America regardless of the wishes of the membership.
• The International has used force to impose the councils in some areas, seizing offices, changing locks and closing down operations. Sometimes it is done by International representatives from outside the province or state and in at least one case, with fifty armed security guards.
• Pension and benefit plans are being switched by the International from their present administration to a company called Zenith Administrators, which is a subsidiary of Union Labor Life. Doug McCarron sits as a trustee for Union Labour Life as well as several pension plans.
• Perini Corporation, a large, American, nation-wide construction company holding a major investment by the Southern California Carpenter Pension Plan and linked to US Senator Dianne Feinstein, has Doug McCarron, the trade unionist and pension plan trustee, on its board of directors.
• The US Federal Department of Labor is conducting an investigation of the handling of New York Carpenters Union benefit funds. This investigation follows transfer of administration of the $1.7 billion funds to Zenith Administration. McCarron’s appointees took over the New York Carpenters Union and the fund three years ago.
• The imposition of Doug McCarron’s full-service councils without democratic support has fostered Carpenters for Democracy collectives around the continent. There is a growing number of websites and bulletin boards on the internet opposing McCarron’s restructuring plans. Search for “Carpenters Union” on your favorite search engine and be prepared for a very long list of hits.
Council demands democratic voting rights for members
After several years of examination, the BC Provincial Council has proposed the following discussion points to advance the process of renewing our organization to meet the challenge of organizing and representing our membership in the coming years.
It is generally accepted that the Carpenters Union will have to restructure itself in order to remain effective. This need to restructure is primarily a result of diminishing resources. The current structure was once supported by over 17,000 members. With fewer than 10,000 members today, the finances are no longer available to support all the existing Local Unions and District Councils.
There has been recognition of this for some time. In fact, the provincial Executive Board was debating alternative structures when we were advised by our General Executive Board Member that there would be no deviations from the proposed mandatory bylaws.
Council responsibilities
Under the existing provincial structure, the responsibilities of the B.C. Provincial Council are extensive. The Provincial Council holds the certifications and is the bargaining agent for all the Construction Carpenter Local Unions and the Millwright Local Union in the province. In addition to negotiating the Standard Agreement with CLRA, the Council is responsible for legal and arbitration issues arising from policing the collective agreement. The Council also assists with organizing campaigns, including advising on strategies, making applications for certification, and representing the union at Labour Relations Board hearings.
The Provincial Council administers all the industry funds, including the Dues Supplement Fund, the Contract Administration Fund, the Strike Fund, and the Organizing Fund. The Council represents the Carpenters Union at the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Bargaining Council of British Columbia Building Trades Unions.
The Provincial Council is responsible for establishing policy for the Carpenters Union in BC, and for ensuring that the collective agreement is applied consistently throughout the province. The Council prepares and delivers membership education courses around the province; it oversees publication of On the Level, the union newspaper; and it prepares briefs and submissions for government lobbies. In many respects, the B.C. Provincial Council already is a functioning full-service council.
Lack of authority
There are certain areas, however, where the authority of the Provincial Council falls short of its responsibilities. The most notable of these areas is organizing. Although the Council administers the Organizing Fund and is responsible for the Provincial Organizing Program, the Council cannot compel Local Unions to participate in organizing. Initiation fees and policies for bringing in new members vary from Local Union to Local Union. Organizing funds often are used as a subsidy for business agent wages rather than being directed specifically at organizing.
Mergers
In order to improve efficiency and effectiveness in British Columbia, the roles and responsibilities of the Local Unions, District Councils, and the Provincial Council should be redefined. The first step in this realignment would involve merging a number of Local Unions that now are financially marginal, in order to make every Local Union in the province stable and self sufficient. The proposals for Local Union mergers are detailed further on in this article. In any case, no mergers should be forced on an unwilling membership—everyone must have the right to vote on the future course of their Local Union.
Local Unions would continue to be responsible for servicing within their areas, including dispatching, enabling recommendations, and initial handling of grievances. The method of selecting their business representatives (hired vs. elected) would be determined by the Local Unions.
Provincial Council
The current Provincial Council structure provides for two full-time officers: the President and the Secretary-Treasurer, who are elected for three-year terms by the delegates at convention. Provincial Council duties are shared between these officers as equally as is practical. Given the workload and the wide range of responsibilities at the Council, it would be impractical to attempt to maintain the current level of service with a single Executive Secretary-Treasurer. It is proposed that the two-officer system be maintained. Elections would continue to be conducted by delegates at convention.
The Executive Board would continue to have regional and sectoral representation. With a number of Local Union mergers likely, as well as possible dissolution of the District Council structures, amendments would be required to the constitution to maintain the current distribution of regional representation.
Organizing
The Provincial Organizing Program should move to a more centralized structure. Organizers around the province would be placed on the payroll of the Council, and they would come under the direct supervision of the Provincial Organizing Coordinator. Regional organizers would be selected through a joint process involving the Council and the Local Unions in the region.
The organizers would work with the local representatives, but the Council would have the ability to assign the organizers where they are most needed around the province.
Initiation fees and policies for admitting new members should be standardized throughout the province.
District Councils
Under the present structure in British Columbia, representation to all Provincial Council bodies comes through the six District Councils. It is proposed that the existing District Councils be eliminated as chartered bodies, but the existing regional representation be maintained. For example, the Okanagan District Council would become the Okanagan Region; the Kootenay District Council, the Kootenay Region; and so on. Consideration should be given to combining the Central BC District Council and the Northwest BC District Council into a single Northern Region.
Provincial Council Vice-Presidents, Benefit Plan/Pension Plan Trustees, Apprenticeship Committee members and so on who are now elected through the District Councils would be elected at the Local Union level in each Region. Existing District Council treasuries would be distributed back to participating Local Unions on a per capita basis.
Local Unions
Currently there are 27 Local Unions in the Province of British Columbia. These are as follows: 17 Carpenter Local Unions, one Millwright, one Pile Driver, one Floorlayer; two Industrial Shop Locals , four School Board Locals, and one Shipbuilders Local Union.
Some of these Local Unions are marginal, with limited financial resources and often have the ability to hire a representative on only a part-time basis. It is proposed that through the amalgamation of Local Unions, the overall cost of administration and office expenses could be reduced, allowing for more of the available resources to be allocated to organizing and servicing.
Within the existing District Council boundaries, it is proposed that the following mergers could take place if the affected Locals agree.
Lower Mainland District Council
Local Union 1995 Vancouver-New Westminster, Local Union 1907 Chilliwack-Mission, and Local Union 1928 Industrial should be merged. The new Local Union would maintain an Industrial Section. Dispatch could be consolidated. The Industrial Section would continue to be represented on the Provincial Council Executive Board. Combined resources would allow for more organizing efforts in the Industrial Section and within the current areas of Local Unions 1907 and 1995.
The Allied Local Unions—the Millwrights, Pile Drivers, Floorlayers, and Shipbuilders—would maintain their existing autonomy, as previously proposed and supported by both the BC Provincial Council and the International.
Vancouver Island District Council
It is proposed that the current six Local Unions within the Vancouver Island District Council be reduced to two Local Unions. Local Union 1598 Victoria is large enough and has the resources to sustain itself and so should be maintained.
The remaining five Local Unions share a community of interest. Each has at least one pulp mill within its jurisdiction, with the majority of their work in the industrial sector, as opposed to the primarily commercial/institutional market in the Victoria area. Consolidating the assets of Duncan, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Campbell River, and Powell River would allow for more full-time representatives. The existing Local Unions would negotiate the number of regional offices and representatives maintained.
Okanagan District Council
The Okanagan District Council currently has four Local Unions, with four business representatives and four office support staff. The administration of these four Local Unions could be combined into a single Local Union. If necessary, this consolidation would allow for cutbacks in office support staff. Consideration also could be given to reducing the number of offices maintained in the Okanagan. As in the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan Local Union would have an Industrial Section, with representation on the Local Union executive and the Provincial Council Executive Board.
Kootenay District Council
Local Union 2300 Castlegar and Local Union 1719 Cranbrook should be merged into one Local Union for the entire Kootenay region. A single administration office should be maintained in the West Kootenays. A representative/organizer should be maintained in the East Kootenays, working out of a home office or, if finances allow, a small rental office.
Central BC District Council
Local Union 1237 Dawson Creek should be merged into Local Union 1998 Prince George. The administration office would be in Prince George. As with the East Kootenays, a representative/ organizer would be maintained in the Peace River area.
Northwest District Council
Local Union 1735 Prince Rupert and Local Union 1081 Kitimat should be merged. Consideration should be given to having the membership records and so on administered through the Prince George office.
Again, it must be stressed that these points are the basis of discussion only at this time Any binding decisions would depend on the support of the membership and the endorsation of constitutional authority.
International fails membership again
COUNCILCOMMENT by Dave Flynn
Since 1996, when the Provincial Council first learned of General President Doug McCarron’s plan to restructure the Carpenters’ Union across North America, the Council has been anticipating the day when the International would attempt to force its will upon the membership in BC. It appears that day is close at hand.
On May 14, the restructuring negotiations, facilitated by former LRB chair Stan Lanyon, ended abruptly when the Provincial Council was informed that those issues of any real substance were not negotiable. In spite of the clear message the membership sent through our 1997 and 1998 conventions, in spite of the large majority opinion delivered in the responses to the membership survey last summer, and in spite of the conflict between its position and the Labour Code in BC, the International has decided that its way is the only way.
Since 1964, there has been a province-wide collective agreement for carpenters in BC, with certifications and bargaining rights held by the Provincial Council. It didn’t matter whether a company was organized in Cranbrook or Campbell River, it would have to operate under the terms of the collective agreement anywhere in the province. The International is proposing that this be changed. It proposes that three or four full-service regional councils be set up in BC, each with their own bargaining rights and their own collective agreements. Under this plan it is possible—even probable—that a contractor might be union in the Lower Mainland but be able to operate non-union in the Okanagan or the north. We cannot conceive how fragmenting our certifications would be in the best interests of the union.
It is interesting to see how the International position on breaking the province into autonomous regions parallels the position of the contractors at the bargaining table. The contractors have even begun to use some of the International’s terminology, referring to “regional councils” in their pursuit of lower rates through regional agreements.
All of this runs contrary to what the Provincial Council has been hearing from most areas of the province over the past two-and-a-half years. Following direction from the Provincial Council Executive Board and our conventions, we have been working towards strengthening the union through consolidating resources and increasing accountability, while at the same time preserving the democratic rights of the membership.
We recognize that decreasing membership numbers and reduced resources make it necessary for some Local Unions to merge, but we believe the membership is entitled to have a say in these decisions. We acknowledge that wage rates vary in different regions of the province, but do not agree that it is necessary to carve up a province-wide certification to address these differences.
Above all, we believe that whatever recommendations on restructuring are brought forward, they must be approved by the membership through a referendum vote.
So why would the International’s agents disregard everything we have been trying to tell them for almost three years? They claim that restructuring has brought success everywhere it has been imposed. A quick scan of a few Internet web sites will tell you otherwise. Could it be that they are more concerned with consolidating power than they are with advancing the union? It is clear now that McCarron’s emmisaries never took the facilitated talks seriously. After all these months, to suddenly declare that the real issues are not negotiable makes you wonder if their only real purpose was to try to improve their legal position when the matter ultimately ends up in court. And why would the International propose carving up the Provincial Council into smaller regional councils unless it was to reduce the power and influence of the existing Provincial Council so that Washington might more easily impose its will in BC?
But, as always, the International has failed to factor in the most important part of the equation: you, the membership.
The Provincial Council remains committed to the principle that the final word belongs to the membership through the democratic process. Ultimately, it is you who will decide who holds your bargaining rights, and it is you who will decide how the resources of your union are best allocated.
No successful union has ever shrunk to greatness
Winning hearts and minds key to organizing
by Josh Coles, BC Organizer
Over the coming months you are going to hear a lot about organizing.
The American led International and its BC supporters will tell you that they need to impose their type of restructuring so that the union can regain its share of the construction market.
But others, like myself, question the International’s motives and argue that its restructuring has less to do with meaningful organizing and more to do with taking away your right to vote, denying our union’s successful history, and lowering your union wage.
General President Doug McCarron and his BC supporters’ vision looks more like a Labour Unlimited or Labour Ready than like a union. Their solutions ignore the successful parts of our history. Our union was built fighting for workers’ democratic vote, not taking it away; it was built struggling for workers’ raises, not cutting them.
In the early days the basic approach to union organizing of the construction industry was one of recruiting and taking into membership all those who were employed in the trade. The UBCJA and the BC Provincial Council of Carpenters was founded on this bottom-up organizing principle.
The basic goal of these founding organizers was to take wages, benefits, and working conditions out of competition. Having all workers work for the same rate means contractors can’t pit workers against each other by only hiring those that work for the least.
Theoretically, International supporters will tell you, lower wages means getting more work. Work more for less, they’ll explain. And yet the International is not offering BC members reduced dues, or a reduction in the $1 million a year we send to Washington.
And when has lowering our rates ever led to positive things? It simply doesn’t make good business sense! It would be like running your own construction business and bidding for next to nothing. Sure, you would be busy and working all the time— but you wouldn’t be able to make a decent living. And you wouldn’t be in business long!
For a trade union to meander along this wage-cutting path of least resistance leads to a dubious future for all members. Our solutions do not lie with gutting our collective agreement, they lie in strengthening it. No other successful union has shrunk to greatness, nor can ours.
There is only one real solution to our problems. We must admit our mistakes and return in force to bottom-up organizing. We must again measure a tradesperson’s qualifications for membership by his or her ability to secure and retain employment in the industry.
All can agree that we are experiencing grave difficulties in organizing. Our problem is obvious: we have failed to win the hearts and minds of construction workers due to a lack of relevance, a lack of work, and a lack of focus.
We must make every effort to rebuild and regain a monopoly of the manpower in the industry. We must ensure that never again will the numbers of qualified nonunion tradespersons exceed or surpass the numbers of our members.
To this end we must go out and talk to non-union workers and encourage them to join. We must place our members on non-union jobs for the purpose of selling the union idea, the union spirit, and the union principle.
But as we accomplish these goals, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are first and foremost a collective body of workers fighting in our own best interests.
We can’t ask workers to pay dues to an organization that they have no democratic control over. We do not want a union that itself imposes lower wages, seizes control of members’ assets, and makes project concessions — all without a single membership vote. This is not a formula for a union— it’s a blueprint for a bank.
We’re not a branch of the Bank of Carpenters Union with its US-bound service charges. We are a BC union that strives to puts its members interests, history and wages first.
The following is a letter from the Provincial Council lawyer to the International’s lawyer asking for clarification of their edict. Ninth District board member Jim Smith made it clear to the Council that he has no intention of amplifying his comments or anwering any questions.
LAUGHTON & COMPANY BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS
BRUCE LAUGHTON & LEAH TERAI
Suite 1090 - 1090 West Georgia, Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3V7 TEL: 683-6665 FAX: 683-6622
May 14, 1999
Black, Gropper & Company
#1640 – 401 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5A1
Attention: Allan E. Black, Q.C.
Re: United Brotherhood of Carpenters - Union Restructuring
On May 11, 1999 our client the British Columbia Provincial Council of Carpenters received a copy of a letter dated May 10, 1999 setting out the International Union’s proposed initiatives to restructure the Carpenters’ Union in British Columbia. At the meeting held yesterday our client was advised that it had until May 20, 1999 to provide a response to that proposal after which time a report would be forwarded to the General President.
At this point our client is not in a position to provide a response by May 20. This is so since a number of questions regarding the proposals remain unanswered. We are therefore writing to request that answers be provided to the following questions:
I Regional Full Service Councils
1. What are the advantages of dividing the Union into three geographic regions?
2. How will officers and employees be established? In particular, will they be appointed and if so by whom and for what period of time?
3. How will the size of the Executive Council be determined?
4. How will existing Trust Agreements regarding pension and health and welfare benefits and the collection of payments under the standard agreement be modified e.g. will the parties to the Trust Agreements be changed?
5. Who will co-ordinate the three Full Service Councils when they operate on a provincial level?
II Role of the B.C. Provincial Council of Carpenters
1. What will happen to certifications held by BCPC?
2. What will happen to Voluntary Recognition Agreements to which BCPC is a party?
3. What will happen to the BCPC constitution? What process will be used to amend it?
4. What will happen to the funds currently held by the BCPC e.g. Strike Fund, Legal Defence Fund?
III Mergers/Dissolutions
1. Will employees be given a vote on the question of mergers or dissolutions?
2. What Locals will be merged or dissolved?
3. Who gets the assets of the dissolved Locals?
In addition to seeking responses to the questions set out above we also ask that we be provided with a copy of any report from Mr. Smith to the General President so that our client will be in a position to respond to that report prior to the General President making any unilateral decisions.
We look forward to receiving a positive response to these requests.
Yours truly,
Bruce Laughton
International ‘vision’ termed radical intervention
The following “radical intervention” is what Ninth District board member Jim Smith, in a cover letter, terms “our vision.” In this vision, the Provincial Council becomes predominately a service organization with no responsibility for any organizational or collective agreement activities. See page 1 for analysis.
UBCJA Proposal for Restructuring in British Columbia
I Regional Full-Service Councils
The UBCJA proposes to create 3 regional full-service councils:
(1) the Lower Mainland Regional Council (Locals 1907, 1928, and 1995);
(2) the Vancouver Island & Area Regional Council (Locals 513, 527, 1598, 1812, 1989, and 2068); and
(3) the Interior and Northern Regional Council (Locals 1081, 1237, 1346, 1370, 1540, 1719, 1735, 1998, 2300, and 2511).
The full-service councils (FSC) will be governed according to bylaws similar to those adopted in other Canadian jurisdictions. The bylaws will be in complete compliance with, and consistent with, the laws of British Columbia. For example, this means that the ratification of collective agreements will continue to follow the 1982 order of the BC Labour Relations Board. Mobility and local hires will be subject to the language negotiated in the collective agreement. Trust funds operate according to the trust document. Collective bargaining for the carpentry locals shall be conducted by a central negotiating committee co-chaired by the three Executive Secretary-Treasurers.
With autonomy similar to that of the Pile Drivers, the Executive Secretary-Treasurer (EST) and Executive Committee shall exercise the full powers granted to them by their bylaws within their geographic boundaries including organizing, legal & defense, and policing the collective agreement. Similarly, the FSCs together will perform these functions on a provincial level. Representatives/organizers shall be hired by the EST and Executive Committee and take direction accordingly.
The number of delegates, the number of officers, and the size of the Executive Committee shall be determined separately for each of the three regional FSCs.
II Role of the BC Provincial Council of Carpenters
The BC Provincial Council of Carpenters (Council) becomes predominantly a service organization responsible for providing designated services to and, in certain circumstances, acting on behalf of, its member locals. It will retain many of its current responsibilities which include, but are not limited to: administering the various funds, representing the Carpenters’ Union at the BC Federation of Labour and the Bargaining Council, overseeing publication of On the Level, and preparing briefs and submissions on behalf of all locals in the province.
It remains a meeting place for the specialty locals, the regional FSCs, and the school board locals. The Council would continue to hold an annual convention to pass policy issues of a broad nature which do not impact on the day-to-day operations of the specialty locals, the regional FSCs, or the school board locals. It does not exert direct or indirect control over any of the locals as is the current situation with the Pile Drivers.
The executive, delegate and committee structure of the Council change to accommodate the transition from District Councils to regional FSCs, the jurisdiction of the FSCs, and other related changes. Staff and budget reductions would reflect the reduced responsibilities.
Some committees become redundant. Most funds will be collected and distributed without discretion to the FSCs on the basis of membership. The Council will maintain many of its administrative functions.
III Mergers/Dissolutions
The six (6) District Councils would be dissolved. In addition, the seventeen (17) carpentry locals and the two (2) industrial locals would be reduced to approximately twelve (12) in total through a series of mergers. The elimination of offices and buildings and the reduction of support staff and business representatives/organizers will not be left to the discretion of the locals. The rationalization will be according to a number of criteria including administrative efficiency, finances, and local realities.
IV Specialty Locals
The Pile Driver, Shipbuilders, Floorlayers, Millwrights, and School Boards would, for the most part, continue to operate as they do now. The Millwrights would continue their transition to greater autonomy, as would the Floorlayers. Some consideration may be given to extending the jurisdiction of the Floorlayers’ local province-wide.
Our union has to be structured on the firm base of membership participation
Union members entitled to democracy
PRESIDENT’S CORNER by Len Embree
It is with a good deal of frustration that I try to explain the fiasco that the International has created with regard to restructuring since I was elected president a year ago.
A facilitation process had been agreed to and was underway when I was elected in May 1998. Since that time, a number of meetings have taken place, with the Council presenting a general outline of where we thought there would be membership support and where we thought our union could be more efficiently structured to better represent our members. At all times our position was based on membership participation and ratification. At our convention this year, I went so far as to mention in my opening remarks our support for the facilitation process and our opinion that it was the best process to follow for resolution of the differences between the International and ourselves.
I feel somewhat foolish about those remarks now, because it appears that the International had no intention of finding a resolve in the facilitation process. At a meeting held on May 13, we were informed of the International’s position, which is covered in other articles in this issue, and basically were told, “There it is. You can respond, but there will be no changes, and also we aren’t prepared to answer any questions.”
Should we be surprised? I think not! I think it is pretty clear that they have an agenda of taking control in BC, whatever the consequences. They have been very consistent over the years, with the help of some of our more unscrupulous members, in creating mischief and trying to undermine the effectiveness of the Council. This in the face of clear support for the Council by a large majority of our members at every level of participation in our union.
It is obvious that there are two distinct ideas of what constitutes a trade union, one held by the International and their supporters, which is very much in the minority, and another by the rest of the membership in our province.
The Council, in representing the majority, feels very strongly that our union, with all its problems, has to be structured on the firm base of membership participation and vote. Our membership has the right now to vote on collective agreements and to elect their leadership. Why would they give that up to a body not only outside our province but even outside our country? If the International is that convinced of their proposal, put it to the membership for a vote. That is our right, and we pay dearly for it.
Where do we go from here? I think it is imperative that we let our position be known. It is the correct one for anyone who has any feelings for membership democracy. I think we need to be prepared to be very vigorous in the support of our position at every level in our union, and also with other labour organizations.
The Council, through both convention resolutions and Executive Board decisions, has a mandate to do whatever is necessary to preserve the rights of our members. We intend to do that to the very best of our ability.
We will be publishing more special editions as well as regular editions of On the Level to keep you fully informed of developments. Talk to one another and trust your instincts. I simply don’t accept that a majority of our members would be willing to turn over the decision-making process that affects their day-to-day working lives to some appointed hacks whose loyalties obviously would lie with the person making those appointments. So much for accountability.
That, I suppose, is the question!
Council represents Locals
This article is abridged from a Dec. 1997 On the Level column written by former Provincial Council president Peter Norris. The dollar figures are similar for recent financial statements.
In this article, I want to talk about just what it is that your union does for you, both the Provincial Council and the International.
As the accompanying chart shows, the majority of the monies collected by the Provincial Council is distributed back to the Local Unions. A key function of the Council is to collect and administer the hourly check off dues that are remitted by contractors, along with health and welfare and pension payments. These dues are then sent back to the Locals and are the major source of income for all Locals.
Other funds that are sent back to the Locals include the Organizing Fund, the Dues Supplement Fund, and the Contract Administration Fund. Additionally, a portion of the interest on the Strike Fund is sent to the Locals. The Education Fund is used to fund programs delivered at the Local Union level and the Bursary Fund is paid out to eligible students to help further their education.
The Legal & Defence Fund is financed by Strike Fund interest and pays for the wages and expenses of the legal & defence co-ordinator and for lawyers and fees for Labour Board hearings and grievance and arbitration costs.
The Strike Fund pays strike pay and costs for labour disputes. Like all of the above funds, the Strike Fund is administered by the Council officers according to Council policy.
On a day-to-day basis, your Council officers represent the union in a variety of forums. These include: the BC Federation of Labour, Construction Labour Relations (CLRA), and the Building Trades Unions Bargaining Council, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), and government.
Your Council officers and staff prepare briefs and submissions regularly and on a variety of issues for governments, school boards etc. This is a major part of our lobbying and advocating role of our membership.
|
Provincial Council Income fiscal 1996
|
|
Programs and returns to Locals
|
| Construction per capita |
89,267 |
|
. |
| Other Locals per capita |
29,382 |
|
. |
| Check off |
397,269 |
|
. |
| Organizing fund |
849,978 |
|
637,313*
|
| Education fund |
48,813 |
|
95,083** |
| Contract administration fund |
181,912 |
|
195,215 to locals |
| Convention/Bursary fund |
9,076 |
|
15,400 |
| Strike fund |
251,557 |
|
183,200 to Locals |
| Strike fund interest |
179,316 |
|
213,188 to Locals |
| On the Level |
. |
|
81,432 |
| Legal & Devence |
. |
|
227,648*** |
| . |
. |
|
. |
| Dues Supplement (36¢ hr.) on 3,840,085 hours |
1,412,994 |
|
1,494,435 |
| TOTAL |
$3,449,564 |
|
$3,142,914 |
* includes wages and expenses for provincial organizers as well as $337,724 payments to Locals
** includes $61,000 for seminars and $6,000 transferred to Bursary Fund
*** includes lawyers fees, legal & defence co-ordinators wages and expenses, Labour Board hearings and grievance and arbitration costs. Expenses do not include officers or staff wages or donations and office expenses.
INTERNATIONAL PER CAPITA sent to USA (estimated)
| Construction |
890,000
|
| Other Locals |
290,000
|
| Total |
$1,180,000
|
Returned to Locals:
The Carpenter Magazine and part time services of General Executive Board member, International Representative, and Canadian Research Director. No estimated value available.
|
|
|
