[news] MFD On The Ferry Workers Arbitration

[resist collective]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[pr-x] MFD On The Ferry Workers Arbitration
Date: 	Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:14:11 -0800
From: 	Will Offley <willo at lynx.bc.ca>
Reply-To: 	RTL, project-x: it's ALL THE SAME <project-x at lists.resist.ca>
To: 	project-x at resist.ca



*This appeared today on the web site of Members for Democracy, an
opposition grouping in the United Food and Commercial Workers Union
Local 1518.  It can be found at www.ufcw.net <http://www.ufcw.net/>.

Will the System Men Sink it?

*On Friday December 12th, 2003, veteran labour relations mediator _Vince
Ready_ called for binding arbitration to end a six-day dispute between
the _British Columbia Ferry Marine Workers Union_ (BCFMWU) and B.C.
Ferry Services Inc., a former provincial Crown corporation now run as an
independent business - with some government ties.

The 4,000 workers walked off the job a week earlier over their
employer's demands for wage rollbacks and other concessions. When
ordered by the BC Labour Relations Board to return to work, the workers
refused. Ready had been appointed by the BC government to intervene in
the dispute as a "special mediator". The 11th hour mediation session
took place just as contempt proceedings against the workers were about
to begin in a BC courtroom.

When the marathon mediation session over which he presided failed to end
the strike, Ready recommended binding arbitration and union and employer
representatives agreed. Legions of business, labour and government
officials heaved a sigh of relief. The agreement ended a week long
strike that inconvenienced thousands of commuters.

The ferry workers' strike, perhaps more so than any other labour dispute
this year, has the potential to be a watershed event for working people.
As strikes go, it was short but was very illuminating about the role of
working people according to the labour relations system - to suffer in
silence for profit - and about the extent to which mainstream labour
leaders support and enable that system. It's a wake up call for us to
stop putting our faith in a system that abuses and exploits us and to
stop believing in the people who make it hum - our employers, unions and
legislators.

*Inside the System:
*When we talk about the Labour Relations System we are referring to the
various laws and government agencies that regulate labour-management
relations in Canada. The conventional wisdom tells us that system is a
good thing. It gives us rights - like the right to organize and the
right to bargain collectively - and that it protects us from people who
seek to interfere with our rights. It gives us Labour Boards where we
can go if our employers interfere with our rights to organize and
bargain collectively and arbitrators to whom we can turn if we are our
collective agreements are not honored. The conventional wisdom is that
the system gives us workplace justice but that's bullshit. The LR System
is not about justice in the workplace and was never intended to be. The
system exists to maintain order in the workplace - by keeping workers in
line.
The system was introduced in Canada in the 1940's when the Industrial
Relations Disputes Investigation Act (IRDIA) was implemented. The IRDIA
gave unions the right to recognition and required employers to bargain
once a union was recognized. Organizing became much easier and, in the
decades that followed, unions organized millions of workers. The
legislation came with a big string attached however: Strikes during the
term of a collective agreement were prohibited. Disputes during the term
of a contract were to be taken to binding arbitration - a legal process.
It was this element of the IRDIA that brought about a big shift in the
internal culture of unions. Thousands of staff reps were hired to ensure
compliance with collective agreements and to advise and counsel members
as to their legal rights. The reps were a boon to biz union leaders who
were anxious to control a not-always-satisfied membership. Although
officially they existed to provide service, they were increasingly
relied upon to keep a lid on things at the local level.
The new legislation gave significant rights to unions and placed major
obligations on employers and gave union members... a bone: the right to
fair representation and to periodically see a financial statement. What
was meant by fair representation or how detailed a financial statement
needed to be were questions the law never addressed. Members had the
right to decertify their union and join another one if they wished, but
this could only take place during a narrow window of opportunity at the
conclusion of a collective agreement. The unions quickly developed
methods to deal with members wishing to do so, some legal and some not.
On a practical level, union members had no rights at all in their
relationship with their unions. They could be neglected, poorly
represented, bullied, lied to, bought, traded and sold, whatever suited
their unions. There was no requirement that unions govern themselves
democratically. The conventional wisdom was that unions were democratic
organizations by their very nature and dissatisfied members would toss
out unresponsive leaders. An alternative view was that unions didn't
need to be democratic at all. Workers needed leadership - they needed
tough, strong guys who were not afraid to make decisions, even unpopular
decisions. But it didn't really matter. The legislation wasn't intended
to give workers a whole bunch of rights. It was about controlling their
growing militancy. Their unions would now join with the employers in
putting a lid on that.

By the 1950's, the federal government spun off responsibility for labour
relations (except for a few employers) to the provinces. Labour
relations acts were passed in the provincial legislatures and LRB's were
set up to administer the new laws. Across the country, it was decided
that grievances - complaints arising under collective agreements - would
be resolved by arbitration. Arbitration would become a private matter
between unions and employers who would retain and pay for private
"judges" to adjudicate their grievances and, in some limited
circumstances, help them resolve their differences at the bargaining
table. These circumstances would be restricted mainly to labour disputes
that could place the public at risk (such as disputes involving police,
fire department, hospital workers and so on), but from time to time
would also be used in disputes where there was inconvenience to the
public - inconvenience that might put pressure on elected officials to
end the dispute.

In theory, arbitration was supposed to be a fair and fast way of
resolving labour disputes. Representatives of management and labour
would put their cases before a knowledgeable third party (the
arbitrator) who would judiciously hear both sides and issue a legally
binding ruling. Arbitrators would function much like judges but there
was one major difference: labour arbitrators were unregulated,
fee-for-service practitioners who would be selected and paid for by both
sides. In order to successfully ply their trade, they had to please the
two institutional parties - employers and unions.

The system has evolved so as to meet the needs of the two "institutional
parties". It gives employers the right to expect loyalty, obedience and
compliance from their workers. It gives unions the right to do pretty
much what they want to their members. If a union wants quiet, obedient
members, that's fine with the system. In fact, order is best kept when
employers and unions work together to keep the workers quiet. The system
is particularly harsh on workplace rebels and reformers.

The system guys - the arbitrators, LRB officials and mediators - work
hard for the institutional parties. At the LRB's nothing gets tossed out
as quickly as a DRF complaint. Arbitrators and mediators dispense "rough
justice" to members who just can't quite get the obedience thing down
pat. ("Rough justice" is a term used to refer to mediation techniques
that border on bullying employed to get members to withdraw grievances
or sign off on settlements they don't really like.)
Mediation-arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution that's
become very popular in recent years, actually allows the same system guy
two kicks at the same dispute. First, he can put on his mediation hat
and dispense a little rough justice. If that doesn't work, he can put on
his arbitrator's hat and issue a ruling. His ruling can't be appealed.
The system works really well at keeping as lid on workers' issues.

If you are a member with a grievance or a part of a bargaining unit
whose collective agreement will be settled through arbitration, the
system guys have the ultimate power to make you or break you. They can
work with your employer and your union to make a deal and then shove the
deal down your throat. Or they can just decided, based on whatever, what
you're going to get. As far as the system is concerned, there's nothing
wrong with that.

To function efficiently, the system requires a degree of cooperation
among its three principle players: Employers, unions and governments.
Although the government is supposed to play a balancing role between the
first two and does to a certain extent, all must work together towards
one important objective: Keeping workers in line.
More about the system:

_The Inevitable End of an Era

_The ferry workers' union's tough stand, in the face of demands for
significant concessions by BC Ferries Services, drew harsh criticism
from the business community, half-assed hand-wringing from labour
leaders and some pompous snorting from other labour scene luminaries who
characterized the striking workers as crazies who needed to give their
heads a good shake. The union's President, Jackie Miller, was the target
of a great deal of the criticism with union and business leaders alike
suggesting that her principled stand was simply the result of
inexperience and inability to "lead" her members with a sufficiently
firm hand.

The criticism, from all three corners of the system was because, as a
union leader, she wasn't playing the game by the system's rules and that
just can't happen. Fortunately, the system is prepared for such
occurrences (as rare as they are) and it worked its magic on her.

*Jubilation about Arbitration

*According to media reports like _this one_ in the Globe and Mail, the
agreement to go to binding arbitration was met with jubilation by the
striking ferries workers and apprehension on the part of their employer.

*B.C. ferries return to service
Strikers elated but company unhappy as negotiations go to binding
arbitration
*By ROD MICKLEBURGH
Saturday, December 13, 2003 - Page A7

VANCOUVER -- The familiar, coastal ferries that have become an integral
part -- both loved and loathed -- of British Columbia's seascape over
the years are back in service after the company agreed to an uneasy
truce with its striking workers.

The bitter, illegal strike by 4,300 members of the Ferry and Marine
Workers Union ended just before B.C. Ferries was due in court yesterday
to seek contempt-of-court citations against the union for defying
back-to-work orders from the government and the labour board.

The two sides accepted a recommendation from special mediator Vince
Ready, perhaps the most skilled labour peacemaker in Canada, to submit
their contract dispute to binding arbitration. Mr. Ready will be the
arbitrator.

"We found it next to hopeless at the bargaining table," union leader
Jackie Miller said after a fruitless, 16-hour negotiating session that
ended at 2 a.m.

"Now there is the opportunity to have someone actually listen to our
arguments."

On the picket line, ferry workers seemed jubilant that they could end
their difficult strike, which had incensed business leaders and many
members of the public, without being forced to accept extensive
concessions that the company, B.C. Ferries, wanted and without paying a
penalty -- at least so far -- for defying the government's back-to-work
edict for more than a day and a half.

"I feel great," a striker said as pickets hugged, exchanged handshakes
and began dousing fires in burn barrels.

"I'm very happy," another union member said.

"It's good to be going back to work and make a merry Christmas for
everyone."

The company was less enthusiastic, however.  David Hahn, the president
of the company, had waged a no-holds-barred assault on the union's
contract for overtime, contracting out and pay concessions he said were
needed to make the ferry fleet more efficient.  Now, these issues will
be up to Mr. Ready.  Mr. Hahn said he "reluctantly" accepted binding
arbitration.  "We believe that a bargained solution is always the best
solution, but we understand that the first priority is to restore
service to the public."

With picket lines down, passengers began streaming to the fleet's 25
terminals that connect the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island and a number
of other island communities. Many had been lining up for hours, even
days, hoping for ferry service to resume. First in line at the busy
Horseshoe Bay terminal in West Vancouver were Bill Fleming and his dog
Whiskey from Comox on Vancouver Island. Mr. Fleming said he had been
waiting five days to get home. "The dog got more food than he usually
does . . . doughnuts and chocolate cookies from the strikers."

During Thursday's marathon bargaining session, union negotiators were
joined by B.C. Federation of Labour president Jim Sinclair and
government employees' union head George Heyman, who are believed to have
helped moderate the militant ferry workers' stand.The formerly
government-owned B. C. Ferries, which was quasi-privatized earlier this
year, carries about 22 million passengers and eight million vehicles a
year. The tie-up was the fleet's first from a labour dispute in more
than 25 years. But Labour Minister Graham Bruce, while welcoming the
resumption of ferry service, hinted yesterday that he may consider
legislation to ensure there is no repeat of the week's acrimonious,
crippling shutdown.

It's understandable that the workers would be happy to return to work
and that after a week of fielding acrimonious attacks on her sanity and
her members' motives, BCFMWU President Jackie Miller was content to go
off to arbitration. It's also understandable that, during a lengthy
mediation session where there was little if any movement on the part of
the employer, arbitration began to look like a good option. The process
has a kind of judicious smell about it. For those who haven't been there
or haven't been there enough to know what it's really all about, it's
easy to believe that it will result in a settlement that is fair,
equitable, reasonable and words to that effect. That's how binding
arbitration is usually presented to workers who can't be persuaded to
settle for less. It's like going to court. We equate the courts with
justice, so it's just a given that we'll come out with something "just".
But that's just not the way it is.

Arbitration is /arbitrary/. It's a process that allows a single person
to decide very important issues, with no recourse for anybody who
doesn't like the outcome.

*Nothing to Cheer About

*Will binding arb prove a good move for Miller and the ferries workers?
Probably not. We predict that when Arbitrator Ready is finished with
Miller, she and her members will wish they hadn't gone there. Ready will
throw Miller and the 4,000 or so members a few bones (maybe he'll leave
their wages in tact or even grant them a small wage increase but he will
side with the employer on issues of management flexibility and those are
the issues that are at the heart of this dispute.
The members, many of whom are putting a lot of faith in Ready's
impartiality and labour relations wisdom, will be sorely disappointed.
So will Miller, but there will be nothing she can do to challenge
Ready's decision /legally/.

Having agreed to go to arbitration with Ready acting as arbitrator, she
can hardly take issue with his ruling. There will be no basis for any
kind of legal challenge no matter what Ready awards the workers. They
will be expected to eat it whether they like it or not.

If they walk off the job in protest, they will be engaging in an illegal
strike and will face all the same threats and penalties as they faced
earlier this month. It's unlikely that the pro-business BC government
will bow to any kind of pressure from her union or any other - certainly
not after an arbitration award is issued (although the BC government
overturned a binding-arbitration agreement with its physicians in 2002).

Unless the momentum and solidarity that began during their strike can be
maintained, the chances of the workers themselves resorting to some sort
of protest when Ready slaps them, is unlikely. If they're being led to
believe that Ready is going to do more than /hear their arguments/,
there's a big letdown coming their way. When it happens, there will be
few people outside of their own group who will be willing to go to bat
for them.

Whatever Ready dishes out will be labeled "just" and "fair" by the
mainstream labour community. The gentlemen's rules that govern good
labour relations dictate that every good union leader must accept as a
"good thing", the decision of any presiding rent-a-judge. Miller will
feel a great deal of pressure to make like a seasoned labour leader and
promote Ready's arbitration award as a good deal for the members - even
though it won't be a good thing for them at all. We fully expect that
Ready's award will stick the workers with at least some (if not most) of
the concessions demanded by their employer - including the ability to
contract out work.

*Ties that Bind

*It's important to understand what binding arb is all about, who
presides over the proceedings and how things tend to shake out.

Binding arbitration in collective bargaining works like this:
Representatives of the employer and the union present the issues in
dispute to a supposedly impartial individual (an arbitrator) or an
arbitration panel (an arbitrator and two side kicks, one representing
management and one representing the union) who carefully considers the
positions and supporting arguments of both sides and issues a binding
(/non-appealable/) award that decides all the issues in the dispute.
The issues dealt with in the award as well as issues that were settled
at the bargaining table form the new collective agreement between the
workplace parties. The award (sometimes also called a "decision" or
"ruling") is final. There is no recourse for anyone on either side
(including the workers) who is dissatisfied with any aspect of it. The
workers don't even get to ratify a collective agreement that has been
arrived at through binding arbitration.

Who benefits from binding arbitration? Government officials who would
rather not deal with the controversy that legislating striking union
members back to work might set off; mediator-arbitrators like Vince
Ready who make their living arbitrating labour disputes and have a
strong vested interest in keeping government officials happy; labour
leaders who don't want to get dragged into some labour dispute that
doesn't involve their own members; business people whose profits might
be affected by a strike; lots of well-heeled people have something to
gain from binding arbitration. Union members? It's hard to say what's in
it for them.

True, an agreement to go to binding arb will end a strike and get union
members back to work. That's beneficial to workers in the short term.
But over the long haul, union members almost always end up one step
ahead and two steps back if collective bargaining ends in a visit to the
arbitrator. They get tossed a bone in the form of a wage increase or
some minor benefit improvement but in a lot of cases they concede (or
rather, the arbitrator imposes concessions on them) on issues that are
of critical importance to them - issues like management flexibility,
contracting out, hours of work, scheduling - issues like the ones that
caused the ferry workers to walk off the job earlier this month.

Arbitrators have complete control over the process and the outcome. They
can rule whichever way they like on any issue that's placed before them
and there isn't a whole lot that anyone can do about it.

For this reason, employer and union representatives generally try to
avoid binding arbitration when negotiating collective agreements. They
can't be forced into it except if workers are legislated back to work
during a strike or if representatives of both sides agree to it. Not
many go there, and for good reason: You can never be 100% sure of the
outcome and, because at least some of the unresolved issues are ones
that are really important, there is a lot of discomfort with the notion
of letting some outsider, who can do whatever he wants, decide those issues.

Sometimes, however, binding arbitration is used "strategically" by the
workplace parties. This can happen in situations where employer and
union representatives are pretty much agreed on what they're willing to
put in a new collective agreement, but the union is concerned that it
won't be able to get the deal ratified. In these cases, the parties
sometimes use a third party to impose their done deal on the workers.

In these circumstances, the arbitrator is not actively drawn into a
conspiracy. It doesn't work that way. Labour relations is more subtle
than that. The way it works is that during the course of hearing the
employer's and union's submissions and in the informal discussions that
often take place during breaks in the legal action, representatives
"signal" to the arbitrator where the deal they have quietly agreed to is
and the arbitrator - whose role it is to take their interests into
account - is happy to take their interests into account. It's a
nudge-nudge wink-wink sort of thing and it's perfectly OK under the
rules that govern the labour relations system. That's because it serves
the interests of the two workplace parties. The employer gets a deal
that it already knows it can live with, the union can take credit for
whatever its members get that's an improvement over their previous
contract and can wash its hands of anything the workers don't like. The
fact that the whole thing is basically a sham intended to deceive the
workers, doesn't matter because they don't matter. The labour relations
system is all about keeping them under control, not giving them rights
or empowering them.

Binding arb robs workers of what little voice they have in collective
bargaining and leaves decisions about their working conditions to
outsiders who are presented as impartial and unbiased but are, in
reality, completely beholden to the labour relations system that exists
to keep workers down. Binding arbitration is a tool used by our
governments to deprive workers of their single greatest source of power:
The right to withhold their labour.

We are not suggesting that BCFMWU President Miller is in cahoots with BC
Ferries management and agreed to trot off to binding arb just to make
some already done deal look legitimate. Miller took a very principled
stand and would never have displayed the degree of militancy that she
did if she was doing the backroom boogie. What we /are/ suggesting is
that she agreed to binding arb at least partially because of her faith
in the labour relations system and its gurus (guys like Vince Ready) and
also at the instigation of mainstream labour leaders (guys like Jim
Sinclair, President of the BC Federation of Labour and Ken Georgetti of
the Canadian Labour Congress) - men who put labour peace ahead of
workers' rights and who, just like the employers, rely on system guys
like Ready to keep workers in line.

*Rough `n Ready Gurus

*Vince Ready is more than just a system man - he's a labour relations
guru. A former government mediator (he was a conciliation officer with
the federal government and a mediator with the BC government), _Ready_
has since 1982 been president of Vincent L. Ready Labour Arbitration and
Mediation Services Ltd., a private firm based in British Columbia.

His credentials are impeccable. Over the course of his career, Ready has
arbitrated and mediated numerous labour and commercial disputes in a
variety of industries including forestry, manufacturing, agriculture,
transportation and the public sector. In addition, he has also been
named arbitrator in over 600 collective agreement disputes across Canada
and participated in over 4,000 negotiations.

He has received numerous appointments to commissions, panels and
inquiries over the years including the Commission of Inquiry for the
Province of Prince Edward Island and the Construction Industry Review
Panel for the Province of British Columbia. He was an industrial inquiry
commissioner on various issues for the Province of British Columbia and
a special mediator for the B.C. Rapid Transit labour dispute.

Ready has also been a guest lecturer on mediation, arbitration and
alternative dispute resolution at various conferences and training
seminars for employers, unions and educational institutions.
There is no doubt that Ready has a lot of experience in imposing labour
peace. He's done it hundreds of times in the past and will do it again
in the BC Ferries case. A strike will be averted and much public
inconvenience avoided. However, the fact remains that that any form of
arbitration takes the control of the outcome out of the hands of
workers. If you don't have control, you're going to get screwed -
especially if your interests are opposed to those of your employer, your
provincial government and the mainstream labour movement which professes
to represent your interests but doesn't really do that.

Guys like Ready are not impartial or unbiased - as workers are given to
believe. They're completely beholden to the labour relations system -
and the three big players whose interests it serves - employers,
government and unions (ones that know their place). Ready makes his
living sitting on government commissions and panels and by arbitrating
disputes between employers and unions. In order to continue scoring
those lucrative government appointments, he's got to stay on the right
side of the provincial administration. In order to continue being chosen
to preside over arbitration cases, he has to be acceptable to employer
and union officials. If he issues a ruling that is terribly
controversial with employers - employer representatives won't agree to
have him as an arbitrator. If he issues a ruling that acknowledges the
interests of union /members/, a lot of union reps will be giving him a
miss the next time they're picking arbitrators for some other unresolved
dispute. He'll be labeled a "loose cannon" and shunned by all the people
on whom he depends for his bread and butter. For those very fundamental
reasons, Ready and other system guys do not issue rulings that are
favourable to workers. The rent-a-judge concept is just one of the many
ways in which the system operates to ensure that workers are kept in line.
The system is set up to suppress workers' militancy - not to encourage
it. The system exists to maintain /order/ in the workplace (not to
provide workplace justice - a myth that is often fed to workers). Ready
will not do anything that might promote /disorder/ (i.e., workers'
militancy).
Here's a classic example of a binding arbitration decision (one of Vince
Ready's as a matter of fact): In a December 2003 arbitration decision
reported by the _CBC_ Ready gave 2800 unionized Yukon government workers
a 10-per-cent pay hike over the next four years, but the 2,800 unionized
workers were asking for a lot more than a raise from arbitrator Ready.

They wanted a paid day off on National Aboriginal Day, an hourly raise
for people scheduled to work weekends, and an increase in their annual
travel bonus.
Ready's decision, contained in _this 34-page ruling_, gives them a wage
increase but the workers won't get the rest. The workers are bound by
the non-appealable decision of Vincent Ready.
This is how it goes. The workers get a bit of money but rarely ever gain
ground on issues that impact on the quality of their working lives or
that might restrict management flexibility.

When Ready rules on the BC Ferries dispute, the company will have to pay
out some dollars but will have achieved the kind of flexibility that it
couldn't otherwise hope to achieve without a long and bitter strike. The
workers will be stuck with the new flexibility and - because it's
especially hard to negotiate language out of a contract once it's been
awarded by an arbitrator - will be stuck with it for a very long time.

*Sucked into the System

*BC Ferries, the government, the media and mainstream labour leaders
will hail Ready's decision as fair, pointing out that the workers are
getting a pay increase and whatever else they're getting and downplaying
the not-so-good stuff. Jackie Miller will be caught in a bind (no pun
intended). Having agreed to arbitration, she will have a hard time
taking issue with Vince Ready's award and will feel a lot of pressure to
pitch it as a good deal or, in the least, a good deal under the
circumstances. Like many union leaders who started out with some
principles, Miller is about to find herself sucked into the system and
having to decide whether to love it or leave it. Most decide to love it.

She will be faced with further demands for concessions in the next round
of bargaining. If things get hot, Vince Ready or someone like him will
be called in to settle things once again. It will be easier next time,
because everyone will already be accustomed to it. They'll walk into
negotiations with the binding arb option in their back pocket. Just like
the first time, there will be high hopes for a fair and reasonable
settlement. A few more bones will be thrown to the workers, more
flexibility will be granted to the employer. Again, the whole thing will
be pitched as "a good deal" or "a fair deal" and the whole cycle will
repeat itself over and over again just like it's supposed to. That's how
the system works and that's how it creates the kinds of labour leaders
that will play ball and not get the masses stirred up.

The workers will find out soon enough what kind of bone Ready is going
to throw them. Our prediction: The award will give BC Ferries the right
to contract out work, within certain restrictions (which can be loosened
up at the next round of bargaining). The workers will be disappointed.
Some will even be angry but there won't be many of them left to get
militant or disruptive by the time the next round of bargaining comes
around. The most vocal will find themselves out of work, the rest will
be silenced by the threat of possible contracting out of their work.

The leaders of their union - whoever they will be at that time - will
join the chorus of mainstream labour leaders in deploring privatization
and government support of the corporate agenda and continue riding the
rails of the system that exists to support that agenda. They'll make
their views known, firmly but politely, when they meet with Vince Ready
or some other system guy, in yet another round of bargaining where
concessions are being sought. The system guy will nod sagely and
encourage them to think of the "realities" and they will.

How Jackie Miller spends the next few weeks will determine whether she
blazes a path for union members or takes on the role of controller of
workers' expectations. It's not too late for her to escape getting
sucked into the system but it's going to get more difficult with each
day. Every day that BCFMWU members sit quietly around with their fingers
crossed, hoping for a fair decision from Vince Ready, is a day lost.

*In the Fryer:

*Amid the extensive media coverage of the BCFMWU strike, various
business and labour
luminaries weighed in publicly on the side of keeping workers under control.

Among the most verbose was mainstream labour analyst John L Fryer who
dove into the profit-orientated waters of the mainstream media and
offered up some most illuminating views from mainstream labour's "box
seats".

Fryer opined that binding arbitration must have appeared like a "miracle
life raft to a British Columbia union facing shipwreck during the stormy
B.C. Ferries strike".

He was quoted by the somewhat conservative news medium www.canada.com
<http://www.canada.com/> as saying: "Lucky, lucky ferry workers. Vince
Ready, probably the most experienced mediator in the country, let them
walk back in off the end of the plank."

Not content to stop there, he went on to say that he believes the ferry
workers' union was about to be "sucked into a whirlpool that was slyly
engineered by the provincial government and the ferry company", with
both wanting labour cost reductions and diminished power for the union.
"The ferry workers are a very isolationist union," Fryer said. "They
keep to themselves and they don't participate very much in the affairs
of the trade union movement because they believe that they are invincible."

The striking ferry workers had backed themselves into a corner and were
in a no-win situation, Fryer stated flatly. "You always leave yourself a
back door other than humiliation and defeat". Unfortunately, the
leadership of the 4,300-member union doesn't have a face-saving
strategy, he added. "They've escalated the dispute from a battle between
themselves and the BC Ferries and the government of B.C. to a battle
between themselves and the courts".

"That means they are now in open defiance of the rule of law...They
can't win that one," said Fryer. "The absolute defiance of the rule of
law is a no-win strategy," he added. "Everyone should give their heads a
shake."

Just who the hell is Fryer with his condescending attack on the ferries
workers union?

John L. Fryer is an Adjunct Professor at the School of Public
Administration, University of Victoria. He is President Emeritus of the
National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE). Mr. Fryer is a
member of the board of directors of the International Centre for Human
Rights and Democratic Development; and former Chair of the Advisory
Committee on Labour-Management Relations in the Federal Public Service
(1999-01). Mr. Fryer was a member of the Advisory Committee on Senior
Level Retention and Compensation (1997-2001), chaired by Lawrence F. Strong.

In addition, Fryer worked for the AFL-CIO and the Canadian Labour
Congress before launching a 21-year career in public sector unionism,
first as a General Secretary of the B.C. Government Employees' Union
(1969-83) and then as President of the National Union of Public and
General Employees (1981-90). Mr. Fryer is a member of the Order of
Canada and holder of the Gérard Dion award for outstanding contributions
to Canadian labour-management relations.

Since his retirement from NUPGE, Fryer has applied his negotiating and
dispute resolution skills to numerous important public policy issues.

Fryer is currently working a three-to-six month special assignment with
the World Bank at its Washington, D.C. headquarters that began September
18th, 2003. He is one of three labour representatives invited to
Washington to review current World Bank practices and propose
alternative policies.

During his stint at the World Bank, Fryer is reported to have stated
that, "'There are certain things - water, electricity and health care,
for example - that are best and most properly handled by the state, and
not by private enterprise". Perhaps Fryer doesn't believe that the B.C.
Ferries are one of the things better handled by the state. That's a
pretty scary thing for someone who is touted as a source that is
knowledgeable about the interests of working people.

Fryer also had some interesting things to say about them and their
militancy. Sending union leaders or rank-and-file members to jail, he
stated, would make them martyrs. He recalled union leaders Jean-Claude
Parrot and Grace Hartman were both sent to jail during illegal strikes.
Here's a brilliant statement:  "I know them very well," he said of the
labour leaders. "Being sent to jail changed and shortened their lives."
·       Hartman, who died in 1994, received a 45-day jail sentence in
1981 while head of the Canadian Union of Public Employees after she
refused to order Ontario hospital workers to end their illegal strike.
·       Parrot, the now-retired leader of the Canadian Union of Postal
Workers, spent two months in jail in 1980 for defying back-to-work
legislation in 1978.
·       Eight years ago, 64 union workers in B.C. were found guilty of
criminal contempt of court; some were sent to jail for ignoring
injunctions to lift a blockade at Port Alberni's paper mill.
What's so interesting about Fryer's statements is that he's advocating,
in a more open manner than is normal, the mainstream labour perspective
on workers' militancy: Militancy is bad, it's wrong-headed, workers must
obey the laws of the land even if those laws deny them basic fairness
and operate to their continued disadvantage.

Union leaders are supposed to behave like the leaders of the "labour
movement" that is recognized by the system. Shame on the ferry workers'
union for not wanting to play in the labour fakers club. F***ing
isolationists!

As an credentialed labour "specialist", Fryer is playing as important a
part in the suppression of workers' interests as the BC government, the
privateering corporations and the corporate partner unions that are
beginning to assert their self-serving objectives and their cynical view
of working people more openly than ever before.

Fryer is lending his intellectual cachet to the effort to keep workers
down. Oppressing people is more enjoyable when it looks like its the
smart thing to do.

His statements are as arrogant as they are ridiculous. Were the risks
taken by labour leaders like Parrot and Hartman and by the union members
in Port Alberni not a means to an end? Sure they were. These working
people made /choices/ - they chose to put their collective interests
first, even though it meant that they might personally pay a price.
These were /choices/, not wrong-headed, emotional, irrational acts as
Fryer suggests.

They are only wrong-headed, emotional and irrational if we accept that
the role of workers is the one that has been assigned to them by the
labour relations system (to submit to the wisdom of more important
people in the workplace and in the union hall), that their immense power
must never be used and that the rule of law must be respected even if
the law is an ass.

Fryer speaks like a true labour aristocrat and there's a good reason for
that: He is one. He's a well-off dude with impressive credentials who's
been immersed in the system and stroked by its ego-inflating machinery
for a long time. The system has helped him make a name for himself and
he's beholden to it for that, just like the other system guys.

We don't dispute that workers who buck the law face stiff penalties:
The Alberta Union of Public Employees was fined $400,000 for a two-day
illegal strike by licensed practical nurses, nursing attendants and
support workers. The fine was reduced to $200,000 on appeal. No one was
jailed during that labour dispute, but solidarity among union members
was strengthened.

We don't dispute that the BCFMWU could conceivably be sued by third
parties for its part in an illegal strike:
·       A precedent was set in 1974 in Quebec when Santana, a shoe
manufacturer, won third-party damages for losses during an illegal
strike after it filed a civil lawsuit against the Canadian Union of
Postal Workers.
·       In 1991, a St. Hubert, Que. resident won a class-action suit
against the Montreal South Shore bus drivers' union when service was
disrupted by a wildcat strike on Jan. 18, 1988.
·       A Quebec Superior Court judge ordered the union to pay a
$100,000 fine -- $20 for each of the 50,000 passengers inconvenienced
that day. The Montreal South Shore Transit Corp. responded by lowering
regular bus fares for three months in 1992.

*Defeat and Humiliation?

*All those things might happen. But what is more humiliating? To lose
some legal battle in a system that is set up to treat you unjustly or to
live your life on your knees? It's a question of your perspective. Guys
like Fryer deny perspectives that don't reflect their own because they
don't consider those perspectives to be valid - because they come from
people who they consider to be beneath them. Yet militancy, activism and
selfless sacrifice for a greater good have been the calling card of
people who have changed our world for the better from the beginning of
civilization.
Lawsuits and fines are pale in comparison to the kinds of penalties that
have been imposed upon activists who have taken on oppressive systems in
the past - and many who are taking on oppressive systems in other parts
of the world today. Presumably they were and are aware of the
life-shortening effects of the firing squad or the "no win" situation in
which one might find oneself if tied up to a flaming pole. Getting
tossed into the slammer for two decades undoubtedly changed the life of
Nelson Mandela. Standing up against the unjust laws shortened the life
of Martin Luther King. According to John Fryer's views on militancy,
both should have given their heads a shake and deferred to the wisdom of
their oppressors.

Apart from his arrogant disregard for the rights of working people to
_life, liberty and security of the person_, Fryer is expressing
mainstream labour's belief that the labour relations system is supreme -
that it's necessary and functions in a way that is beneficial, all
things considered, to our society. He does not consider that the labour
relations system only takes on the appearance of fairness if we ignore
the interests of the largest group within our society: working people.
If we accept his view that militancy creates "no win" situations" where
"there is no way out", we ignore the ultimate power of the workers - the
power that comes from action like withholding their labour, the power
that comes from reaching out to their community, building solidarity
with other workers and raising awareness about their issues. The
mediators, arbitrators, cooling off periods, news black outs and other
expression-suppression tools exist to keep /us/ from /our/ power. Thank
you John Fryer for coming out saying it like a man - a system man. And
to hell with you.

*Activism Works, So Do It

*There is going to continue to be pressure on working people for
concessions until we have nothing left to give. When we give ground to
the point where we are getting only the legislated minimum wages and
benefits, those minimums will be reduced. We will be a nation of
groveling paupers, with no liberty, no security and no hope. If we
complain, the Ready's of the world will impose peace on us and the
Fryer's will lecture us about the rule of law and tell us to give our
heads a shake. Unless workers rise up in large numbers and create total
labour "chaos" (which really means chucking their rule books and doing
things that advance our interests) we will all be considerably poorer
within the next few years and our children will be poorer beyond our
worst nightmares. Rising up can mean engaging in any form of protest. It
isn't restricted to picketing as workplace - it can take many forms.
Whatever puts pressure on employers, unions and legislators - and the
system guys who do their dirty work - is worth doing. It could involve
conventional protests, it could involve cyber activism, it could mean
taking apart their myths and their statements and exposing their myths
(or their darkest secrets). Anything that makes them sweat is
potentially an effective form of protest.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth?
Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for
negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a
tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is
forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it
can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of
the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I
must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have
earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive,
nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt
that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that
individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the
unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must
we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in
society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and
racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so
crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I
therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our
beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in
monologue rather than dialogue.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., /_Letter from Birmingham Jail

_/Activism works. That's why the system guys don't like it and go to
lengths to discourage us from engaging in it.

In 2001, the Province of Nova Scotia passed Bill 68, which legislated
away the right to strike for essential service workers. Mass protests
ensued and the bill was never enforced. It was a small victory for
workers, but a victory.

The B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union was right to take a defiant
stance against the B.C. government and its privatization projects. The
rest of the B.C. labour movement let them down and a lost an important
opportunity to derail the government's privatization agenda. The leaders
of the official Canadian labour movement stood by scratching themselves
while business and its government enablers scored another win. As
galling as this is, it's to be expected. That's the role of our
mainstream labour leaders: To scratch themselves while we get screwed.
They're doing a good job of it too.

For months now, activist workers across BC have been advocating for a
general strike but B.C. Federation of Labour President Jim Sinclair and
his status quo cronies won't hear of it. At one point the leader of the
BC /Fed/ stated that he was pretty sure that workers in B.C. were not
ready to rise up. Since then, Sinclair has been busy giving lip service
to proponents of a general strike - spouting rhetoric here and there but
saying nothing of substance in favour of engaging workers' power.

Surely the government and the employers know an idle threat when they
hear one. Sinclair and his crew are just providing the privateers with
motivation to go even further. If the B.C. Fed isn't going to go to bat
for working people, what's to worry about?

It may take a _general strike_, perhaps across Canada, if workers are
going to regain the rights and protections that have been stolen from
them. If our right to determine our own destiny through free collective
bargaining has been taken from us then we must explore other ways to
determine our destiny. Widespread job action has been an effective tool
for us in the past. And let's not confine ourselves to thinking that job
action must be confined to standing around our workplaces with picket
signs. There are many ways of bringing pressure to bear on the
modern-day corporation and its political enablers. We just need to get
started and encourage others to join us.
What will it get us? There will always be uncertainty about the future
but we can be reasonably sure of what we will get if we put our faith in
the leaders of business and its union and government tools. Poorer, more
desperate, dehumanized. It's our choice.

Will Vince Ready's binding arbitration sink the ferries workers and
their will to fight for their own future? It sure has the potential to
do that. Binding arbitration is not called /binding/ arbitration for
nothing. In the very least, the passage of time while they wait for the
decision will halt the momentum that developed during the strike. Union
members will be encouraged to put their faith in the unbiased goodness
of Arbitrator Ready. Then will come the disappointment, when the
long-awaited award comes out. Then the devastation when they learn
there's nothing they can do about it. Then the anguish of seeing their
jobs disappear as their new fair and just collective agreement is
implemented. Then the anger...and then what? Will there be an uprising
or will they disappear into the masses of unemployed who have been
similarly helped out of their jobs as their leaders stood idly by
scratching.

It doesn't bode well for an uprising if workers are demoralized,
disillusioned and disappeared by the time the grim reality arrives on
their doorsteps. It will take the winds out of their sails for sure and
weaken their resolve to fight back especially if they know that there
will be harsh personal and financial penalties for defying the law, when
no other labour organization is willing to support them with a _general
strike_ or similar labour chaos.

*Making Every Day Count

*If Jackie Miller wants to keep herself from being sucked into the
system and leave the door open to a resurgence of militancy among BCFMWU
members she should be encouraging the members to continue their efforts
at raising awareness about their issues in their communities, discourage
blind faith in the arbitration process and get the members exploring
innovative direct action in case Vince Ready's award is disappointing.

If Miller isn't willing to do it, members who aren't prepared to put
their faith in the system, should consider organizing their own
activities to keep the momentum and the fighting spirit of the
membership alive in the countdown to his decision.

Do not go to sleep waiting for the decision. Continue your activism.
Continue raising awareness of your situation. Build awareness in your
communities about the corporate greed that's turning your life upside
down and that will touch their lives one day too - if it hasn't already.

Take stock of your employer's vulnerabilities. Plan for every
possibility, including an all-out loss at arbitration. Where can you
apply pressure, what kind of pressure can you apply to your employer to
get them back to the bargaining table if the Ready award sucks? You've
got some time to think through the options now. Use it productively and
to your best advantage.

If it's a decent decision, celebrate. If it isn't - organize, agitate,
educate, communicate.
The system is big and powerful. But, _as we've already said_, it is near
collapse. What it will take to stand the system on its head is for
workers to stop letting it push them around.

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: file:///C|/WINDOWS/TEMP/nsmail.txt
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/news/attachments/20040101/4a3d9c1c/attachment.txt>