While democratic unionism may seem outdated in an age where labour bosses in finely tailored suits hobnob with the wealthy and influential, democracy nonetheless remains the foundation upon which the working class achieved the gains it enjoys today. Moreover, unions – insofar as they emerged as institutions governed by laws the workers lay down for themselves – stand in contrast to an authoritarian economic system which they neither created nor controlled. It was only through this conscious and self-determined activity that workers achieved the solidarity to challenge the power of the capitalist system. Unions exist as a concrete example of what solidarity can achieve and what participatory democracy can be.

It is in contrast to this model of what unions can and ought to be that the recently announced Framework of Fairness Agreement (FFA) between the Canadian Auto Workers union and auto parts giant Magna International is most odious; not so much in that it directly threatens to undo past gains (which it might), rather, it is objectionable on the grounds that it undermines the very basis upon which unions achieved those gains. While the public scrutiny of the FFA has focused on the renunciation of the right to strike and the undemocratic structure of the proposed CAW Magna Local, what is more disturbing is the unwillingness and inability of the union to address concerns about the undemocratic process by which the leadership negotiated and is implementing the agreement with Magna.

Indeed, despite a commitment made at last year’s Constitution Convention to “involve all levels of the union in discussions about targets, methods, strategies and goals”, the latest attempt to gain a toehold in Magna hinged on the relationship between CAW President Buzz Hargrove and Magna founder Frank Stronach.  Aside from senior union staff, the exclusion of the membership and the bulk of the local union leadership is an explicit rejection of the participatory model of organisation endorsed by the Constitutional Convention in favour of elite decision-making.  Apparently, the rank-and-file are not important enough to even be passive participants in the largest and most crucial unionization drive undertaken by the CAW in recent memory.

In the wake of the uproar that ensued following the joint Stronach/Hargrove op-ed in the Globe and Mail, the union leadership responded to the growing opposition with a dismissive and contradictory message. On the one hand, they branded opponents as disaffected “retirees”, “armchair quarterbacks” and “academics”, intent on intervening in a matter that is no one’s concern but the workers of Magna. Ironically enough, the union leadership has been quick to draw attention to support from retired CAW President Bob White and former government bureaucrat Tim Armstrong, both of whom apparently have an interest in Magna that critics of the deal do not.

At the same time, the union has publicly conceded that the CAW-Magna model has union-wide implications. Hargrove himself made this point in a recent speech where he emphasised that it is not about choosing between the CAW/Magna model and the union agreements that we currently enjoy, rather, it is choice between the two-tier wage “UAW model…that was just signed in Detroit…and…the CAW/Magna model”.

Despite this acknowledgment, the closest Hargrove has come to engaging with the membership involved an unscheduled, hastily called National Executive Board meeting and schmoozing sessions with Auto Council and auto parts leaders after the deal was signed, sealed and delivered. Even if one were to concede that it is impractical to consult with the rank-and-file members of the union on such matters, it still leaves the question of why the union is going ahead with an agreement prior to consulting with the elected delegates of our so-called parliament, the CAW Council. What does it say about the National Office’s belief in democracy or their trust in the Council delegates if they are not worthy of being brought into the loop until after the decision is made for them?

Although the union leadership is quick to support the right of its members to criticise their decisions, their hostility to public declarations of dissent is equally obvious. For the leadership, solidarity is not the outcome of debate and collective decision-making on issues that affect us; instead, they use it as the means to enforce obedience through the threat of isolating those who fail to show the required degree of ‘solidarity’. This reality is not lost on the rank-and-file. When Mike Shields, a senior national representative with the union, openly declared his opposition to the CAW-Magna model at the most recent meeting of Local 222 in Oshawa, members who spoke following Shields were unanimous in recognising that by taking such a position, he effectively sacrificed any prospect of advancement under the current regime at the National Office.

What disappoints me the most about this whole sordid mess is that the CAW has a history of genuinely looking upon the rank-and-file as active participants in the union’s decision-making process. Based upon our own history, I am truly baffled that the leadership has even bothered to defend this process as democratic. Every time Hargrove declares his support for participatory democracy, I feel like Inigo Montoya from the film The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

If the leadership were truly interested in walking the walk when it comes to democratic principles, they would seize the opportunity afforded them by resistance to the CAW-Magna Agreement and launch a genuine and open debate about rejuvenating both the CAW and the broader labour movement through a sustained and genuine drive to organize the unorganized. After all, if they are so convinced of the justness of their cause, how can discussion do anything but win over those with doubts? If the consensus of the rank-and-file is that we must embrace the CAW/Magna model to move forward, so be it. Undoubtedly, such a course would not be easy, but democracy never is.

Solidarity and democracy have to be more than just slogans. For them to have any real meaning, they must be backed by principles and individuals actively committed to living those principles. Not so long ago, on an episode of TVO’s The Agenda, Hargrove was clear on whether it was better to be ‘right’ or to be ‘in’.

For me I’d rather be right…the argument wasn’t ‘can we get in’, the argument was, ‘what are the issues, what do we stand for?’ I was at Tommy Douglas’ last speech and he said…“If I could flick a switch tonight and bring two million new members into our party if they didn’t stand for what we stand for in terms of equality…I’d never flick the switch”…I believe Tommy Douglas was right.

Apparently, our President has a different set of standards when to comes to democracy within our union. Woe be anyone foolish enough to cling to the archaic notion that a union’s legitimacy is based solely on the ability of its members to govern and be governed by laws they give to themselves. In an age where union bosses believe that challenging the status quo means that they must stand above and outside the institutions which raised them from the shop-floor, being ‘right’ is apparently no different than being ‘in’.

Wayne Dealy is member of CAW Local 385 working with the group CAW Members for Real Fairness.

This article was posted on Monday, December 3rd, 2007 and is filed under Labour. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.