July 20, 2009, 6 e-mails

R. K. wrote:

A few people have said they appreciate getting alternative views of the City strike. Here are a number of links that may be of interest:

"Incomplete information turns the public against CUPE strikers" by John Bonnar http://tinyurl.com/o6fkuq

Toronto Labour Council -- City strike bulletin #1 http://tinyurl.com/m84xbc

Toronto Labour Council -- City strike bulletin #2 http://tinyurl.com/n2c22g

"Finance Corporation Organizes Anti-CUPE Rally" http://tinyurl.com/nv62ut

B. L. wrote:

Thanks for the links. Here is another that tells a somewhat different story.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/07/20/advice-for-david-miller.aspx

R. K. wrote:

Sorry, here's a piece I missed the first time around:

"City crosses the line by using scabs" by Gary Shaul http://tinyurl.com/mn4otj

That's a lot of reading. I'll hold off on the links for a while.

A. M. wrote:

I think it's possible to be pro-labour yet also maintain a critical eye.

Just a couple of points in to follow up on my earlier posting and some of the responses. R. is correct. Not one NDP or progressive councilor has broken with the city to support CUPE. Not even Paula Fletcher, die hard union supporter, whose husband is John Cartright, President of the Toronto and Region Labour Council. I think that is telling.

David Miller did win election with the support of CUPE. Raghu seems to be suggesting that the union is entitled to some sort of tangible payback for that support. Of course the city shares the blame by going on a massive spending spree in the last budget and raising expectations.

Another historical example to keep (fearfully) in mind Bob Rae's government, defeated in part by angry unions. We got two Mike Harris majority governments out of that one, with the biggest rollback of labour rights in modern Ontario history. I often wonder if the hard left prefer a truly right wing government to focus their attacks, rather than more moderate Liberal or NDP governments who make difficult targets with their occasionally progressive policies.

I'm not really concerned about Miller and the council's progressive majority allies having hurt feelings over their potential defeat in 2010. I'm more concerned with the impact the right wing backlash will have on the city, residents, and yes, the workers.

THis is the most progressive administration we're likely to see in our lifetimes. Enjoy it while you can.

Again, I'll speak of tactics. Yes, the corporate media is hostile to labour. But CUPE has made little or no effort to explain its case to the public, or even many of its members. Old school tactics of withdrawl of services and telling the public to dump their garbage in parks (as one of my neighbours was told by a picketer at a transfer station) reinforces the public's negative attitude towards the union.

Re: unions and democracy. Greater participation of members could be encouraged by using technology (telephone and internet voting ) to enfranchise the membership, rather than expecting them to travel to one or two remote balloting locations as was the case this time. And I'm not sure that the right message is, if you don't like them, vote them out the next time. Does that hold for the Harper government as well? I thought democracy was an ongoing process of civic engagement, not just an occasional trip to the ballot box.

I do agree with Kim that we've missed an opportunity to use this strike for coalition building. Unions like CUPE used to lead that sort of thing. Maybe it's not too late.

M. S. wrote:

All it really tells us is that Toronto Mayors can buy loyalty through plum appointments. I imagine Paula Fletcher would like to retain her Parks committee headship and her seat on the Executive Committee, which she would lose in a second if she publicly supported CUPE (which isn't to say she would necessarily want to).

R. K. wrote:

While I'm tempted to provide a detailed reply to Andrew's specific comments, I also hesitate to get drawn into debates about matters that are really very peripheral to the central issues of this strike. I might be wrong, but my impression is that people on this list don't want to read intricate discussions about strike tactics and internal CUPE politics; and I also sense that there would be limited patience for discussions of the Rae years in Ontario, let alone of British politics in the 1970s!

Let me instead offer the following:

1. On the matter of union tactics and their effects, I think Andrew seriously misreads the forces at play in and around this strike. The near hysterical reaction to the strike goes well beyond tensions stirred up by the garden-variety, anecdotal (and one-sided reporting of) picket-line kerfuffles that Andrew mentions. Smoke was coming out of people's ears in some quarters even before a single cup of coffee or doughnut was consumed on the picket lines. The elites and corporate media want a clear defeat for City workers and their union. Not only are public-sector workers their age-old preferred target; they also want to send a clear message to unions and working people generally about who is going to pay for the present severe economic crisis. That the supposedly labour-friendly team around Miller have decided to be the architects of this attack on City workers is manna from heaven for this right-wing crowd. If this fiasco should also contribute to Miller and company's defeat in 2010, it would just be icing on the cake. No doubt, this will have real and serious consequences for all of us -- but, I repeat, as far as the present strike is concerned, all this is entirely a creation of the Miller team; and they have only themselves to blame.

2. You can out me as the neighbourhood's token representative of the "hard left" if you like, but to characterize the union leadership of the City workers in this way is laughable. Andrew speaks of some supposed union expectation of "payback" -- whatever that might be -- but that is so clearly NOT the issue here. As others have said, CUPE is not demanding anything new. What we have here is the City actively and consciously turning against its core work force -- demanding a massive package of freezes and rollbacks, and furthering opening the door to the privatization of services they provide. Though hardly fire- breathing Marxist radicals, the union leaders have to actually respond to their members' opinions and interests -- and respect some basic tenets of collective bargaining -- so they can't just cave in to the City. Andrew is suggesting that if the union were even more active and democratic -- and if there were even more participation in union elections and contract votes -- City workers wouldn't have given their union a strong strike mandate in response to the City package of freezes and rollbacks. To put it politely, this is pure conjecture based on a bad misreading of the situation on the ground.

3. I maintain my previous comment that it is precisely because the CUPE local leadership has aligned itself so closely with the Miller team that they have been unwilling and unable to develop a more effective campaign to mobilize their membership and reach out to potential allies and the broader public. Andrew's approach would not change anything in this regard, on the contrary. I also repeat what I said about this being a turning point in the history of left-wing and working-class politics in this city. I think it's precisely this "we're-the-most-progressive-people-in-town-so-be-quiet-and-enjoy-it- while-you-can" attitude that makes ordinary people so cynical about politics and discourages the kind of civic engagement that Andrew mentions. If at least some people draw this lesson from this sorry episode, then we should be able to salvage something and rebuild over the coming years.

Of course, if the City reverses course and negotiates a fair settlement with its workers, the task of renewal and rebuilding will be that much easier. That, too, is an option.