The Canadian Union of Postal Workers:
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
CUPW prides itself on being a democratic, grass roots, politically active Union. Well, one out of three isn't bad. We have learned by sad experience that democracy can be manipulated and members can be censored. Nevertheless, CUPW is very politically active. The Union faces many real struggles at Canada Post. Moya Greene is bringing confrontation back just because she can. She even doesn't like her own managers and claim they have an aversion to risk management. However, when you look at Moya Greene's track record, an aversion to Moya's risks might not be a bad thing.
How can a Union that claims to be democratic thwart democracy? Bad politics for one. In most areas you need to have attended a certain amount of Union meetings before you can run for a position on the executive or be a delegate to Convention. Since many abuse parliamentary procedure or just down right harass people from different political camps, Union meetings can be a long and painful experience. Since only a handful of extremists normally attend meetings no one is *allowed* to run against them in elections because they haven't met the requirement of attending enough meetings. That requirement is not in itself a bad thing. It's just seeing how that gets abused and seeing the same people go to the same courses over and over again while the members are alienated is somewhat discouraging.
Several years ago, all the Quebec delegates were so upset with National's bad politics they all walked out of convention. The whole Region. At that point National seized the opportunity to pass a huge set of policies for their constitution in their absence that most rank and file members don't even know about let alone support. None of which has anything to do with delivering the mail.
CUPW rightfully complains about Moya Greene's lack of transparency. How about their own transparency? Where is the financial accountability in the International Solidarity fund? There isn't any. In the CUPW Collective Agreement, the Employer is required to contribute to an education fund for the Union. Above and beyond this, an International Solidarity fund was created that the Employer pays for. However, since this fund is not funded by Union dues, the members are not *allowed* to know how this money is spent. Despite the fact that it was negotiated into the contract and things were given up to get it in the contract. Things like getting paid less than two hours for two hours of overtime. The Union agreed to that concession the year they got the International Solidarity fund.
Now let's talk about the Scorpion King, Denis Lemelin. He's a good guy. I'd have to say he is grass roots. I can't say I agree with all his positions but no two people agree on every political issue. Likewise no two people disagree on every political issue either. We all have common ground. Take Palestine for example. CUPW demanding Israel take down the wall it's building to defend itself against terrorist attacks is a bit absurd. What if Israel demanded CUPW stop withdrawing member's grievances and started to focus on representing their members in the free collective bargaining process instead of just using them as a dues base for political extremism? Wouldn't that be novel.
The Palestinian situation is complicated. One member compared it to having to choose between supporting Apartheid on one hand and supporting Genocide on the other. Both options are not acceptable. Israel using White Phosphorus on civilians is wrong but so is firing rockets into civilian areas as soon as Israel pulls out of Gaza and gives them more autonomy. The situation is complicated. Blanket endorsements of either side are problematic.
Then there's FARC. Why on earth would CUPW support anything to do with FARC? "Oh we don't we just oppose the right wing government in Columbia that is killing trade unionists." Let's see, Columbia is another example of two bad extremes. On one hand we have an extreme government killing trade unionists and on the other hand we have a revolutionary group committing the same atrocities on it's own people in the name of social justice. Both are wrong. Yet when we say we oppose one, then we clearly imply we endorse the other.
I remember when my local president was sent to Cuba on the Union's dime to attend a pro Cuba support rally. He saw FARC in attendance at the same rally. He was surprised to see them there. He was from Columbia and said he didn't support that. Sometimes our silence and our blind endorsements cause us to support things that many of our members don't agree with which alienates them. Instead of recognizing the political sensitivity of some issues, the extremists railroad their agenda and say well that is how the majority voted. Unfortunately that is not how the majority voted. That is how the majority of delegates voted and most people were not allowed to run against them to be a delegate. There was no referendum of the members. That would be democratic.
And then there was Darrell. Tingley that is. He was the CUPW National president that boldly endorsed revolutionary Communism on behalf of all the members of CUPW. I objected and asked him what gave him the right to endorse that on behalf of myself and all the members and he quoted something from those dreaded orange paper policies that were slipped through when Quebec walked out of Convention. This is all the more reason there should be more financial accountability with the International Solidarity fund.
Don't get me started on Pee Wee Herman. If that isn't a walking joke, I don't know what it. I wish Ken Mooney would run against him next convention and restore some dignity to the Pacific Region. Then again, it's good to have someone knowledgeable like Ken Mooney in charge of grievances. Maybe the anti Pat Bertrand crew can simply find another paper doll to replace Pee Wee Herman now that they finally got rid of Pat. At least Pat was smart. Pee Wee Herman is just plain embarrassing. He was the guy that withdrew my grievance. Not that I'm bitter. Much. Je me souviens.