Another perspective:
Myths and reality of the union movement
Aug 02, 2009 04:30 AM
Angelo Persichilli
The Toronto Star
The civic workers' strike in Toronto has not been the best moment of Mayor David Miller's political life. During the strike, he managed to alienate both unions and citizens. At the end, having realized he had to make a choice, he decided to go back where he was at the beginning, with the unions.
Still, it would be a mistake to believe that he was the cause of the mess Torontonians had to endure for over a month. Miller is only one of those who have contributed over the years to fostering a belief that unions are the conscience of the working world, that they always are on the right side of any issue and that it's sacrilegious to fight them.
Before I say more about this sanctimonious mentality, it's important to make some distinctions, because unions are not all the same. There are differences in leadership among different trades and even within the same organizations. Sid Ryan is the president of Ontario's CUPE, while Paul Moist is the national president of the same organization – but the two have nothing in common in terms of style, content and their approach to disputes.
Unfortunately, the entire union movement tends to be judged not based on the quiet, reasonable work of the vast majority but on the radical actions of the few, which catch the attention of the media and are criticized by Canadian citizens.
Having said that, let me elaborate on some of the myths that some still believe are the essence of the union movement.
First, unions do not represent the entire working world. They are only interested in defending the wages and benefits of their members, most of the time at the expense of other, non-unionized, workers.
Second, even though they may claim to support the interests of children, students or patients, in reality there always is a demand for better wages or benefits behind almost every dispute.
Third, they live in isolation. Most of the time, their demands are made with no consideration for the conditions of other workers in the same country, not to mention the reality in other parts of the world.
Unfortunately for them, globalization has exposed their idyllic oasis and they refuse to realize that the emperor is naked. That's why they keep asking for benefits like the sick days Miller has just confirmed for them: pay them because they are not sick!
Furthermore, many union leaders confuse the role of unions and political organizations. They treat their unions as personal vehicles to promote their political agenda, believing their pro-worker rhetoric could elect them to any legislature.
Of all the myths, the last one is the most fraudulent. If, as they say, unions defend the interests of Canadian workers, we must conclude they are not doing a good job. In fact, unions have not been successful in getting many of their own leaders elected to any legislature, even when they run as candidates in very unionized ridings.
Because of their behaviour, unions also have alienated the support of political leaders who used to be very close to them. It is not just Bob Rae who has some interesting opinions about unions. Former Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton also has expressed concerns: "You enter into those kinds of negotiations hoping that the people you know in the labour movement, and that you have worked beside and fought with for many years, that there would be some understanding there. It wasn't there."
The strike in Toronto, as I said, probably was not Miller's fault, but it definitely offered him an opportunity to show leadership in a sector that needs real leaders. Unfortunately, he took a pass, leaving the door wide open for someone who wants to take this opportunity in the next election.
The only good news from this garbage strike comes from the people of Toronto. They have shown maturity and civic responsibility, and for that they must be praised.
Angelo Persichilli is the political editor of Corriere Canadese. His column appears Sunday.
