Navyblue의 블로그

본문

/* 캐나다의 사회주의자 잡지 중의 하나인 'canadian Dimemsion'에서 퍼왔습니다. 주소는 http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/v39/v39_3dk.htm 입니다. */ State of the Unions, 2005 by David Kidd May/June 2005 The Canadian labour movement has a false sense of security about the state of unionization in Canada because in self-congratulation we compare our situation to that of the U.S. But our unionization rate or density is in decline, and this weakens the ability of union members to stand up for our rights and for the union movement to be anything but reactive to capitalist restructuring. The overall union density in Canada has dropped, according to the Workplace Information Directorate, from 36 per cent in 1994 to just 30 per cent in 2003, and the decline is most pronounced in the private sector. Union Density Is Falling The private sector in Canada generates over three-quarters of all jobs, but less than a fifth of them are unionized. Between 1997 and 2002 the private sector created 1.3 million jobs, but only 88,000 were added to private-sector union membership. Both Ontario and B.C., with half of Canada’s workforce, have had significant declines in union density since 1997. What has kept our overall density at the level we do have is the unionization rate in the public sector. While Mike Harris attacked Ontario’s public sector in the 1990s, the public-sector density remained roughly constant, while private-sector density declined (from 19.4 to 17.4 per cent). But now, due to privatization and government legislation, there are also significant threats to the public-sector unionization rate, as well. Canadian workers have faced ongoing restructuring cycles over the last 15 years in both the private and public sectors. Private-sector workers have experienced both the export of jobs and the remaking of industry due to trade liberalization. The world of workers in manufacturing has been turned upside-down. According to Statistics Canada, half of all industrial plants that existed in 1988 had closed up shop by 1997. New plants opened since then, but they produced only half the number of jobs that disappeared. Large warehouse operations have closed, as plants now limit their inventories and have shifted to just-in-time production. Companies have carved up their operations and sourced out certain production and service work to other operations. How much of the growth in the auto industry in Ontario has gone to non-union parts plants? The public sector now faces a constant threat of privatization of all services, from child care to homecare, from public payroll administration to the billing of taxes and permits, from our most basic resources, like water and hydro, to public infrastructure, like roads and recreation centres. Like the private sector, many public-sector employers are creating a number of incorporated bodies to weaken bargaining strength by breaking up bargaining units or to privatize certain services they provide. The federal and provincial governments have passed legislation to weaken the strength of unions, as was done recently in B.C. and Newfoundland, or force union representation votes that set up dog-eat-dog competition between the unions involved. Where Is the “Movement” in the Labour Movment? Internally the union movement is not much of a movement, these days, but a collection of individual unions pre-occupied with servicing the membership they have and competing with other unions for new members. As a movement, we are not in the lead when it comes to social issues or for fighting for the dignity and equality of all workers. Where is our voice in the campaign to eradicate racial profiling from the police and immigration forces, or to stop the escalation of war in the Middle East? We are not in the forefront on public insurance, or rising tuition costs, or standing in solidarity with community partners on the issues of homelessness, poverty and the destruction of the family farm. The CLC’s own polling has shown that it is these issues that attract many non-union workers to consider unions as an option. We have been more engaged in fighting one another for membership than in finding ways to pull more workers into the union movement. Many unions in the same sector, provincial federation or labour council do not even have a minimal working relationship with one another, even though they face the same employers at the bargaining table, the same attacks on their pensions and benefits and the same draconian legislation. A go-it-alone strategy will not work any longer for even the biggest unions to protect their current members’ best interests, let alone attract new energy and new members. Multi-union organizing has to be on the agenda. Where are the Resources for Organizing? There’s also a problem regarding the lack of resources for organizing. A 2003 Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) study has revealed that only 15 per cent of union staff are involved in organizing, while 43 per cent are involved in direct servicing. This study also revealed that unions on average use only 6.8 per cent of their resources for organizing, and less than half of unions surveyed had someone with overall responsibility for organizing. We are not going to make a dint into increasing union density without increasing the priority for organizing by increasing resources. Who is doing the organizing is another important issue. Kate Bronfenbrenner and Robert Hickey of Cornell University have studied successful organizing drives in the U.S. They have concluded that what works best is a three-way combination of union staff working with activist organizers working with contacts both inside and outside the workplace. This success is based on the use of activists who know the type of workplace and its culture and have workplace contacts who have knowledge of the particular workplace targeted. Most Canadian union organizing currently only uses a two-way plan, with the union organizer working with workplace contacts. Fortunately, that may be changing, as the HRDC study also revealed that 56 per cent of the unions polled are training activists to organize. The B.C. Federation of Labour set up an Organizing Institute eight years ago, and has trained more than 500 union activists. Still an issue, unions need to use organizers who reflect the changing gender, ethnic and racial demographics of today’s workplaces. Unions are reluctant to organize the increasing number of small workplaces due to the large servicing costs and the difficulties associated with bargaining the first collective agreement. To respond to this challenge, there needs to be strategic orientation to organizing that will lead either to flexible composite locals of a number of bargaining units or industry-wide bargaining success. A sectoral strategy will also require ending the competition among unions for representation, and developing multi-union bargaining of the same employers to force them to negotiate industry-wide contracts. Targeting Precarious Workers Other challenges to which the union movement must respond are the growth of precarious employment and the culture of suburban sprawl. Economic restructuring has meant an increase in the casualization of labour, where a significant number of jobs are part-time or non-permanent. Almost one in every five jobs in Canada is now part-time, and this impacts both the public and private sectors. We need to bring these workers into the union movement, so that the bargaining position of all workers is not weakened by the development of a two-tier system. This workforce may also require a different type of organizing strategy, like the development of workers’ centres aimed at fighting for the rights of precarious-employment workers. Much of the new private-sector growth has taken place in the new suburbs, previously rural and farm land, while the old industries have been replaced in the traditional urban areas. These communities have developed different traditions and cultures than the older downtown areas, and require different organizing strategies to win these workers to unionization. The labour movement needs to develop a plan that will encourage an organizing culture and increase cooperation between unions. I think this would best be realized with the CLC not engaging in a coordinating role, but playing a facilitating role, providing more resources to the local level. This would mean supporting provincial federations to develop organizing institutes like that of the B.C. Fed., and increasing resources to local labour councils. There also needs to be support for training of activist organizers and the development of workers’ centres like the Workers’ Organizing Resource Centre (WORC) in Winnipeg to address the needs of contract and part-time workers. The CLC and affiliates, provincial feds and labour councils should report annually on union organizing. We need to take the first steps to encourage multi-union bargaining by organizing conferences for unions engaged with the same jurisdictions and employers. Annual employer targets need to be set with ways and means so that the union or unions involved can utilize the resources of other unions. We provide support to one another in strike situations — we need to provide it in organizing drives, too. The targets could be industry-based, like Wal-Mart in retail, or Extendicare in homecare; or it could be local targets such as notorious non-union areas like Mississauga, Ontario, or Alberta. There are also low-union-density sectors with significant numbers of workers, where strategies need to be developed to organize. This includes the financial sector, retail, hospitality, call centres and the privateers who want to poach public services. Overall, then, the union movement needs to develop a strategy to respond to the decline in union density. This strategy must have both an intentional plan to put a class interest and a social-movement orientation back into the union movement. The union movement needs to be the leader of all working-class struggles. It must put forth an active vision of workers’ interests in the building of our economy and our communities, not stances reactive to and dependent upon capitalist development. At the same time, the union movement needs to reassert its place as one of the key movements that fought for social institutions like medicare and public education, and broad issues like the fight against racism and discrimination and the rights of individuals and their families to enjoy the fruits of their labourand time away from work. Part of the success of the CIO organizing drives in Ontario in the 1930s was the support of the organizers for the plight of the unemployed and for tenants who faced eviction. These same unemployed and tenants in turn supported factory picket lines and occupations that led to unionization. Unorganized workers are attracted to unions not just for better wages and working conditions, but also for justice and dignity. David Kidd is an executive member of a Toronto municipal CUPE local, and a member of CD’s Editorial Collective.