Questions and answers regarding NUPGE’s relationship with the CLC

1. What is the dispute between NUPGE and the CLC all about?

It’s about the fundamental issue of raiding (when one union tries to take members away from another union).

Unfortunately, some CLC affiliates continue to raid other CLC affiliates.

This is a serious problem for today’s labour movement.

Raiding is destructive to solidarity, does not advance the interests of workers and wastes precious resources that should be used for servicing members and organizing non-union workers.

The collective leadership of the CLC has to make a decision: take this issue seriously, roll up their sleeves and work together to find an effective solution; or continue with the attitude that raiding is not a big deal and ignore the problems it causes.

The National Union has never subscribed to the position that some other CLC affiliates have taken: if you are raided, then you should just raid back.

It’s clear where NUPGE stands on this issue: in 2001 we suspended one of our largest Component unions, the Alberta Union of Public Employees (AUPE), for raiding another union.

2. Doesn’t the CLC have rules to deal with raiding?

The current CLC rules against raiding are ineffective and unevenly applied.

In 2005, our Manitoba Component union, the Manitoba Government and General Employees’ Union (MGEU), was raided by the Teamsters union.

In 2009, one of our BC Component unions, the BC Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU), was raided by the BC Nurses’ Union, an affiliate of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions (CFNU).

Neither the Teamsters nor the CFNU faced any meaningful consequences from the CLC for their raiding campaigns.

In fact, under the current rules, a union that succeeds in a raid (such as the Teamsters) is actually rewarded for their behaviour.

That’s because the CLC allows the Teamsters to remain in the house of labour and they benefit from the additional dues revenue from the members they raided.

In fact, the Teamsters were seated at the last CLC convention but NUPGE was not.

In other cases (such as the CFNU), the CLC has not applied the rules evenly.

In 2001, NUPGE was told by the CLC that we were responsible for the actions of our provincial Component, the AUPE.

However, in the case of the BC Nurses’ Union raid, the CLC decided to suspend the BCNU only and not its national union (the actual CLC affiliate) the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions (CFNU).

Why the double standard?

3. What has NUPGE done to raise its concerns about raiding?

NUPGE has raised the issue of raiding at every CLC convention since 1990.

We’ve participated in all CLC constitutional and structural review processes over the last two decades.

NUPGE president James Clancy has repeatedly raised concerns about raiding in meetings with CLC president Ken Georgetti and members of the CLC executive committee and council.

NUPGE has consistently put forward proposals to reform the rules in order to find an effective solution to raiding.

We’ve made several submissions to the current CLC structural review process.

We’ve made many attempts to start a discussion about this issue and we’ve encouraged other unions to share their ideas.

However, the CLC has simply said our proposals aren’t acceptable and no one has offered an alternative for discussion.

In the meantime, our National Executive Board developed a policy to deal with instances where one of our Components has been raided wherein a small amount of CLC dues is withheld to defray the expenses of defending against the raid.

Delegates at our conventions in 2007 and 2010 ratified this executive board policy.

That policy was invoked in 2006 in response to the Teamsters raid on the MGEU, and again in 2009 in response to the BC Nurses’ Union raid against the BCGEU.

4. Why is NUPGE suspending its participation in CLC activities?

We find it difficult to continue participating in CLC activities at the national level when this serious problem of raiding is not being addressed and while raiding continues to chip away at the cornerstone of labour unity.

5. What exactly was the decision made by NUPGE?

NUPGE’s National Executive Board unanimously decided to suspend its participation in CLC activities at the national level only.

NUPGE and its Components are committed to continuing our participation in provincial Federations of Labour and community Labour Councils across the country.

So to be perfectly clear, our decision was not to disaffiliate from all bodies associated with the CLC but to suspend our participation in CLC activities at the national level.

6. Why is the CLC kicking NUPGE out of the Federations of Labour and Labour Councils?

That’s a very good question.

The past practice of the CLC has been to allow other unions to participate in some parts of the house of labour but not others.

In some cases, a union (such as the Teamsters and the CFNU) has been allowed to affiliate to the CLC without also being affiliated to the Federations of Labour or Labour Councils.

In other cases, a union (such as the BC Teachers’ Federation) has been allowed to affiliate to the Federation of Labour without being affiliated to the CLC.

In other cases, a union (such as CUPE and CAW) has been allowed to affiliate only a small percent of its members to Federations of Labour or Labour Councils while still being affiliated to the CLC.

In other words, for many years, the CLC has allowed other unions to be affiliated to some labour centrals but not others.

The patchwork of affiliations is a result of decisions made and precedents set by the CLC over many years.

So why is the CLC treating NUPGE differently than these other unions?

NUPGE’s decision to suspend its particpation in the CLC at the national level is based on the lack of progress in dealing with raiding at the national level.

NUPGE contributes a lot – both in human and financial resources – to the Federations of Labour and Labour Councils across the country.

Our members know first-hand the work that is done by the Federations of Labour and Labour Councils to support working families.

We do not want to diminish these efforts at the provincial and local level.

Unfortunately, rather than deal with the problem of raiding at the national level, the CLC has made the problem worse by deciding to expel NUPGE and its Components from the Federations of Labour and Labour Councils.

It’s disappointing that the CLC has made this decision.