babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Buzz Hargrove article in National Post

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Buzz Hargrove article in National Post
CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068

posted 08 August 2005 01:58 PM      Profile for CourtneyGQuinn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
good article in the National Post today....Buzz Hargrove was explaining the position the union was is....he complained that thousands of jobs have been lost since 1996...., yet productivity has gone up 40%???....how can that be?....either the workers before 1996 were real slackers....or...the workers since then are super-human?....how did they increase output with less workers????(i don't believe either explanation)

right now China and India may have an advantage due to labour costs.....in less then 5 years using robotics will be more affordable then the cheapest overseas, offshore, and outsourced manufactored good.....Newfoundland, Quebec, Manitoba and BC will literally be powerhouses in the future.....the only thing automated robot's need is software and electricity...these privinces can provide ample energy via wind and water to power the worlds biggest robotics factories/companie

has anyone ever seen the Discovery channel show "How it's made"?...most of the factory jobs are so simple and repetitive you know a robot could easily be used

the auto industries productivity has gone up because of automation/robotics....

China and India will soon be losing manufactoring jobs due to robotics...those workers can compete against Western workers for jobs...but can they compete against robots?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 08 August 2005 03:43 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn:
right now China and India may have an advantage due to labour costs.....in less then 5 years using robotics will be more affordable then the cheapest overseas, offshore, and outsourced manufactored good.....Newfoundland, Quebec, Manitoba and BC will literally be powerhouses in the future.....the only thing automated robot's need is software and electricity...these privinces can provide ample energy via wind and water to power the worlds biggest robotics factories/companie

That explains the rise in productivity without increasing employment. The reason companies prefer robots is that robots do as they're told (programmed) are easily replacable, and are cheap. There's a good reason that people think of robots as job killes: they are. And I believe the only people who save money are the businesses, not the consumers. Someone may say, "gee, I saved all this money because the company I shop at got all these robots! What should I do with all that extra cash?" Well, you could give it to an organisation dedicated to helping workers replaced by the robots for one.

Business groups are not concerned with such things as productivity and community well being. They are a lobby group that seeks to maintain and increse the power they have over the rest of us.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 August 2005 04:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Courtney, I haven't read the article, but I find it hard to believe that Buzz wrote this:

quote:
he complained that thousands of jobs have been lost since 1996...., yet productivity has gone up 40%???....how can that be?....either the workers before 1996 were real slackers....or...the workers since then are super-human?....how did they increase output with less workers????(i don't believe either explanation)

That's your interpretation of his article and some other stats, yes?

You are missing, I think, the real meaning of the words "productivity" and "efficiency" as capitalists and their economists use those terms.

You don't have to be a slacker to be inefficient in the eyes of a capitalist. If you are doing your job well, you are probably inefficient -- crap sells just as well as well-made goods, so why have highly skilled workers who don't cut corners?

And if you are paid a living wage, you are probably inefficient. There is always someone willing to work for less. Unfortunately.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 09 August 2005 04:03 AM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't see why Prominent Liberal Party Supporter Basil Hargrove (TM) should complain about anything. After all, the party he really supports (as opposed to the party in which he holds a membership) seems to be coming back from its Gomery induced slump.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 09 August 2005 04:04 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Malcolm, that is not true. Don't spread lies like that, please.
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 11 August 2005 12:13 AM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Malcolm, that is not true. Don't spread lies like that, please.

Basil Hargrove has consistently undermined the NDP both federally and provincially, particularly in his viscious attacks on Alexa McDonough and in his direct inducements for progressive voters to support the Liberal Party in successive Ontario elections.

His active support for the Ontario Liberals alone provides a prima facie case for stripping him of his ONDP membership.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 11 August 2005 12:47 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have to agree with you. Buzz gave me headaches to no end trying to explain what he meant. My Aunt thought she should vote for a liberal even though no tory has been elected here in a couple of decades. It is a 2 way race usually between NDP and liberals here. I wish nothing but what mr hargrove deserves....Hoffa anyone?
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 11 August 2005 01:25 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
I don't see why Prominent Liberal Party Supporter Basil Hargrove (TM) should complain about anything. After all, the party he really supports (as opposed to the party in which he holds a membership) seems to be coming back from its Gomery induced slump.

These are absurd comments. Buzz Hargrove is one of the most progressive, effective, and Layton New Democrat supporters in the entire labour movement. Alexa may be a great social democrat but she was ineffective and a dud as leader.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 11 August 2005 11:59 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I live in a union town and I can tell you he is reviled by union and nonunion workers alike. Buzz is only interested in helping buzz. More union members to line his pockets. I have met him and I am not in the slightest impressed. His goals are short sighted and sadly only pertain to union members. Not a union member, what are you doing at an NDP rally. Go Away!! How progressive of him! I was not aware that the NDP only has union people as members. I guess the many people I know that are nonunion and always vote NDP don't matter. Oh ya but vote liberal in the next election...what a dumb ass. Please show me Hargroves wonderful intelligance and insight.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
oUtHEre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8973

posted 12 August 2005 01:23 AM      Profile for oUtHEre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
this link is for the caw web page

caw web page facts and stats

Over the last ten years I have not seen a huge increase in the amount of robotics in assembly operation, I do see an increase in union and company ergonomist helping workers protect from injuries. Healthy workers are more productive. Some job losses are due to plant closures and don’t directly affect productivity. Canadian Auto workers build quality and it could prove cheaper to employee people who can adapt to mishaps that are not programmed robotic computer systems . Robotics requires maintenance, employing more trades people to maintain. Let's just say I think the idea of robots building cars sounds possible, but I think I could get 20 more years easily.

The CAW influences non-union manufacturing plants into paying fair wages to their employees, the workers deserve a level of comfort for the wealth they bring theses corporations.

I trust Buzz will bargain a contract that is beneficial to all concerned parties.


From: tORonTo | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 12 August 2005 01:26 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thorin_bane:
I live in a union town and I can tell you he is reviled by union and nonunion workers alike. Buzz is only interested in helping buzz. More union members to line his pockets. I have met him and I am not in the slightest impressed. His goals are short sighted and sadly only pertain to union members. Not a union member, what are you doing at an NDP rally. Go Away!! How progressive of him! I was not aware that the NDP only has union people as members. I guess the many people I know that are nonunion and always vote NDP don't matter. Oh ya but vote liberal in the next election...what a dumb ass. Please show me Hargroves wonderful intelligance and insight.

I do too. Buzz is highly respected here.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 12 August 2005 02:24 AM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry folks. I can't respect a major public figure who claims to belong to a party which he then undermines at every opportunity.

Thus, I have no respect for Prominent Liberal Party Supporter Basil Hargrove.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 12 August 2005 10:48 AM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Alexa may be a great social democrat but she was ineffective and a dud as leader.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Alexa saved the ass of the party when she took over. She brought us a breakthough in Atlantic Canada, and kept us afloat in some of the most difficult times to be progressive - the dark days of neo-liberal ascendancy. And she got crapped all over, and undermined, by a lot of people who blamed her personally for being unable to stem the tide of right wing populism and the taint of some unpopular provincial parties.

She led in a difficult time, and she did it with grace and humour and strength that people like Hargrove don't understand; strength that doesn't come from grandstanding and bluster. While she doesn't get the respect, in part due to her gender, that she deserves, she isn't perfect, but I'm grateful for what she did.

And I agree in the assesments of Hargrove - with friends like that, the NDP hardly needs enemies. He's self-aggrandizing and pompous, and has undermined the party in the past at key points. But, the NDP's relationship with labour, and with some labour leaders, has been a difficult one; Broadbent was chastised publicly after several elections by labour leaders. Its a wider problem than just Hargove, though he's sooo easy to hate.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 12 August 2005 11:08 AM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Buzz might be a difficult, obnoxious, bigoted individual. I don't know, but some people have strong feelings on the subject.

But to say that he's a Liberal seems simplistic. The Rae ONDP government's "social contract" violated some very sacred cows of the labour movement. Personally, I understand the thinking behind some of Rae's policies, (in the case of the 'social contract' it was 'spread the pain, save the jobs') but it was bad politics and greatly damaging to the strength of the labour movement.
What is a labour leader supposed to do when a traditional ally betrays the principle of free collective bargaining and respecting contracts? I support the NDP, but i had no patience for NDPr's who think that everyone should support them so long as they're just a little less worse than the alternatives.

I won't support that.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 12 August 2005 11:09 AM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Agreed, my patience with Prominent Liberal Supporter Basil Hargrove ended a long time ago. If Layton can keep a lid on this bozo, good for him.
From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 12 August 2005 11:23 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's with all these gripes about Hargrove from the not-so-recent past? Has Hargrove recently expressed support for the Liberals? And how is he bigoted, thwap?

There's a real lack of facts here, other than reference to the past and an article in the NP that supports CAW members.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 12 August 2005 01:30 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
N. Beltov,

I didn't say he was bigoted. I said he might be, i don't know, so many people are venting about this r' that, so i won't say they're wrong, but i don't know anything about the man really.

In case it didn't come across in my previous post: I can't say that Buzz Hargrove or the CAW owes the ONDP or the NDP anything if these parties don't deliver the goods.

Rae screwed the OPSEU unions over and the CAW decided that trade union principles were more important than blind loyalty to a weak-kneed social democratic party.

And, especially if the "reward" for loyalty to an indifferent political party is to split the anti-Harris vote and perpetuate that revolting regime. That the majority anti-Harris vote was still split doesn't necessarily mean that "strategic voting" was brainless.

Again, I support the NDP, but I didn't vote for 'em the election after Rae. And diehard NDPr's can say that we all got what we deserved, but no party deserves blind, unfailing support if it betrays its constituencies. These dispiriting performances do just as much harm as the aggressive, arrogant smashing and cruelty of right-wing parties.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 12 August 2005 01:53 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
thwap: the CAW decided that trade union principles were more important than blind loyalty to a weak-kneed social democratic party.

I can't fault Hargrove there.

quote:
... no party deserves blind, unfailing support if it betrays its constituencies

Yea, my unconditional support is mostly limited to anti-war sentiments and fidelity to the best interests of the social class I belong to.

Thanks for the comments. Perhaps I need to make a bit of a study of the history of the NDP in Ontario.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 12 August 2005 03:06 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, my favourite book is Thomas Walkolm's (sp?) Rae Days: the rise and follies of the NDP in Ontario

A pre-death post-mortem is provided in Giving Away a Miracle ... which i don't like quite so much.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 12 August 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I support the NDP, but i had no patience for NDPr's who think that everyone should support them so long as they're just a little less worse than the alternatives.

Not everyone. Just people who hold NDP memberships, and belong to NDP-affiliated organizations (e.g. the CAW).

If Hargrove, or any other labour leader, feel that the NDP is not delivering what they want, the proper course of action is either for them to remain supportive of the party and work to elect more sympathetic leadership, or to disaffiliate. If you want to stay on the boat, you'd better keep rowing.


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 12 August 2005 04:48 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK link me to something that shows how progressive Basil is. Show me what a great social democrat he is.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 12 August 2005 05:04 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
brookmere: If Hargrove, or any other labour leader, feel that the NDP is not delivering what they want, the proper course of action is either for them to remain supportive of the party and work to elect more sympathetic leadership, or to disaffiliate.

That only makes sense if the NDP is somehow responsible to the elected bodies or officers of the particular union. But that's patently untrue, particularly as it relates to the NDPers that form a provincial government. The latter always retain the "flexibility" to take a different path from the one that any or all labour leaders desire.

There's also more to the connections between the labour movement and the NDP than you let on. Influence goes both ways.

quote:
If you want to stay on the boat, you'd better keep rowing.

That's what communists call democratic centralism. The way they put it, if you belong to a political organization then you damn well better abide by its decisions and remain active in one of its components. And the communists, much like the NDP, presume that they alone are the natural and best representative of the political interests of working people. I think they're both wrong even if I also think that more competition on the left would be healthier for both.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 12 August 2005 06:46 PM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That only makes sense if the NDP is somehow responsible to the elected bodies or officers of the particular union.

"Somehow?". Have I been imagining the phlanxes of union delegates at NDP conventions? The people that I and other individual members of the NDP have no part in selecting?

quote:

quote:If you want to stay on the boat, you'd better keep rowing.

That's what communists call democratic centralism. The way they put it, if you belong to a political organization then you damn well better abide by its decisions and remain active in one of its components. And the communists, much like the NDP, presume that they alone are the natural and best representative of the political interests of working people. I think they're both wrong even if I also think that more competition on the left would be healthier for both.


Look, if a trade union affiliates itself with the NDP, it is assuming that the NDP alone is the best representative of working people. Is that so difficult to understand?

No member of the NDP has any obligation to be active in the party in any way, and indeed can vote any way they want in elections. Nor can the NDP muzzle criticism from its membership. But every member is required to sign a declaration that they are not a member or a supporter of any other political party. If a political party cannot demand at least this, then membership means nothing. And in my opinion, if the leaders of affiliated unions cannot abide by this as well, then union affiliation means nothing.

[ 12 August 2005: Message edited by: brookmere ]


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 12 August 2005 07:13 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
brookmere, you've left out the most important part of my comment. Have another look. I wrote:

"That only makes sense if the NDP is somehow responsible to the elected bodies or officers of the particular union. But that's patently untrue, particularly as it relates to the NDPers that form a provincial government. The latter always retain the "flexibility" to take a different path from the one that any or all labour leaders desire."

Of course what I mean here is that once MLAs assume public office, they're not obliged to reflect the views of any of those labour delegates in their new role. They have the "flexibility" to order people back to work, as Dave Barrett did in BC with the first BC NDP administration, or introduce legislation harmful to working people as Rae did, or whatever.

I don't understand your other comments. Are you asserting that Hargrove is a member of another party? What does "supporter" of another party mean anyway? Perhaps this is just a clumsy expression but you seem to be contradicting yourelf here.

I'm still curious: don't you agree that the influence goes both ways, that the NDP influences developments in the labour movement just as the labour movement sends delegates to NDP conventions, raises money for the party, provides activists for it, etc., etc., etc....

[ 12 August 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 12 August 2005 07:13 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thorin_bane:
OK link me to something that shows how progressive Basil is. Show me what a great social democrat he is.

For example, what about the seed money the CAW is proving to World Television Network?

How quickly we forget. Not too long ago the NDP was on death watch. People like Buzz spoke up and look what's happened. We are in the best position we have been in for a long time.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 12 August 2005 07:29 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I associate Hargrove with the four-month-long bus strike in Vancouver in 2001. Granted, he was only the head of the national union, not of the local, but his grandstanding didn't make the strike any shorter.

What the hell are the Canadian Auto Workers doing representing transit workers, anyway? Isn't that like a conflict of interest?


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 12 August 2005 07:51 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thwap:
[QB] ...the CAW decided that trade union principles were more important than blind loyalty to a weak-kneed social democratic party.

[QB]


So supporting a weak-kneed bland centre party that made no concessions whatsoever to social democratic, let alone trade union values in exchange for his support was better? Even though said weak-kneed bland centre party never came close to victory until after Harris had retired and defeating the Ontario Tories no longer mattered?

Yeah, right. Didn't know you had Clintonites in Canada.

[ 12 August 2005: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 12 August 2005: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 12 August 2005 08:00 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If he really wanted to put workers' interests first(which is not an unreasonable goal)why the hell didn't Hargrove do something like form an Ontario Labour Party?

OR, as Tommy Douglas would ask, how was he sticking up for the mice by backing the white cat against the black cat?

The Ontario Liberals never gave a damn about the CAW membership. Other than Pierre Trudeau on a good day with a following wind, there has never been such a thing as a pro-worker Liberal politician in all of Canada(and no, Joey Smallwood doesn't count, since he only joined the Liberals because Newfoundland needed to have a provincial government allied with a potential national governing party to have any influence in Ottawa at all.)

[ 12 August 2005: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 August 2005 10:25 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
What's with all these gripes about Hargrove from the not-so-recent past? Has Hargrove recently expressed support for the Liberals? And how is he bigoted, thwap?

There's a real lack of facts here, other than reference to the past and an article in the NP that supports CAW members.



You may not be aware that in the last provincial election, Hargrove was so eager to get rid of the Conservative government that he became an advocate of strategic voting. In effect, this meant that he encouraged his members to vote Liberal in ridings where the NDP had been in third place. Partly as a result of this, the Liberals won a huge majority, and the NDP lost its official party status.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 12 August 2005 11:00 PM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The latter always retain the "flexibility" to take a different path from the one that any or all labour leaders desire."

Well of course, and that goes equally well with regard to the party membership. And union leaders, just like individual NDP members, have every right to criticize actions of NDP governments that they don't agree with.

My comments were not specifically directed at Hargrove, although they were inspired by comments some posters made that he had tacitly supported the Liberals in Ontario. Anyway, let me give a concrete example of what I am talking about.

In the 2004 Federal election, Dave Haggard, an executive of IWA-Canada, ran as the Liberal candidate in a BC riding. IWA-Canada is affiliated with the NDP.

Now if Ujjal Dosanjh had still been an NDP member at that time, he would have been expelled from the party, and rightly so. He was villified enough by the NDP even though he was no longer a member. So what did Haggard's union have to say? Read this.

If any of these people held individual memberships in the NDP (any guesses?), this in itself constituted grounds for their expulsion from the party. And furthermore, in my view, it is unacceptable for an executive member of any NDP-affiliated union to endorse a rival candidate, whether or not that member holds an individual NDP membership. Agree?

[ 12 August 2005: Message edited by: brookmere ]


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 13 August 2005 04:38 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thorin_bane:
I have to agree with you. Buzz gave me headaches to no end trying to explain what he meant. My Aunt thought she should vote for a liberal even though no tory has been elected here in a couple of decades. It is a 2 way race usually between NDP and liberals here. I wish nothing but what mr hargrove deserves....Hoffa anyone?

thorin_bane, we try really hard not to wish people dead on babble. Think you can stick to that?


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 13 August 2005 10:27 AM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What to say, what to say,

It's true, that an executive of a union affiliated with the NDP ought not to endorse another party. And if that executive wants to personally be a member of the NDP, endorsing the Liberals is obviously out of line.

But here's the rub, where practical politics comes in: the trade unions provide a lot of money for the NDP. If, in return for this money, they get something like the social contract, then the (in this case) ONDP doesn't have a leg to stand on when they continue to get, say, CAW money, but the CAW president endorses strategic voting.

What's the point of abandoning a weak-kneed social democratic party for a slavishly corporate hypocritical Liberal party? Well, within the context of an arrogant, smug, unsatisfying Rae gov't that attacked trade union principles, and a split centre-left vote that allowed a reeking pile of shit like Mike Harris to get elected and destroy much of our quality of life, "strategic voting" was about making a statement that left voters should not let loyalty to the ONDP stand in the way of defeating the Ontario PC monstrosity, just to make a statement: "This far and no farther" for this fascistic cruelty.

I don't think anyone seriously thought the Libs would become sweethearts.

I felt the same way about the past US presdential election. If i was down there, I'd vote for ABB, that is Kerry, because it is important in a debased political culture, to make a statement that blatant arrogance, anti-left, cruel governments will be defeated. [The fact that Kerry was such a total dud that he let bush jr. steal another election without contesting it was something that i hadn't foreseen.]

In the ONDP's case, there has to be some sort of penalty for taking your constituency for granted, (welfare snitch lines, tossing out contracts that the unions were compelled to honour but the government wasn't) all for the dubious benefit of grudging praise from the Globe & Mail editorial board.

And, for the record: I think the Rae gov't was the best government Ontario could have had during that recession/free trade/federal downloading. The Libs or PCs would have been horrible, horrible, horrible. But we should learn from the Tories. We are past the point of the post-1945 boom. Aside from some unequal growth on the margins, the political-economy has become a zero-sum game. For some to win, others will have to lose. The NDP has a constituency, and if elected, it should be shameless, goddamned, utterly shameless about rewarding its friends and punishing its enemies.

The poor will vote NDP if the NDP makes it worth their while. The unions will vote if the NDP makes unions stronger. The artists and ecologists and all the groups we want will vote for the NDP if the NDP serves them. If there is a recession caused by the arrogant Bank of Canada, then the debt that could be racked-up from rewarding our friends (remember though, we'll be taxing our enemies through the fucking nose) should be the problem of the next gov't should we lose the meandering middle. At least we'll have an activist base.

Conservatives don't care about debt and deficit, neither should we. They take it out of our hides, we should take it out of theirs.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 13 August 2005 11:07 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the info, M.Spector and brookmere. It's already become clear to me that I should be a little more knowledgeable about the history of the NDP in Ontario. But there's something else.

Can anyone outline what an "NDP-affilated union" actually means? Is it all clear or are there aspects that are not clearly defined? Edited to add: rights and responsibilities, that sort of stuff.

[ 13 August 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
peterjcassidy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 372

posted 13 August 2005 03:19 PM      Profile for peterjcassidy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For N. Beltov and others interested The following extracts from Wikipedia gives some idea of how trade unions in Canada played a major role in creating and maintaing “their parties”, including the CCF and subsequently the NDP.

· There have been various groups in Canada that have nominated candidates under the label Labour Party or Independent Labour Party or other variations from the 1870s until the 1960s. These were usually local or provincial groups using the Labour Party or Independent Labour Party name, backed by local Labour Councils (made up of all the union locals in a city) or individual trade unions. · There was an attempt to create a national Canadian Labour Party in the 1920s, but this was ultimately unsuccessful. The Independent Labour Party and other labour groups helped found the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in 1932.
J. S. Woodsworth, who founded the Manitoba Independent Labour Party in December 1920. sat as an Independent Labour Party MP from 1921 until he became the founding leader of the CCF in 1932. Angus MacInnis was an Independent Labour Party MP from 1930 to 1935 and sat as a CCF MP from 1935; A. A. Heaps, was elected as a Labour MP for Winnipeg North in 1925, 1926 and 1930 and was re-elected as a CCFer in 1935. MacInnis, Heaps and Woodsworth joined the Ginger Group of left wing MPs prior to forming the CCF.
· Across Canada, labour and the farmers movements, particularly the United Farmers, formed alliances, and often ran joint candidates. The Progressive Party of Canada was effectively a coalition of farmer and labour groups.
· Federally, Agnes Macphail, who was first elected to the House of Commons as a Progressive, was re-elected in 1935 as a UFO-Labour candidate before being defeated in 1940. She was, at the time, a member of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, but ran as UFO-Labour for tactical reasons.
· . In the 1934 provincial election, the Famer-Labour Group won almost 24% of the popular vote and 5 seats in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, where it became the official opposition to the Liberal government. After the election, it became the Saskatchewan section of the CCF.
· The NDP was created in 1961 as a merger of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC).
____________________________

I will do a separate post on affilation.


From: Screaming in language no-one understands.. | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 13 August 2005 06:05 PM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's true, that an executive of a union affiliated with the NDP ought not to endorse another party. And if that executive wants to personally be a member of the NDP, endorsing the Liberals is obviously out of line.

Read the article again. We're not talking about an individual member of the executive endorsing a Liberal. The executive issued an endorsement on behalf of the entire union. That is patently at odds with the union's affiliation with the NDP. An affiliated union that collectively endorses a rival party should face the same consequences as an individual member who does the same.

quote:

But here's the rub, where practical politics comes in: the trade unions provide a lot of money for the NDP

Well actually they don't. Individual members provide far more funding for the party - a much higher percentage than for the Liberals, for example.

But here's the problem. If John Q. NDP Member publicly endorses a rival party, and gets in trouble for it, his $100/year donation won't save him. But it appears that the IWA's $20,000/year (or whatever) donation insulates them from any consequences of their action.

Class privelege, anyone?

[ 13 August 2005: Message edited by: brookmere ]


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
peterjcassidy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 372

posted 13 August 2005 06:08 PM      Profile for peterjcassidy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On affiliation ( and other things)
When the NDP was formed, rather than follow the model of the British Labour Party, where the central leadership of the trade unions cast bloc vote, it was left up to individual locals of unions to affiliate, elect their own delegates and cast their own votes at convention and such.

Craft unions, such as those in construction, and public sector unions, such as CUPE and teachers, generally have been willing to vote for, or to allow, central labour bodes such as the Canadian Labour Congress or the Provincial territorial federations or local labour councils to endorse and support the NDP. However, for a number of reasons including restrictive laws and “Gomperism” their locals (and their memberships) have not affiliated to the NDP. It was basically the locals from the industrial unions (auto, steel, rubber workers etc) who affiliated and who have been the core of support for the NDP over the past 40 years.

Roughly speaking about 15 % of trade union locals in Canada are affricated to the NDP, which translates down to about 15 % of trade union members belong to locals, affiliated to the NDP. I would argue that the trade union support, including especially support from the CAW, is crucial for the survival of the NDP and any hope for growth.

Roughly speaking in federal elections across Canada over the years, trade unionists are abut 2 to 3 times more likely to vote NDP than non trade unionists and the vote from trade unionists makes up about half the total vote the NDP gets in federal elections. There is some correlation between membership in a trade union, particularly an auto or steel union, affiliated to the NDP, and voting NDP. The hierarchy is basically (from most likely to vote NDP to least likely):

1/ member of auto or steel local affiliated to the NDP
2/ member of non-auto or non-steel local affricated to the NDP
3/ member of auto or steel local not affiliated to the NDP
4/ member of non-auto or not steel local not affiliated to the NDP
5/not a member of a trade union

Individual locals who are affiliated decide how much they want to contribute each year in per capital dues (e.g. a local with 1000 members might pay dues on 50 members or 500 and rarely all 1000). The size of the per cap determines delegates entitlement (generally one delegate per every 500 per cap, while riding associations get one delegate per 50 members.).

I would argue that affiliation and delegates from trade union locals to NDP convention are very democratic. Delegate election is generally done at membership meetings of a local that has confirmed though a membership process its decision to support the NDP through affiliation. In other words the individual members of the local are, in most cases, not individual members of the NDP, but they support ( or tolerate) their local being affilated to the NDP and taking an active role in the NDP.

Generally, only those who are members of the NDP can run for a delegate position but all members or the local, New Democrat or not, get to vote The registration free, travel, accommodation, lost time etc. are paid for by the local and the delegates are expected to be accountable to the local. Specifically, the membership demands that the persons elected to an NDP convention, will follow the instructions of the delegating body, not the advice of Buzz or anybody else when it is contrary to the wishes of the membership. I have seen Buzz try to persuade CAW delegates at a NDP convention to follow his advice and they tell him to stuff it.

Generally however Buzz, the delegates, the locals, and the membership are in agreement on issues, like supporting Svends bid for leadership, supporting NPI up to and during the Winnipeg convention, supporting Jack Layton’s bid for leadership and supporting the NDP during provincial and federal elections.
.
Strategic voting is a separate discussion best left for another time. I would suggest however that what Buzz and the CAW (and other unions and community groups did) was generally what their membership wanted and that Buzz and the CAW tried to use strategic voting to help, not hurt the NDP
.
Hargrove fought hard to keep most CAW locals affiliated to the NDP during Rae days. In the case of CAW local 222 in Oshawa he and the leadership of the CAW were not successful and 222 disaffiliated, based on the vote of the membership. However most of the locals and the membership of CAW agreed with the collective approach of remaining with “their” party, the one it had played a major role in building and maintaining, and not allowing Bob Rae or others to destroy it. . While I have some problems with some specific actions of Buzz and the CAW I accept in general those actions come from a relatively well thought out and democratic analysis and practice.


From: Screaming in language no-one understands.. | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 13 August 2005 06:53 PM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I should note that in BC, members of public sector unions like the BCGEU and BCNU, which are not affiliated to the NDP, are more loyal NDP voters than members of the IWA or Steelworkers, which are.

The previous posting describing the Byzantine structure of trade union affilation to the NDP leads me to ask - do members really give a rat's ass (if indeed they know) whether their particular local, or indeed their entire union, is affiliated to the NDP? The spectacular desertion of private sector union votes from the BC NDP in 2001, despite the unabashedly pro-union policies of the incumbent government, leads me to wonder.

[ 13 August 2005: Message edited by: brookmere ]


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 14 August 2005 11:06 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by audra trower williams:

thorin_bane, we try really hard not to wish people dead on babble. Think you can stick to that?


Your kidding right. How often is stephan harper or other CPCers or FD people had much worse and more direct than what I posted. And I said I just hoped he got what he deserves...I guess you interpret that as he deserves to die. Don't be a hypocrite Audra...moderate both if your going to do it. I will really try not to wish ill on hargrove. As I said, I only wish (like karma) that he gets what he deserves.


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 14 August 2005 11:55 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
thorin_bane: Your kidding right. How often is stephan harper or other CPCers or FD people had much worse ...

There's nothing worse than wishing someone dead except actually killing them or doing something to harm them.

quote:
And I said I just hoped he got what he deserves...I guess you interpret that as he deserves to die.

For the record:

quote:
thorin_bane: I wish nothing but what mr hargrove deserves....Hoffa anyone?

Seems pretty clear to me. Jimmy Hoffa was murdered and his body was never found. Was there some other, more charitable, interpretation you'd like to stamp your comments with?

[ 14 August 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 15 August 2005 02:08 AM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Re: the affiliation discussion.

While the vast majority of organizations affiliated with the NDP are trade unions or locals or labour councils or federations etc., the party constitution merely refers to them as affiliated organizations. An orgnaization need no be part of the trade union movement to affiliate with the NDP. At the time the party was re-established as the NDP, there was a hope that other organizations - especially agricultural organizations like the National Farmers Union - would also affiliate.

The only non-labour affiliate I'm aware of is the Woodsworth - Irvine Socialist Fellowship - if it still exists.

The enabling resolution for the so-called "labour carve-out" in the election of a leader refers only to "affiliated organizations."


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 16 August 2005 01:05 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Seems pretty clear to me. Jimmy Hoffa was murdered and his body was never found. Was there some other, more charitable, interpretation you'd like to stamp your comments with?

[ 14 August 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


For the record it is assumed hoffa is dead no one knows ass hat. I would like to see mr hargrove also disappear. Wow sometime this board makes me ill, the sense of humour is next to nil.


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 August 2005 01:18 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thorin_bane:
For the record it is assumed hoffa is dead no one knows ass hat. I would like to see mr hargrove also disappear. Wow sometime this board makes me ill, the sense of humour is next to nil.
There are very good reasons why it is "assumed" that James Hoffa is dead. If he's not dead, he might as well be. You can't weasel out of this one that easily.

You want the same thing that happened to Hoffa to happen to Hargrove. And this is your idea of "humour"?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 16 August 2005 08:35 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Would it be ok to wish Hargrove be appointed to the Senate?

From what I hear, that's not that far from death.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 17 August 2005 03:48 AM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Would it be ok to wish Hargrove be appointed to the Senate?

From what I hear, that's not that far from death.


It would be worth it if Jack Layton and his staff proceed to diss Basil the way he dissed Lillian Dyck.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 17 August 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fine since the 2 of you want me to say I would like to see him buried upsidedown in the side of a quarry I said it are you happy. Wow you quibble that you don't like a labour leader and suddenly I am Stalin or worse george bush. (You guys know it's hard to put across sarcasm on the net but whatever.) I said Hoffa afterwords as a joke...sheeesh. But I would like to see him put him money where his mouth is and do something instead of popping off whenever it suits his fancy.
{flounce]I am done with this thread so if your interested in insulting me somemore than PM me instead of using up the thread with useless SHIT.[/flounce]

From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca