Hard Lessons: The Mine Mill Union in the Canadian Labour Movement

section.

Part 1

THE STATE OF THE UNION

Introduction

These chapters repeat the themes of the Mine Mill centennial conference: Was there a future for Mine Mill and other alternative unions outside the mainstream? Could the mainstream labour movement learn something from alternative unions? We know that Mine Mill’s democratic traditions led to its virtual demise and its expulsion from the mainstream of Canadian labour. Have the changes wrought by global economic, political, and social forces made those traditions irrelevant? From the beginning of the conference to its conclusion, all those attending were to grapple with these fundamental questions.

The opening address by John Lang, secretary-treasurer of the Confederation of Canadian Unions (CCU), recalls the first hundred years of Mine Mill and explores its decimation as a national union. Lang wonders whether the time has come for Mine Mill to rejoin the mainstream of Canadian labour. He briefly outlines Mine Mill’s position as an alternative union and asks: If, at this point in the history of our labour movement, there is some convergence between alternative unions and the mainstream of the labour movement, what are the implications for mainstream unions? Thus the question of a possible merger of Mine Mill was touched on very early in the conference.

John O’Grady, labour consultant, argues strongly for such a strategy. He demonstrates that labour organization in the private sector is destined to decline if the current system of collective bargaining is not replaced by a system that permits broader-based bargaining. These themes are further developed by CAW (Canadian Auto Workers) staff representative Laurell Ritchie. She looks at the increasing labour-force participation of women, the growing proportion of part-time work, and the need for organized labour to go beyond traditional – usually male – sources of membership and to look beyond narrow national boundaries.

Jean-Claude Parrot, Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) vice-president, takes up the themes raised by the previous presenters and calls on labour to become much more inclusive. While many workers will benefit from collective bargaining, labour’s voice is muted on issues like free trade, interest rates, tax policy, and deficits. Parrot insists, Mass unemployment, declining real wages, the polarization of jobs into good jobs and bad jobs, and increasing poverty are the consequences of globalization and the government corporate agenda.

Chapter 1

One Hundred Years of Mine Mill

John B. Lang

We are assembled in what is, for many, the most historic union hall in the country, to mark the one hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Western Federation of Miners, the precursor of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers. We are here to celebrate the accomplishments of Mine Mill in bringing union organization to the hardrock mining industry of North America. We are here as well to pay tribute to the role of Local 598 in representing the mineworkers of the Sudbury basin for the past fifty years.

We are also here tonight – and at the conference in the days to follow – to reflect on the state of the labour movement in Canada and to examine the influence of unions like Mine Mill – sometimes smaller, often more militant, usually outside of the major labour federations – on the direction and philosophy of the mainstream labour movement in Canada.

For me, Mine Mill symbolizes, perhaps more than any other labour organization in North America, what is best in the labour movement. In my opinion the history of the union is characterized by a certain rugged honesty, a fierce dedication to defend and advance the economic interests of its members, a remarkable willingness to challenge not only the corporations it faced in negotiations but also the capitalist economic system as a whole.

Along with these characteristics the union has held a firm commitment to taking a broad view of both its own role and the role of the labour movement. The union has shown a distinct tendency to move beyond the narrow economic struggle between the worker and the boss and to deploy its resources towards achieving programs that would enhance the complete lives of members, their families, and the communities in which they lived.

In the first instance, this understanding of labour’s broader social struggle led Mine Mill to achieve comprehensive health and welfare programs for its members and their families. The union’s educational programs stretched beyond the immediate needs of stewards’ training to embrace a wide range of social and economic issues. From its earliest days, Mine Mill emphasized political action, taking an active part in countless campaigns for legislative reforms and working to elect labour members to legislative office. It gave top priority to organizing campaigns, which in the heyday of Mine Mill ensured that virtually the entire hardrock mining industry in Canada worked under union contracts. In the 1940s and 1950s its cultural and recreational programs quickly became models of their kind for the labour movement. Mine Mill was also one of the first international unions to recognize the need for Canadian autonomy. It granted independence to its Canadian membership in 1955.

Throughout its history Mine Mill recognized the importance of including women in the life of the union. Although the primary structure for this involvement was in the form of ladies’ auxiliaries – rightly criticized by feminists today for their paternalistic and patriarchal connotation – still, in most of the strikes fought by Mine Mill, and in much of the union’s community activities, women played an important and highly visible role, which was fully credited at all levels of the organization.

The outward-looking social unionism of Mine Mill found particular expression in the Sudbury area. By the mid-1940s, Sudbury’s Local 598 represented almost eighteen thousand members at Inco and Falconbridge and had become the flagship local of the union. The local moved quickly to become a force to be reckoned with in provincial and municipal politics. Mine Mill’s union halls (which were community gathering places) and its summer camp became the loci for an extensive cultural and recreational program under the imaginative leadership of Weir Reid [see chapter 19]. Mine Mill proceeded to organize a large proportion of the service sector of the Sudbury economy – taxi drivers, waitresses, and clerks in department stores and supermarkets all joined the labour movement under the banner of Mine Mill Local 902 [see chapter 6].

Many of Mine Mill’s accomplishments in Sudbury set precedents for the labour movement in Canada, but these accomplishments, unfortunately, are not what has put Sudbury on the labour historian’s map. Sudbury continues to be remembered as the primary location for the raids on Mine Mill’s membership by the United Steelworkers of America – the biggest and most bitter inter-union confrontation in the history of Canada’s labour movement. These raids, motivated by a Cold War, anti-communist hysteria, have become even harder to justify as time goes by. Yet the fact remains that the success of the Steelworkers in gaining the certification at Inco’s Sudbury operations led to the death of Mine Mill as a national union.

Sudbury police help members of the pro-Steelworkers faction in Mine Mill Local 598 prevent anti-Steelworker unionists from entering a September 10, 1961, meeting at the Sudbury Arena. The drive to merge Local 598 with the Steelworkers was announced at that meeting.

Mike Solski Collection, Sudbury Public Library

For the past quarter-century, Local 598 has carried on the struggle, representing its members at Falconbridge Nickel Mines and keeping alive the spirit of Mine Mill. Although its accomplishments in this period may not be as dramatic as those of the earlier era, Mine Mill Local 598 has continued to play an important role in the life of the Sudbury community and the labour movement generally. It has maintained a strong and active union at Falconbridge’s operations; it is active in the political and social life of the region; it was a founding member of the Confederation of Canadian Unions (CCU) in 1969; and, more recently, it has expanded its membership to include a number of service industries and social-service agencies in the region.

This aspect of Mine Mill’s history – operating primarily as a local union, outside the mainstream of Canada’s major labour federations – is to be the starting point for much of the discussion in the hundredth anniversary conference. This is the first instance I know of in which labour activists and academics have come together to discuss questions of this nature. It is a tribute to Mine Mill that, on its one hundredth anniversary, it is yet again providing an occasion for breaking new ground.

I have had the good fortune not only to study and write about Mine Mill in an academic setting, but also, for the past fifteen years, to work with Mine Mill as an officer of the CCU. In preparing for this conference, I reviewed some of what I have written and what others have written on Mine Mill. In this re-examination of Mine Mill research I was struck by the abiding generosity that permeates the union’s history. Not enough recognition, I believe, is given to the fact that it was largely because of the dues revenue generated from Local 598’s membership that Mine Mill was able to organize miners in virtually every mining camp in Canada during the 1940s and 1950s. In addition, Local 598’s membership was well known throughout North America for its generosity in supporting strikes and working-class struggles – no matter where – and most progressive political issues as well. The considerable financial resources of Local 598 were never hoarded; rather, in a continuous manifestation of labour solidarity, they were generously shared with others in greater need.

Unfortunately, this generosity became a major focal point of the attacks levied against Mine Mill by the Steelworkers. Local 598 was vilified for its support of labour struggles. The suggestion was egregiously made that union dues were spent improperly, and Local 598 was portrayed as the milch cow of the labour movement and popular causes. In my view, it is a sad reflection on the labour movement of Canada that such an attack was made – and sadder still that, to a large degree, the attack was successful.

In addition to analysing the history and accomplishments of Mine Mill, this conference plans to examine the role of alternative unions in Canada’s labour movement. For the past quarter century the Confederation of Canadian Unions has been at the centre of this controversy. In addition the CCU has, over the last couple of years, engaged in a serious internal debate about the changes taking place within our labour movement and the impact of these changes on CCU affiliates. I want to present my views on the CCU’s contribution to the development of Canada’s labour movement and to make a few observations about the current choices a number of CCU affiliates are in the process of making.

What is the difference that the CCU has offered Canadian trade unionists? In simple terms the alternative presented by the CCU has covered two areas:

1)

a commitment to building Canadian unions and liberating our labour movement from the domination of U.S.-based unions; and

2)

building and practising an alternative to the philosophy of business unionism, an alternative that must be rooted in a high level of union democracy and control by the rank-and-file union member.

This CCU alternative needs to be understood in the context of the struggles in our labour movement during the 1960s and early 1970s, the period during which most of the breakaways from U.S. unions occurred. These breakaways were usually generated by one of two root causes: the outright rejection by U.S. headquarters of Canadian demands for rudimentary recognition of the particular needs of Canadian workers in either the constitutional structure or the servicing provided by the union; or the poor representation afforded to, or the outright betrayal of, Canadian workers in times of strikes or other struggles with their employers.

Although most of the union breakaways in English-speaking Canada took place in the Western provinces, the impetus for this breakaway movement was supported by events in Sudbury. The prolonged attacks by the Steelworkers against Mine Mill’s membership during the 1950s – and especially its raids against Local 598 in the 1960s – reinforced the belief of many unionists in Canada that U.S. unions were more interested in building empires and winning control than they were in fighting for workers on the job.

It is to be expected, at a conference like this, that the impact of the CCU alternative will be scrutinized. I will lead off this discussion by asserting that I believe there is good reason for those of us in the CCU to be proud of what has been achieved.

On the issue of Canadian workers gaining control of their own labour movement, a tremendous transformation has occurred during the lifetime of the CCU. When the CCU was taking shape in the mid-1960s, over 70 percent of unionists in Canada were members of U.S. unions. Today, only 33 percent of unionists in Canada belong to U.S. unions – and this percentage is continuing to decline.

Not only has the presence of U.S. unions declined in the labour movement generally, there has been an equally dramatic change in the composition of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) – once considered the mouthpiece for U.S. unions in Canada. When the CLC was established in 1956, U.S. unions accounted for 80 percent of its membership. Today, only 37 percent of the CLC’s membership belongs to U.S.-based unions. Some of this transformation is explained by the more rapid growth of public-sector unions during this period. But a long list of U.S.-based unions have Canadianized in response, at least in part, to pressures generated by the CCU – beginning with the Canadian Paperworkers Union in the early 1970s and including the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) in the mid-1980s – which many believe to be the most significant step in the development of an independent Canadian labour movement.

Obviously, this dramatic move towards Canadian unionism has not resulted in a corresponding increase in the ranks of the CCU. Most of the Canadianization of U.S. unions has occurred on a relatively friendly basis within the CLC, without the need for breakaways. Nevertheless, I believe it is fair to argue that the CCU has played the role of a catalyst in bringing about these changes. We have demonstrated that Canadian workers can run their own affairs and negotiate top-notch contracts with the largest transnational corporations, and we have also kept the debate over Canadian unions alive within the labour movement.

On the issue of building an alternative to the philosophy of business unionism, an evaluation is more complex. Certainly, the CCU has earned a reputation for being a militant, democratic labour federation. We have had to endure our share of red-baiting, and The Globe and Mail regularly refers to the CCU as left-wing. But a more perceptive assessment of CCU affiliates would have to concede that there is a spectrum of achievement on this issue. We have produced affiliates that are highly politicized, promoting within their membership a critical analysis of our economic system and the world we live in. These affiliates have demonstrated, on many occasions, the resources and the leadership to undertake and win difficult struggles. Still, other affiliates are quite comfortable in not rocking the boat and in going along with the flow. In this respect, the CCU is not dissimilar from unions and labour federations throughout the world.

Where the Past Meets the Future is an appropriate title for this conference celebrating the centenary of Mine Mill. Not only does it solicit an appraisal of past endeavours, but it also raises questions about the role and the structure of the labour movement in the decades that lie before us. These are questions that have also received a considerable amount of discussion within the CCU in recent years.

As a leader of the CCU, I have felt that it has been my responsibility to confront affiliates with my belief that the labour movement in Canada has changed – and is continuing to change – in the very areas that the CCU set out to influence. The labour movement is now firmly in the hands of Canadian workers. Although this struggle has not been completely won, we have, you could say, at least pushed the boulder up our side of the mountain and over the top. It will not roll down the other side on gravity alone – there are a number of crevices and plateaus that will stand in its way. But at the same time, it is very unlikely at this point that the boulder will reverse itself and roll back up the hill and down our side.

The politics of the Canadian labour movement – including the CLC – have also changed. Although the mainstream unions might not meet all of the standards that the CCU has set for itself, there is no question in my mind that there have been major changes for the better in the policies and practices of the labour movement as a whole. At the same time, unions in Canada have had to deal with the fallout from the global economic restructuring occurring around us. This restructuring is fuelled by a new generation of technology based on the microchip and the division of the world economy into three major trading blocs. The clearest manifestation, for Canadians, of this new division is the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiated under the Progressive Conservative government. These trade agreements constitute a massive rewrite of all national economic and social policies according to the dictates of a handful of transnational corporations.

The impact of these trade agreements on working people and on the labour movement is enormous. Layoffs and plant closures are inevitable as the trade agreements place Canadian workers in direct competition, first, with corporations paying four dollars an hour in the U.S. sunbelt and, next, with these same corporations paying four dollars a day in Mexico. Nobody can escape the repercussions of this insidious corporate plot – as the public-sector workers in Ontario can now attest after weeks of trying to protect themselves against the onslaught of Premier Bob Rae’s so-called social contract.

The impact of this global economic restructuring has stretched the resources of smaller unions to the limit. Within the CCU, this situation has prompted several rounds of discussions over the past several years about restructuring our federation to meet these new realities. We put in considerable effort to try to arrive at a common solution to the problems faced by affiliates. But the differences among the fifteen unions within the CCU – in history, structure, and material conditions – were great, and in the end, after much honest deliberation, the only consensus that could be reached was that it would be up to each affiliate to determine the course of action that would be in the best interests of its members.

Over the past year and a half, several affiliates have left the CCU to merge into larger unions. The Canadian Auto Workers has been the union of choice for these CCU affiliates. It is also the preference of most of the leadership of Mine Mill Local 598 here in Sudbury in their current merger negotiations with the CAW. This is, indeed, a case where the past may be meeting the future.

If, at this point in the history of our labour movement, there is some convergence between alternative unions and the mainstream of the labour movement, what are the implications for mainstream unions? A few weeks ago, while attending the opening of the CAW Local 40 office in Toronto, I could not escape considering this question.¹ Gathered at the opening was a wide selection of activists who have played leading roles in struggles around women’s issues, equal pay for work of equal value, human rights, employment equity, immigration, the building of coalitions, and more. The majority of those present had championed these issues from outside the mainstream and spent most of their active lives in alternative unions or movements. As these unions and individuals enter the mainstream of the labour movement, the question confronting me is: where will the issues for the next decade come from? Rapidly expanding unions like the CAW face a crucial challenge to ensure that their structures and organizations will be open enough and confident enough to generate critical issues from within.

Another key issue relates to the fact that Canada does not exist in isolation. In this era of corporate-driven global trading pacts, it is abundantly clear that we need new forms of international solidarity among working people and popular organizations. Because of our unique experiences, the Canadian labour movement may be able to play a leading role in the development of new and solid alliances with working people around the world. We need to recognize, however, that in many Third World countries, the only legitimate labour movement is what we would describe as alternative unions. In Mexico, for example – where the logic of NAFTA demands that Canadian workers become involved in organizing Mexican workers – the official labour movement is bankrupt of ideals and is a corrupt instrument of the government. Alternative unions, many of them operating underground, more truly represent the interests of Mexican workers. The Canadian labour movement must ensure that these alternative unions are included in our international solidarity efforts and recognized in labour’s international forums.

For social activists, the past is constantly meeting the future. The colourful history of Mine Mill provides an appropriate backdrop for an examination of the role of unions situated outside the mainstream of Canada’s labour movement. Mine Mill stands for progressive, forward-looking unionism with a bold vision on most of the major political and social issues of this century. A combination of these characteristics is needed to equip both academics and union activists in understanding the labour movement today and in charting the direction of Canada’s labour movement through the turbulent decades that lie ahead.

Chapter 2

The Decline of Collective Bargaining in the Private Sector

John O’Grady

In Canada it is common to contrast our more or less stable rates of unionization with the falling rates of unionization in the United States. Virtually every Canadian trade unionist knows that overall unionization rates are substantially higher here than they are south of the border. In 1992 the overall rate of unionization among non-agricultural workers in Canada was 37.4 percent. In 1990 – the last year for which I have comparative data for the United States – the rate of unionization there was less than half the Canadian rate – 16.1 percent. Canadian trade unionists have often drawn a measure of comfort from this contrast, but it seems to me that this comfort is misplaced.

On its face, the evidence on unionization provides Canadian trade unionists with reason for satisfaction. In 1971 unionization rates were 32.4 percent and in 1992 they were 37.4 percent. The last twenty years or so have witnessed both an absolute and a relative growth in the number of workers covered by collective bargaining. But this growth in the level of unionization masks a significant decline in the rate of private-sector collective bargaining. Some twenty-five years ago, collective bargaining determined the wages and working conditions of about 31 percent of workers in the private sector. By 1985 that proportion had declined to 21 percent, and by 1990 it had fallen to 18 percent.¹ The growth in unionization in Canada was accounted for entirely by an increase in the rate of public-sector unionization. In the private sector, the Canadian pattern was similar to that of the United States. While the decline in the United States was more severe, there is little in this trend that should provide comfort to Canadian trade unionists.

Figure 2.1

Canada’s labour market has two segments. The first segment, in which the labour movement has its base, takes in roughly 60 percent of employed workers. It includes manufacturing, the resource industries (principally mining and forestry), the regulated industries (transportation, communications, and utilities, a mix of public and private companies), and the public sector. Its rate of collective bargaining coverage is roughly 57 percent. The second segment is primarily the private service sector – for example, McDonald’s and Molly Maid – which includes the other 40 percent of the labour force. Its rate of unionization is around 15 percent.

There are three trends that we need to understand.

First, a secular shift in the economy is seeing labour moved from the first segment to the second. In relative terms, the segment of the economy in which the labour movement has traditionally found its base is getting smaller. The rate of decline is roughly 1 percent every three years. High rates of productivity growth in the manufacturing and resource sectors driven by technological change mean that there are fewer jobs in those industries. Deregulation and privatization in the regulated industries are having a similar effect.

Second, within the segment of the economy that forms the union base, there has been a relative decline in the private sector and a relative increase in the public sector. Ten years ago, just over 43 percent of workers in this segment were in the public sector, while now that proportion is over 50 percent. It would be naive to expect public-sector employment to grow significantly over this decade. Indeed, in the medium term, at least, we are more likely to see a reduction in public-sector employment.

Third, within the first segment of the economy, the union-base segment, there has been a decline in the rate of private-sector unionization, from about 51 percent to around 47.5 percent.

From these three trends, one undeniable conclusion emerges: the labour-market base of the trade union movement in Canada is being eroded, and that erosion is unlikely to be arrested, let alone reversed.

As private-sector unionization rates decline, the support for collective bargaining in Canadian society will also decline. We know that about 80 percent of private-sector workers are now outside the ambit of collective bargaining. How much support are public-sector workers likely to draw from these workers as the public-sector unions struggle to preserve collective bargaining in the broader public sector? How much longer before we start hearing significant voices in society arguing that the days of the trade union movement are over and that we need new mechanisms to represent workers and protect their interests?

Clearly, the only course for the labour movement is to shift its focus from its historic base to the segment of the economy in which employment is increasing – the private service sector. There is nothing particularly new in this prescription. People inside and outside the labour movement have been saying that for as long as I can remember; and yet it does not happen. Table 2.1 summarizes the distribution of newly organized workers in Ontario in 1989–90, the last year before the present recession.

Table 2.1

Distribution of Newly Organized Employees, 1989–1990 (excluding construction)

Clearly, union organizing resources are still focused overwhelmingly on the first segment of the labour force and not on the second. In Ontario in 1989–90, about 57 percent of the labour force was employed in the first segment of the economy, while 88 percent of union organizing resources were devoted to that segment.

Some will argue that the obstacles to moving outside the traditional base are related to gender and to gender-biased organizing strategies. I do not dispute that these are factors. However, I do dispute that simply addressing those problems will either arrest or reverse the decline of private-sector collective bargaining.

In Canada our basic labour relations legislation is drawn from the National Labor Relations Act introduced by U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1935. That legislation is usually called the Wagner Act, after the U.S. senator who sponsored the bill. The simple fact is that the Wagner Act was written to deal with collective bargaining in large-scale manufacturing. It was written for the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), and it was written to aid the CIO in organizing U.S. manufacturing. Moreover, the Wagner Act worked – at least for a few decades. However, it was never expected that Wagner Act collective bargaining would be applied to the private service sector.

Our labour relations legislation is based on site-by-site organizing and site-by-site bargaining. Except in the construction industry, multi-site bargaining and multi-employer bargaining only occur when both unions and employers agree. This highly decentralized system of bargaining functions reasonably well in the segment of the economy that forms the union-base segment: manufacturing, resources, regulated industries, and the public sector. But highly decentralized, site-by-site bargaining works badly, if at all, in the private service sector. Here, workplaces tend to be small and the survival rate of employers tends to be much lower – an average of about five years. It is costly to organize and difficult to bargain within this sector, and with the limited life-span of employers it is difficult to consolidate gains. In short, the Wagner Act model of collective bargaining does not work in the private service sector; and because that model does not work, unions have been forced to concentrate their scarce organizing resources in their traditional areas of support.

When you have a labour relations model that fundamentally does not reflect the realities of the private service sector, it should be no surprise that rates of unionization in that sector are low. Obviously, new strategies are required to organize workers in that sector. But new strategies, in the absence of a new legal framework, are unlikely to produce significant results.

In 1989–90, there were 259 certifications granted by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the private service sector, excluding construction. In other words, in that period the union side was rolling 259 boulders up the hill. But it was losing ground. To stay even with the creation of firms – to score a tie – the union side would have to roll an additional 625 boulders up the hill. It is patently unrealistic to believe that this could happen; the odds are stacked heavily against this degree of collective bargaining. Unless the rules change, the decline will continue, and no organizing strategy, on its own, will prevent that.

The kind of change needed in the private service sector is one that alters the logic of bargaining from site-by-site bargaining to sector-based bargaining. The Ontario government has announced its intention to establish a task force to study the question of broader-based bargaining. In my view, this change is of overriding, strategic importance to the labour movement.

The labour movement still has political and economic leverage, but it must use that leverage strategically to create new social and economic facts. If we achieve a shift to sector-based bargaining in the private service sector, this half of the North American continent will have a different pattern of political social development than its larger partner to the south. If we remain with a labour-law model that essentially reflects the U.S. Wagner Act, we will see the same inexorable pattern of development in Canada as in the U.S. private sector. The stakes are high, and time is running out.

Chapter 3

Women and New Issues in Labour Organizing

Laurell Ritchie

After more than twenty years in the labour movement, I can safely say that a lot has changed, and there is certainly a much larger space, and a much larger voice, for women in the labour movement. I doubt that anybody would say otherwise. There is also a lot that has not yet changed, things that still require a lot more of our attention.

The changes in the workforce and in unionization rates pointed out by John O’Grady [see chapter 2] constitute a revolution in our workplaces. It is not unfair to say that this is akin to the kinds of changes that happened during the Industrial Revolution. Many predicted that incredible changes and disruptions would occur with the full blast of technological change. We talked about this in the 1970s, and I think we were right. During the 1980s, new technologies were certainly being introduced in the structure of our workplaces. Now, in the 1990s, we are really coming to see the restructuring and lean workplaces that were anticipated.

There is also a revolution taking place in how capital operates within the world. At the moment there is no doubt as to who has the upper hand. We are going to have to look at very serious changes in the role of unions, and changes in how we organize. The shift is going to have to be at least as dramatic as the one that occurred when unionization moved away from merely organizing within the crafts and trades groups and into industrial-based organizing.

The nature of work is changing, whether in manufacturing or in the service sector. In most jobs the physical component of work is changing, which has implications for the gender of those performing the work. There is also a shift within the overall economy, so that many more jobs are performed within the service sectors – both public and private. There is the shift to more and more part-time work, particularly involuntary part-time work. Unlike the part-time work that most people thought about some ten or fifteen years ago – work that was maybe three or four hours a day, five days a week, leaving people wonderful, predictable quality time with children, family, and other pursuits – what we are finding now is that very often part-time work involves erratic, unreliable, anti-social, and anti-family schedules. It is primarily women doing this type of work.

Some things, of course, also remain constant. They keep many of us active in the labour movement in spite of all the tremendous and difficult changes. One of these constants is the desire for people to be treated as human beings when they are at work – too many people are still treated as something less than a human being after they enter the workplace. A lot of other issues still require our attention. There are certainly going to be women around to remind the forgetful. But I also think that people in the leadership of various unions are going to have to start remembering on their own.

Often these things are small – like turning to the booklet that was put out for this centennial and finding, on its final pages, photographs of the women active in the union’s Women’s Auxiliary. Unlike the other photographs in the booklet, there are no names identifying any of these women. Women notice these sorts of things, and we hope that others will start paying more attention to them, because it is our history as well. Women want to be able to find themselves within labour history, to know that some of their roots, and the roots of their mothers, aunts, and grandmothers, are within the labour movement. That is part of democratizing the labour movement.

A few things are essential to changing the style and content of the labour movement, to modernize, to democratize it. They are things we can all embrace. They include the new forms of organization now taking place. The organizations in Toronto are the ones I am most familiar with – like Intercede, which is working with domestic workers. These women cannot organize as others can under Ontario labour law, but they have found the most ingenious ways of pulling workers together. They keep them together, and I can tell you that proportionately the numbers they get out at their meetings and events far exceed the numbers that a lot of labour unions can claim.

The same thing is occurring now with the new Home Workers Association, with the support of a number of organizations and unions. Homeworking is an accelerating phenomenon within the industrial sector, even though some will assume it disappeared in the 1930s and 1940s. It is coming back as a form of work, with people working privately in their homes at assembly or sewing machine work. There is also electronic homework, with people doing data processing, for example, in their homes and experiencing the same problems as industrial homeworkers [see chapter 15]. The people organizing around these issues are showing remarkable creativity, and we are going to learn a great deal from them.

Interesting things are happening elsewhere. At a recent conference involving people from Latin American countries, women in the labour movement reported on new labour laws that restrict unions in some countries to workplaces with fifteen or more workers. Lo and behold, even the largest oil companies locating in these countries were suddenly setting up workplaces of fourteen workers. We are going to have to learn from the experiences of others who are outside our borders.

Some of these new forms of organizing and providing representation call for increased attention. John O’Grady mentions the discussion now taking place around broader-based bargaining [see chapter 2]. I believe this proposition requires debate. For example, in the case of the post office, some of us may personally be very glad that it was the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) that won the vote, but we have to be leery when votes like this are being initiated by the state. It is all well and good if the unions and organizations you want to see win, do in fact win; but I wonder how it will feel if, in some sectors, we end up with unions that we would rather didn’t represent the entire membership of that sector? I certainly feel that this issue arises in the case of the private service sector. Some of the unions that are currently operating in the private service sector are quite corrupt in their practices. We are going to have to have the guts within the labour movement to come to terms with some of the unions that currently represent workers in that sector but do it very badly.

There is also the need both to continue and to extend our work with coalition organizations. Some of the victories we have achieved, always through struggle, are in very serious jeopardy, and it will become more difficult to win new victories and make improvements through bargaining at the table with a single employer.

More and more, employers in a competitive global economy are in the position of blackmailing their own workforce. They are also in the position, through their corporate lobby organizations, of blackmailing society as a whole. So we have to extend our work as unions to coalitions that are also the vehicles for dealing with a whole range of organizations, including women’s organizations and unrepresented people, many of them workers, both employed and unemployed. Someone recently suggested that if the unemployed in Canada were