Regardless of which side of the issue you come down on, CUPE Ontario's unanimous decision to support a motion to boycott Israel should cause concern.
With religious, political or charitable organisations, members are typically aware of the outlook and aims and have joined freely and are free to leave should the reality of the association not match the member's personal vision. CUPE membership is compulsory for most people who work in the public sector. There is no freedom from this association if one's job falls under the framework of the government. Almost sounds unconstitutional -- freedom of association should also mean freedom from association -- but for those whose employment is unionized, such freedom doesn't exist.
Likewise, as citizens, we have no option but to use the services provided by public sector employees. They provide essential services, and if we disagree with the political agenda pushed forward and imposed by the union, there is no method by which we can express our displeasure or outrage.
CUPE Ontario's news page was devoid of any mention of this vote this morning (I have tried to access the page since, but my connection keeps timing out) but this is the full text of the resolution as reported by Judeoscope.
I downloaded the CUPE B.C. education campaign and I was shocked by the half-truths, lies and opinion-presented-as-fact, unabashedly set out in this pious booklet. CUPE Ontario plans to follow their lead and I think it's vile.CUPE ONTARIO WILL:
1. With Palestine solidarity and human rights organizations, develop an education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of Canada for these practices.
2. Support the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law including the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution194.
3. Call on CUPE National to commit to research into Canadian involvement in the occupation and call on the CLC to join us in lobbying against the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state and call for the immediate dismantling of the wall.
BECAUSE:
• The Israeli Apartheid Wall has been condemned and determined illegal under international law. • Over 170 Palestinian political parties, unions and other organizations including the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions issued a call in July 2005 for a global campaign of boycotts and divestment against Israel similar to those imposed against South African Apartheid; • CUPE BC has firmly and vocally condemned the occupation of Palestine and have initiated an education campaign about the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state.
The Preface of this booklet says that 'Trade unions deal principally with wages and working conditions, but (they) also serve as human rights organizations'. CUPE sees itself as a social activist group -- but unlike PETA, Greenpeace and Amnesty International, CUPE forces public employees to join, imposes dues on those employees and does not allow members to resign the union unless they also give up their jobs.
The 896 CUPE members who voted on Saturday (the Jewish sabbath, by the way) who represent 200,000 public sector workers, arrived at their meeting with no mandate to vote on an issue that is complex, emotional and controversial -- and yet they did just that.
With this vote, CUPE has not only suggested that members boycott Israel -- they are forcing all of its 200,000 Ontario members to financially support an agenda with which they might vehemently disagree.
You might not be a CUPE member, but without the ability to boycott public services, you are indirectly financing their proposed propaganda campaign.
canadianna
15 comments:
It's pretty easy to choose sides here. On the one hand there's palestinian terrorists supported by 90% of the palestinian population in their quest to kill as many innocent jewish women and children as possible. On the other hand you have Israel who targets combatants and does it's utmost to protect innocents (although there aren't many that are anyway as most support terrorism). Israel and the UN has offered said terrorists statehood some three times and the palestinians rejected it every time.
In 1948 Israel was to be a small broken up country surrounded by an autonomous palestinian state. The idea was to give the right of self-determination to both the arab palestinians and jews where they had a majority population. The palestinians responded to this generous offer by immediately rejecting it and they set about to kill as many jews as possible. The surrounding Arab countries joined this war and soon arab fighter jets were bombing civilians. The Israeli fighters eventually won and gained land. Guess what many palestinians fled this fighting.
I don't get the so-called "right of return" here. Are any of these original refugees from the fighting even alive? Even if they do why should they be compensated at all for a war which they were involved in starting?
I've boycotted them since the election,, buzz hardhead was the tip of the iceberg for me
I'm doing my little part - the best tomatoes I've ever gotten at our grocery store are organic cherry tomatoes from Israel, so now I buy them all the time. Of course, I sing this song I learned as a child as I make the salad. Now I'll have to see if I can get a nice Isreali wine to go with it...
Syd Ryan will be in his regular weekly role as a panelist on The Michael Coren Show on CTS, Friday, June 2 at 6:00 p.m. eastern.
This controversy was discussed Monday past when it was a new issue. Obviously to be continued face-to-face.
Thanks, madmacs, I'll be sure to watch.
Anna, another great post.
We should toss those who brought this vote forward. How is it going to make their work place safer? Wasn't the purpose of unions to create safe, healthy work environments and protect workers from tyrant employers?
The day of unions is long past and they should avoid politics lest they look like the three faced Buzz Hargrove.
i can't think of a single place where i think any differently from your every argument: perfect, as always.
Rex Murphy and others object to the use of the word “apartheid” in the recent CUPE Ontario convention motion critical of Israel. Why not listen to an expert on apartheid?
“I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about....
“Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured.”
These words were spoken by Nobel Laureate Bishop Desmond Tutu in 2002.
It might only be added that suicide bombing is not the only cause of civilian casualties in that part of the world. The Israeli civilian death toll is horrific, but four times as many Palestinian civilians have died as well—shelled, bombed, shot and bulldozed to death. Surely the latter are no less dead, and their survivors no less terrorized.
As for CUPE taking positions on human rights issues, suffice it to say that people here remain blissfully unaware of labour history. Why not let the delegates, elected by the membership, decide such things? It's not up to a bunch of anti-labour types to decide what labour's agenda ought to be.
dr. dawg -- the use of the word apartheid is wrong in this case, because Israeli Arabs enjoy the same rights and freedoms as their Jewish counterparts. Apartheid in South Africa applied to blacks who were treated differently despite sharing the same citizenship -- the fact that there are checkpoints etc. doesn't matter. Israelis have the right to police their own borders. The borders are disputed, and it is legitimate for Palestinians to gripe about that -- but to pretend that the circumstances are the same as S.A. is a stretch (although I like Tutu, he is wrong).
Anyway -- I would agree that labour has every right to pass whatever motion or boycott that they so please -- if unions were voluntary organizations. They are not. One must pay union dues regardless of the activities of the union heirarchy's decisions. One may not opt out of joining a union and therefore, there is no method of protest should the union bosses pass a resolution to which its members object.
The oversimplification of the Israel/Palestine issue doesn't benefit anyone. Sid Ryan and the gang blew it big time.
One may not opt out of joining a union and therefore, there is no method of protest should the union bosses pass a resolution to which its members object.
Not true. First, under the Rand formula, one need not join the union, although, because one gets the benefits of both the collective agreement and union representation, dues must still be paid. Secondly, and more importantly, the delegates to Convention are by no means "union bosses," but ordinary shop-floor workers elected at a Local meeting to attend on the Local's behalf.
Dr.Dawg -- are you serious?
If you are paying dues -- you belong to the union. Period. You financially support it and you receive benefit. Telling oneself that one doesn't really belong to a group that one is helping to fund, means one is pretty stupid.
And these shop stewards were voted by union members to represent their contractual interests -- not some political agenda. Do you really believe that all CUPE members were told this vote would be happening and that they lobbied their steward to vote a certain way.
Sigh.
OK, here's Unionism in Canada 101, from someone who was a senior official on a large public service one. Sorry to sound patronizing, but you have a lot of misconceptions about the practice of unionism today.
1) Joining a union means signing a union card. That gives you the right to go to union meetings, to vote on contracts or strike action, to get elected to office, to serve on bargaining teams, and so on.
2) The duty of fair representation that a union owes its Rand deductees are pretty well restricted to collective agreement enforcement. Union members get additional forms of representation, plus the right to participate.
3) The delegates to Convention aren't necessarily shop stewards. The latter are activists who take the training and (usually, at least in my experience) are appointed by the Local to represent members, and report to a Chief Steward who may or may not be elected to the Local Exececutive. Delegates are activists elected at a union meeting to attend Convention, or (depending on the union) a member of the Local Executive.
4) The history of organized labour is one of social activism. Hence the bumper sticker, "Unions--the folks who brought you the weekend." Ditto old age pensions, medicare and unemployment insurance. Unionism has rarely been restricted solely to collective bargaining issues, although there has certainly has been a stream of thinking arising from the days of Samuel Gompers that would focus on so-called "bread-and-butter" matters.
5) Delegates to Convention work within a milieu with which members are familiar. CUPE has long been involved in the social aspects of trade unionism, and this vote won't exactly come as a surprise to most of the rank and file.
"senior official in"
"deductees is"
One of these days I'll learn to type.
Thanks for the lesson, Dr. Dawg --but it still doesn't change the fact that if you must pay dues, you are financially supporting a union. You may not withdraw your funding of the union in order to show displeasure with the direction they are heading. So, to put it in it's truest form:
If you work in a unionized sector, belonging to a union is not compulsory, but funding one that you chose not to join, is compulsory.
Personally, I think that's even worse and the end result is the same -- you are forced to financially support a body that espouses political ideas that you don't necessarily endorse.
But at least you can say you didn't sign your card? Big whoop.
CUPE wants its members to make a point to Israel through boycott, but because of its status as a union -- a public sector union no less -- no one, not CUPE members, and not the public, can use the same tactic to make a point to CUPE.
And although its members are aware of CUPE's activism before they are employed, it still doesn't give them a choice or a voice. The only choice they would have is not to be employed.
How would it be if CUPE or any other union were to pass a motion to fund an eductation campaign on the evils of abortion and to boycott any hospital or health clinic that performed them? Would pro-choice members feel that was a good use of their money? It will never happen of course, but what if?
Members might not be surprised, and most might agree with the vote, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no recourse for those who don't.
How would it be if CUPE or any other union were to pass a motion to fund an eductation campaign on the evils of abortion and to boycott any hospital or health clinic that performed them? Would pro-choice members feel that was a good use of their money? It will never happen of course, but what if?
THat would make for quite the debate, not only on the Convention floor.
What makes you think there's "no recourse?' People can, if they feel strongly enough, follow the exact-same process to get a pro-Israel resolution on the floor next time. These things aren't written in stone.
Join the union, I say to those disaffected Rand deductees. You're already getting the collective agreement, your terms and conditions of employment, thanks to signed-up members. Come on out to a meeting and let your voice be heard.
Post a Comment