Paying the piper
Buzz Hargrove decided to dance with the Liberals, and now the piper is demanding payment:
The NDP has expelled Buzz Hargrove, the country's most prominent labour leader, for actively promoting strategic voting and Liberal candidates in last month's federal election.
The Ontario NDP provincial executive voted yesterday to pull the membership of Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, for violating the party's constitution regarding provisions against endorsing other candidates. It also automatically revokes his membership in the federal party.
And Hargrove's reaction?
"I was shocked and surprised," said Hargrove, who has held an NDP membership card for 41 years. "I never had any warning that this was coming or being debated. I never had a chance to speak."
I'm a member of party X, and a very visible member. I tell people not to vote for party X.
And I'm surprised that they would put a big X through my membership?
Does this spell a period of tension, if not outright fighting, between the NDP and the CAW? I don't think so:
The CAW, the country's biggest private-sector union with more than 260,000 members, overwhelmingly endorsed strategic voting after a recommendation from Hargrove and a lively debate at a national council meeting in December.
After the vote, Hargrove gave then-prime minister Paul Martin a union jacket and the two hugged on stage.
The decision, and Hargrove's high profile in the campaign at Liberal events, infuriated many long-time NDP activists, other union leaders, workers and CAW members. Some carried anti-Hargrove placards at rallies or vented their anger in letters. The Ontario Public Service Employees Union distributed buttons with the message: "Buzz Off. I'm Voting NDP."
They argued that such a strategy would bend a person's political principles and make it difficult for a third party to win an election if supporters are voting for another party all the time.
Furthermore, they said the Liberals and Martin cut social and employment insurance programs that hurt workers during their 13 years in power.
Seems more likely that there will be tension, if not outright fighting, between the leadership and the rank of file of the CAW and perhaps other unions as well.
Of course, there are bigger questions here. Should unions be endorsing parties in the first place? How about the use of membership dues as donations? A business association can endorse a candidate and make a donation, but membership in the association is voluntary. Membership in a union is not voluntary should you chose to work in a union shop. How about the use of union workers to "volunteer" on campaigns?
Is the problem that Buzz Hargrove endorsed the Liberals? Or that he's endorsing anyone? Can a union member who wants to vote for a Liberal or Conservative or Bloc candidate lose his union status if he mentions his voting intention at work? If he defends it?
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Interesting article in Sunday's Calgary Sun by Ted Byfield on Jason Kennedy:
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Byfield_Ted/2006/02/12/1438081.html
Just a snippet:
"...Is it possible, one wonders, this was intentional, that he wanted the media to focus on the people he put in the cabinet, so they would miss a far bigger story, by inadequately focusing on the people he did not put in the cabinet, one in particular.
That's Jason Kenney, MP for Calgary Southeast, who played a prominent role in the Reform and Alliance parties and in the movement, first to bring the Alliance about, then to unite it with the old Progressive Conservatives. During the past election campaign, media coverage reflected Kenney as the No. 2 Tory..."
-------------------------------
And in a letter to the editor:
"...with just over 45,000 votes from the people in the southeast riding. The letter went on to point out this also broke a record in Canadian parliamentary history as no one candidate has ever received that many votes..."
Posted by: tomax at February 12, 2006 11:46 AM
Buzz Lightyear is from a different planet. But it does show the power of the union.
While Unions had their day helping the "little guy", they've become legalized communistic organizations that freedom loving Canadians now support with their paycheques.
Reminds me of my $20/month deduction to the teachers union while I'm a contractor. Have to do it you know, even if I'm not union. I'm told I have to pay it because it was the union that allows me to teach there.
Posted by: tomax at February 12, 2006 11:51 AM
Nothing has changed. Buzz is still able to throw the CAW's endorsement to any party, in any riding. Optical move only. Since Jack will probably still accept contributions from Buzz and CAW members, it's only a shallowly hypocritical move.
Posted by: Erik Sorenson at February 12, 2006 11:58 AM
Ugh. It's painful that my union is a local of the CAW. (Even though we have nothing to do with automobiles, and generally vote Conservative.)
Posted by: Yukon Gold at February 12, 2006 01:05 PM
Can a union member who wants to vote for a Liberal or Conservative or Bloc candidate lose his union status if he mentions his voting intention at work? If he defends it?
No. These people are right scumbags when it comes to using my name for their cause. They are awful free with my money. But I can tell you I have had outright fights (almost a brawl once) in the union office at my place of employment. Never has it been said I could lose my status. The only sign, poster &tc. I saw during the last election was a large Conservative flag by the millwrights startion at work (By the way, I am at one of the large, big 3 auto assembly plants). No one ever said anything, the union has no control over these things.
That said, the union constitution allows them to remove a member from office if that member doesn't go to the political events and do activist work. This is how they maintain thier control over the political discouorse. You either believe left, or leave your belives at the door if you want to work for the union. That includes union reps, shop stewards as well as health and safety guys and so on. They may never disqualify someone who doesn't participate in We Love Jack Rally's, but I guarantee you my blog would leave me very vulnerable if I took a union position.
Remember that when you read "The CAW, the country's biggest private-sector union with more than 260,000 members, overwhelmingly endorsed strategic voting after a recommendation from Hargrove and a lively debate at a national council meeting in December." The CAW didn't, the CAW council did. The CAW council is made up of people within the union itself, in other words, the leftists who work inside the union, not people who work in a union shop.
Posted by: Brian Gardiner at February 12, 2006 02:34 PM
Like Emerson, Hargrove thinks he is bigger than petty party affiliation, and then acts miffed when said used parties act like they have been used.
Posted by: brock at February 12, 2006 03:45 PM
The Communists have shown their true anti-democratic colours here. You shouldn't kick a party member out, just because he is critical in the media.
Buzzer is their moonbat, when he comes home to roost, (do bats roost?) he's their problem...
Could you imagine the media outrage, if Harper kicked a critical party member out?
In the infamous American system, with its dual party dictatorship, political parties have to be more tolerant of the views of others, and have the 'big tent' coalition of people with divergent views on issues, but a central core dogma that keeps the party together. The NDP has long been the party with the strongest dogma, but now have proven, that they're the least accepting of divergent views in the party membership base.
I guess the NDP want to have a pup tent, and future conventions in a phone booth, as they've shown that they wont accept criticism.
Posted by: Curtis at February 12, 2006 05:16 PM
Anyone who has had any experience with unions will understand one thing.
Union leaders do whatever they can to provide for themselves and thier friends. If "Buzz" was interested in doing anything, it was probably setting the stage for his foray into politics. I forgot, that would take some effort. Something unions are known to deplore.
Posted by: Jan Schaafsma at February 12, 2006 08:22 PM
I don't think Buzzer is heading into politics. What party would allow him as a candidate?
He only had 1 appearance with PMPM and tossed 3 or 4 hand grenades that PMPM ended up throwing himself on... What would happen if someone let this moonbat loose for an entire campaign?
Maybe, as an independent. I don't think the Liberals would want him, nor the NDP, maybe Green? But I can't see that happening.
I think that all charitable institutions - places that solicit donations from the public - shouldn't be permitted to make donations to political parties. The people who gave money to the institution wouldn't expect their donated money this way, and thus shouldn't be allowed.
I think unions would loose a lot of power, if suddenly union dues, became optional... If the union wasn't being force-funded by the forced membership. I believe they call this concept - Right to Work...
Posted by: Curtis at February 12, 2006 08:48 PM
Too bad we couldn't throw Buzz out of Alberta as easily.
Tomax re: Harper, I read a similair theory (http://jacksnewswatch.wordpress.com/2006/02/10/daily-column-2-friday-february-10th-2006) about this being some sort of plot to sneak in re-call under the radar. Both pretty convoluted theories, I think.
I think that Harper has someone advising him. Someone who, perhaps, is used to the good ol' days, before blackberries, blogs, etc. These sorts of tricks used to work when one could count on voters having short memories and m.s.m. not going overboard. In short, I suspect arrogance and under-estimating is behind this. I really don't think Harper would have pulled this stunt without someone convincing him it was a good idea. This reeks old school (B.M.?).
Posted by: Cheri at February 12, 2006 11:19 PM
Agreed Cheri, I think Harper has some nutcases who didn't graduate from Marketing 101.
If these are the same airheads who came up with the Conservative TV ads, we are doomed.
I mean, Harper & Co. has $10million in the bank, they should be able to hire a proper PR firm.
Egad, not rocket science, people like glitter.
cheers
tom
Posted by: tomax at February 13, 2006 09:40 AM
Someone who didn't even take a marketing class made those ads, and that's why they worked. They where issue ads, talking heads - no need for jazzy special effects - dancing girls. It was about the issues.
Posted by: Curtis at February 13, 2006 01:03 PM
Buzz? Ya gotta feel sorry for Buzz. Those SOB's don't play by union rules. Why ,it just ain't fair what they do to a guy. I think I'm gonna tell Alexa Mc Donough about this.
Posted by: crowbar at February 13, 2006 04:04 PM
 
|
|
