Demanding the Impossible and Being Realistic: analysis of the 2008-2009 CUPE 3903 strike [Part 2]

Here follows the second part of my analysis of the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3903's [CUPE 3903] strike in 2008-2009.  In the first part I discussed the general context of the strike as well as the internal dynamics, but here I focus primarily on how the two-line struggle that would define the vicissitudes of the strike, eventually leading to the triumph of the bureaucratic-right line, emerged in the months leading up to the Strike Mandate Vote.


Although this might seem to be a boring history of a tiny local for most of my readers (those of us who spend a lot of time active within a local often start to imagine that our struggles are not as significant as we imagined), and I'm mainly reproducing this document because of the failure of the book to materialize and 3903 is about to enter bargaining again, I think the analysis is useful for a variety of reasons: 1) it demonstrates the need for something larger than trade union organizing; 2) it represents the limits of trade union organizing within the centres of imperialism (unionized workers are not the core of the proletariat); 3) it demonstrates, in the context of academic labour, how people can use left-centric and progressive rhetoric to veil opportunist and sometimes even reactionary positions.


In any case, here is the next part… apologies for the formatting - blogspot has a significant problem when it comes to importing word processing files.

2: Emergence of the two-line struggle [or raising the red flag to bring down the red flag]

At the first General Membership Meeting (GMM) of the 2008 school year, months before CUPE 3903 began its strike, the outgoing chair of the local read aloud her complaint letter that accused the rest of the Executive of neglecting their duties.  Despite the fact that some of these assertions would later be proved incorrect (i.e. during the special Recall GMM, discussed below, it would be revealed that this outgoing chair, and not the executive as a whole, was involved in sabotaging the process dealing with staff grievances),[1]  and despite the fact that her letter advocated tailism rather than member mobilization,[2] the rightist and “left” factions were mobilized to scapegoat and red-bait the rest of the executive. 

            The result was a racialized meeting space wherein a predominantly non-white executive was attacked by a predominantly white membership.  When those scapegoated complained about racism, the union’s self-appointed equity experts (and self-proclaimed “authentic left”) either scoffed or pretended the complaint was baseless.  Later, another group of members who were not at this GMM wrote an open letter that dismissed complaints of racism as being an example of “playing the race card.”  Although the discourse that dismisses equity complaints as the playing of “cards” is typically used by the right (including the tokenization of racialized minorities to say that there is no racism), in this case it was considered “progressive” by those working to destabilize the 3903 Executive.

            The result of this GMM, and the one on the following week where this behaviour continued, was the resignation of active Executive members who felt attacked, devalued, and overworked.  Some were even victims of slander campaigns.  A vote of non-confidence was passed at a GMM where many other members were not present.  A special Recall GMM was planned and this group, which at that time represented a minority of active and semi-active members, set about mobilizing to remove the Executive.

            Arguing that the recall was potentially “mobilizing”, those behind it disrupted the activities of those involved in bargaining mobilization and distracted the general membership’s attention.  With the Executive hobbled by empty seats, and bad-jacketed by the spectre of a show trial, the crucial September period of bargaining was a write-off.  Demoralized and thus lacking the energy to work properly (for how can one work in this vocation when one is constantly defending herself against baseless accusations and conspiracy threats?), the Executive was unable to perform its function in leading the mobilization process in the following key areas: the understanding of the bargaining process, the substantial demands and why they were important, the upcoming strike vote, and the possibility of a strike.

            As a side and ironic note, if the tailist politics advocated by the outgoing chair actually worked, then why did the membership not spontaneously mobilize against the employer during this month?  Instead, the demobilization of the executive resulted in a process of membership demobilization that, regardless of the membership’s ability to walk-out in November, contributed to the local’s inability to win the strike.

            The majority of those who argued that the recall would be mobilizing were largely unwilling to perform any mobilization work themselves, aside from mobilizing a circus Recall GMM where the Executive would be attacked.  Most were quite happy to spend hours mailing out information for this recall, tendering a petition, and postering for their show trials, but they were tellingly absent from meetings devoted to actual bargaining mobilization.  Meanwhile, the executive lost two Chief Stewards, a Trans-Feminist Action Caucus (TFAC) co-chair, and a Communications Officer––all targeted by the initial recall and all crucial for bargaining.

            Thus, if the attempted and essentially rightist coup was “mobilizing” why did all of the actual bargaining mobilization not happen during this period of potential recall?  Furthermore, when it was revealed that there were no significant charges, barely any of those who had mobilized for the Recall GMM appeared at the bargaining mobilization meetings in the week leading up to the Strike Mandate Vote.  So much for mobilizing through scapegoating and red-baiting.  Instead, those who arrived at the Recall GMM to participate in a circus and pronounce their historical complaints with the union (one member was absurd enough to justify his assault on the current executive by claiming that he was angry with the executive of three years previous for calling him a “bureaucrat”) departed without agreeing to do anything for union solidarity.  The already exhausted and active members were left to clean up the mess caused by this derailing faction.

            It is unclear what would have happened had the Executive been recalled.  Would a group that had pushed this Recall agenda actually do the work of filling the empty positions?  If so, how would this be accomplished?  Two weeks at the very least are required to hold Executive elections; to do this in the midst of bargaining––and one week before the strike vote––would derail the bargaining and mobilization process even further.  If the Executive had been removed, it is also unclear as to whether there would have been a strike.

            In any case, the faction that pushed for the Executive’s recall in September 2008 would form the core group of activists behind what I have labelled the bureaucratic-right line.  Although not all of them shared the same politics––and some were even (self-defined) ultra-leftist––they would by-and-large support the same political line throughout the strike.

            A question that needs to be answered here, however, is what makes a political line either progressive or reactionary.  The only way to gauge whether a line is properly “left” or “right” is not based on what adherents to this line might personally claim, but by what the line achieves in practice.  Any other way of analyzing politics leads to nebulous theories of intentionality, psychology, and ideal political forms that exist outside of space and time.  For example, if someone is deceived into working for a racist group, the anti-racist does not judge this person’s politics radical because s/he had another intention.

            Thus, at the beginning of the two-line struggle, it is important to examine the politics mobilized in practice by the group that pushed the recall:

1) they were responsible for mobilizing racism to demobilize a GMM space;

2) they were responsible for red-baiting active members by using the classic agent-provocateur tactic of “raising the red flag to bring down the red flag” (i.e. acting more left in order to criticize the active left);

3) they were responsible for killing a crucial month of bargaining mobilization;

4) they were responsible for alienating and slandering active members who have sacrificed much of their time and energy in building union solidarity;

5) they were responsible for almost losing the autonomy of our local.[3]

            The main argument made to defend this behaviour was that it was conducive to bargaining and that––because its goal was “transparency” and “equity”––the Recall GMM was a process of mobilizing the membership.  What actually happened, however, was that the bad politics noted above were mobilized.  That those responsible for the recall could uncritically defend their position demonstrates that they were either deluded or willfully deceitful regarding what actually happened.  Indeed, they would further argue that any demobilization after their actions was the result of their failure to achieve their supposedly progressive goals.  This argument would be used throughout the entire strike.

            At the beginning of the two-line struggle, the factions that began the bureaucratic-right line did the employer’s job by causing massive demobilization.  Thus, their politics amounted to employer collaboration regardless of their arguments.  The fact that most were incapable of understanding what political line they were mobilizing––again blaming the activists and perhaps lamenting that the left is “falling apart”––demonstrated, even before the strike, that those who would embrace the bureaucratic-right line were incapable of self-criticism and lacked an understanding of the history of the left.  In the past, movements have fallen apart precisely because of the bureaucratic-right in the movement, along with uncritical “left” individuals who believe they are experts in radicalism, demonstrating their expertise by attacking other activists and acting as if they are beyond reproach. 

            Another and frightening pattern that emerged from the beginning of the two-line struggle was the mobilization of equity language to mask unequitable goals.  The self-proclaimed radicals behind the recall claimed that they were fighting against an “equity backlash” while they themselves promoted racism, slandered and isolated union activists, and gave the employer the actual means to produce a real backlash.  Neither was this group able to comprehend why the union’s rightist elements were so willing to unite with them.  Lacking an understanding of left history, or what solidarity actually means, they were left in form and right in essence––the perfect partners of the bureaucratic-right.

            At this point, however, the two political lines that formed the internal contradiction of the union were only beginning to emerge.  Since it is in the midst of political struggle “where… contradictions manifest faster than in other fields,”[4] it was during the strike that these emergent lines cohered into the principle contradiction of the union’s internal dynamics.

[to be continued...]

---

[1] Contained in GMM minutes, September/October 2008.

[2] That is, she thought that members should mobilize themselves, and that they would spontaneously develop a radical consciousness, and was opposed the practice of intentional radicalizing practiced by the Chief Stewards of that time.

[3] Due to the recall happening at a crucial period, CUPE Ontario was threatening to step in and place the local under its direct control.

[4] Hisila Yami, Peoples War and Womens Liberation, 88.