Should unions spend member’s dues on political advocacy?

Most Canadians, including those who belong to unions, have great respect for the rule of law.

Reading conservative postings on unions taking political action, one would think unions are acting outside the law.

In fact the law is very much on the side of those who belong to unions when it comes to collective bargaining and political advocacy.

In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked if unions could engage in political advocacy. In response, the highest court in the land came out in full support of working people and their unions’ right to engage in political activity.

The question reached the highest court in the land after Merv Lavigne, an Ontario public servant, objected to his union dues being spent on political advocacy. At the time, Mr Lavigne was not a member the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), which was, and contrary to what some of those conservative postings have been saying, still is his right.  

Because Mr Lavigne enjoys the benefits of the collective agreements negotiated on his behalf and his union is legally obliged to represent him, the courts have ruled that union dues are mandatory even if a person choses not to join. The courts sensibly hold that the benefits enjoyed must be paid for.  ie. no freeloaders

In coming to their decision, the Supreme Court clearly came down in favour of the right and responsibility of unions to protect the interests of the working people they represent. At the bargaining table and in the legislative process, unions can use resources collected from both members and non-members (Rand Deductees) according to Canada’s highest court.  They said that fostering a political environment in which their members can secure a better collective agreement was an extension of the bargaining process.

How does this play out with respect to the Agriculture Union and the political campaigns we’ve been involved in?

Many of the people who belong to our union are in the business of safeguarding the public.  Everyday their responsibility is to ensure that the food we eat is safe; that the grain we grow is both safe and of the highest quality; that the great northern prairie grasslands are conserved for future generations.

It is a responsibility that they take so seriously it often means sleepless nights when their performance is compromised by things they cannot control.  The shortage of food inspectors because of budget cuts, for example.

So it makes perfect sense that their union would advocate for a better food safety system which is exactly what we have been doing since the Maple Leaf listeriosis disaster in 2008. This involves highlighting the shortcomings of the current system and fiscal decisions taken by the government that put public safety at risk. 

As you can imagine, the government does not like this.

The interests of our members aligned very closely with the public interest in this case as they often do when we take on political advocacy projects.

Not so long ago, 26 miners died when the owners of the Westray Mine in Nova Scotia sent those workers underground into conditions they knew to be extremely unsafe. This “accident” bears rather a striking resemblance to the April 24^th building collapse in Bangladesh which left over 500 dead.

Westray and the loss of innocent lives was not a disaster like a flood or some other act of nature that could not be anticipated or avoided.  It inspired another union – the United Steelworkers – to mount a political advocacy campaign in favour of making such callous corporate behaviour a criminal offense.

Fast forward twenty-odd years from the Supreme Court’s Lavigne decision. 

Today there is a mounting campaign to undermine the ability of workers and their organizations to run effective political advocacy campaigns by making union dues optional.

The backbench of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government appear to be the source of much of this effort, but it’s possible the effort goes right to the top to the Prime Minister himself. After all, Stephen Harper was head of the National Citizen’s Coalition which paid for Merv Lavigne’s legal fees.

Of course, making union dues optional would hamstring unions, making it difficult to mount effective political advocacy campaigns.

Union members would not be the only ones to suffer negative consequences in this scenario.

The policies of government and the forces of the global economy are already making victims of young Canadians. They face record unemployment today and employers who demand lower pay and working conditions for new, younger employees.  With weaker unions, young people will find it more difficult to find decent jobs with decent benefits, a reality that threatens to follow them through their entire working life.

The general public will suffer too without the political advocacy of unions and the benefits of our advocacy for things like safer food and workplaces.

Who benefits?

In this case, the Harper government, known for the cut throat brand of politics it practices, is happy to suspend perfectly reasonable and sensible legal rights in order to eliminate one more opponent.