Role of Unions in a Democracy

Unions have long played a role in democracy and politics throughout industrialized nations. But to what extent are they still relevant on the political scene, and what role should they play in modern democracies?

This article by Murray Dobbin in the Tyee makes reference to the important role that unions have played in the political landscape in Canada. Lately, with the Canada Post strike and the threat of strike at Air Canada unions are once again in the limelight. The article makes the point that unions play a considerable role in representing the rights and views of the citizenry, and specifically labour, in our political institutions.

The Canada Post example, however, brings to bear two considerations. Firstly, the fact that traditional postage is decreasing significantly and that, nowadays, any business or institution must have the capacity to change and adapt to different circumstances quickly in order to remain relevant will obviously make it difficult to ensure jobs and organization structure remain the same over the long term. The rate of change and technology nowadays are bound to pit adaptability versus long term job security in any organization. Secondly, much of the citizenry is not represented by unions. Union workplaces tend to be drastically different from their non-union counterparts. From personal experience, I certainly don't think unionized working environments are the most efficient or adaptable in terms of remaining competitive and on the cutting edge. From this perspective, to what extend are unions representative of the citizenry or the general public?

Certainly unions are responsible for many institutions and components of society in Canada that benefit the public at large. And to be sure, there are definitely not any comparable sectors or social groups that can match the size of unions, which enables unions to pursue and protect the rights of the average citizen/worker in the face of larger and larger global companies and the faceless nameless corporations that run roughshod over so many political, social, and environmental considerations. But the times, they are a changin'...

Are there other arenas for the rights and interests of the citizenry to be protected and pursued, or does the union remain our best bet for protecting the values of workers?

Focus on the local...

Do you know how much authority rests with your local government?

Did you know that the decision making authority for many municipalities and even provinces is being given up in through national and international trade agreements?

Much has been written, and many have complained about, transnational trade treaties trumping community rights, autonomy and sovereignty. Much of the criticism levelled towards agreements such as NAFTA and, what could have been, the MAI (multilateral agreement on investment) has to do with the economic hardships that communities will face when they go head to head with multinational corporations and how these agreements give corporations, to some extent, more rights than citizens.

Canada is in the midst of negotiating the 'Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement' (CETA) with the European Union. It looks as though part of the negotiations will include rules about how municipalities can go about procuring services such as waste management, etc. Without getting into specifics, these rules would not allow municipalities to give any preference to local firms - they have strict provisions regarding competitiveness and the rights of foreign companies vis a vis local Canadian ones to bid for, and win, municipal contracts. (For some up to date info and a debate on this topic click here)

Never mind the economics, what about democracy? There are very complex and convoluted arguments on both sides of the debate regarding free trade agreements and the benefits or problems they cause communities and nations, but let me put it this way,

Should our elected representatives be protecting and serving:

1) open market competitive free trade or

2) the citizenry that elected them

Now, I hate to oversimplify a slightly complex issue, but that's kinda what I'm going for here. Are we that confident and sure about free market economics that, by default, this ideology becomes the deciding factor in all cases concerning governance and the future of our communities?

Or would we like our elected officials to retain the power and authority to make decisions about what's best for our communities on a case by case basis? If our governments don't have the kind of authority that agreements like CETA endeavour to remove in order to pursue ongoing economic growth, what exactly are we electing them to do?

Big to small…and nothing in between…?

I want to offer a contrast in two events from this last week…

On the one hand a parliamentary page got up in the middle of a federal throne speech with a stop sign saying "Stop Harper" out of protest. She's 21 years old and was nearing the end of her 12 month stint as a page. Most politicians have commented that this was an inappropriate forum in which to make a protest, and the page has since been fired. Public commentary ranges from praise for her bravery to criticism concerning the inappropriateness of her actions. In an interview the 21 year old commented that she made the decision based on a comment from her father concerning her previous protests that she was wasting her time and wouldn't achieve anything by protesting. She thereby opted to take her protests to the next level.

Contrast that, on the other hand, with a blog post from Cariboo North MLA (BC) Bob Simpson outlining his disappointment over what could be his last day in the BC Provincial Legislature where several bills were passed in parliament without, in his opinion, anything approaching genuine debate, discussion, or consensus building. He notes that considerable issues of substance concerning first nation treaties, the budget, and other items were rammed through in a very short time frame.

It would seem that our democracy has devolved into two options, and both of them are extremes. At the smaller, less effective end of the scale, average citizens are relegated to trying to affect change through protest. And at the other end are the mainstream parties whose support is derived from either unions or large corporate blocks pushing through whatever change they want with little to no debate. Where's the middle ground? Where's the reasonable conversation and consultation with the citizens who pay the taxes and live out our lives in communities throughout BC?

Is the left-right paradigm useful or a detriment to our society?

How could the left-right paradigm, the framework within which we describe our ideas concerning political values and ideology, by a detriment to society? Consider the polarization that's taken place in the United States. I'm sure that healthy, positive, even constructive debate still takes place south of our border. However, it does seem that with two parties ostensibly at opposite sides of the left-right spectrum both people and parties tend to simply yell at one another and resolve themselves to the notion that, since they'll never agree on anything, all of their efforts should go towards convincing others that their notion of 'the good' is the right one, rather than engage in constructive dialogue. This polarization in the US is often times reinforced and seemingly encouraged in the media, forcing conflict on issues for which some kind of compromise should be possible.

On the other hand, perhaps the spectrum is useful for helping to frame our dialogue. One advantage I can see is that left-right politics is not necessarily specific to any specific place; theoretically these are ideas about politics and society that are applicable anywhere, and this helps to rally people who share ideologies together across space. It also provides a starting point for dialogue concerning politics to take place, and is, for the most part, easily understandable for a wide portion of the population/citizenry.

What do you think?