"The 'secret deal' had the unanimous support of the full executive boards of the 8 SEIU locals and more than 800 workplace leaders"

Open letter from former SEIU VP, Ken Brown (now with CAW) to Judy Darcy, September 14, 2000

Ms. Judy Darcy, National President

Dear Sister Darcy:
  In a recent letter to Buzz Hargrove you make considerable reference to discussions you had with me in my capacity as Canadian V.P. of SEIU.
  With respect to the May 25, 1998 meeting, I went away from that meeting with a very clear understanding that you wanted nothing more than for me to consider CUPE as a possible merger partner. You did not, nor would it have been your place, to question me as to whether I had such a mandate.
  You state that rumours of "secret merger talks" were already circulating in May of 1998. Your chosen terminology sounds a lot like SEIU propaganda. However, if there were rumours in May of 1998, the rumours started before any merger talks did. I want to remind you though, that when it did happen in February 2000, this so-called secret deal had the unanimous support of the full executive boards of the 8 SEIU locals and more than 800 workplace leaders. And the only reason it was not formally ratified by the membership is because SEIU went to court to prevent that democratic process from being completed.
  You defend CUPE's principles of "local union autonomy and decision making by members, workplace by workplace" but are publicly very opposed to SEIU members having that same kind of autonomy. Is that not in itself, hypocritical?
  With respect to the discussions CUPE was having with SEIU Local 298 in Quebec, you refer to those discussions as "open and above board merger discussions." Maybe so, but they were going on for some time without my knowledge, but perhaps more importantly, without the knowledge of SEIU International President Andy Stern. That fact became quite clear when Stern did find out and intervened. You were outraged at the conduct of the International Union in preventing those members from democratically deciding their own destiny. So in Quebec, we had an International V.P. (the same position I held for the rest of Canada) in merger discussions with CUPE for one of the two SEIU Quebec locals and you not only supported that, your Union was directly involved in the process. I ask you, how much different is that from what happened later in Ontario between 8 SEIU Locals and the CAW?
  I don't accept for a minute that the Quebec protocol makes any difference in these circumstances. SEIU Local 298 is a large (20,000 members) amalgamated local with upwards of 200 bargaining units. That is not what the Quebec protocol is designed to deal with any more than the CLC justification is designed to adequately deal with the situation we faced in Ontario.
  In closing, I have to say that from my perspective your position on these matters has been contradictory and appears to be hypocritical. As much as I am aware of your vision of "Industrial Unionism" that just isn't a practical goal, at least not in the short term. The choice of Unions today is more about ideology than sector. I would have thought that you would have been more supportive of our right to make that choice for ourselves, even though you disagreed with it.

With regard,
Yours in Solidarity,

Kenneth W. Brown
CAW-Canada

What others are saying:

[ Front Page ]