Small Scale Food Report is food for thought

Public demand to buy food directly from farmers is growing. In Manitoba the government response has been slow and the regulatory hurdles are discouraging. The recent release of Advancing the small scale, local food sector in Manitoba is a first step but farmers are asking if it will really make any difference.

Errol Black: A truly remarkable life

[Ed. Note: The funeral for Errol Black will be held at 1:30pm on November 8, 2012, at the Westman Manitoba Centennial Auditorium, Brandon University.]

PDF version

by Jim Silver

If we’re very lucky, every once in a while someone special will come into our lives. Errol Black was special.

He would be the first to claim otherwise, and to insist that we are all special, he no more than others. That was Errol’s way. He was down-to-earth, friendly with everyone, always had time for others, and he was loyal to family, friends, and the progressive, people-based ideas that he fought for during his entire life.
Errol died late in the evening of November 3, 2012. He had been suffering from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Hostile Labour Relations Cause Unnecessary Conflict with Brandon’s Public Sector

PDF version

by Julie Guard and Errol Black

Three weeks ago the Manitoba Labour Board reinstated Brandon Professional Fire Fighters/Paramedics Association president Wade Ritchie in his job as a fire fighter. The city of Brandon had fired Ritchie in January, claiming he had made “reckless and defamatory statements” that justified his termination. The Union disagreed, on the grounds that the statements in question were actually part of the normal business of the Union and that Ritchie, as Union president, had been legitimately fulfilling his duty to enforce the collective agreement – terms to which the City had already agreed. The Union also suggested that firing the Union president just as the City and the Fire Fighters were preparing to bargain a new contract looked more like a bargaining tactic than real discipline, and the message to other union members that their exercise of union rights could lead to termination was sure to create a chill on the negotiations. The Board’s unprecedented decision to reinstate Ritchie immediately, in advance of and pending formal arbitration, was a strong rebuke to the City of Brandon. The Board, which represents both employers and employees, not only agreed with the Union, but ordered the City to broadcast its decision to the entire department.

Mr. Ritchie and the other fire fighters and paramedics were greatly relieved by the Board’s decision. They know the ruling isn’t just about Wade; it’s about protecting other union members from that kind of intimidation. But the City’s choice to play hard ball with its fire fighters and paramedics is clearly no accident. Grant Mitchell, the high-priced labour-relations lawyer who argued the case against Ritchie, is an advisor to the Canadian Labour Watch Association, a Vancouver-based anti-union organization that specializes in breaking unions. Mitchell recently led Brandon University into a bitter and unnecessary strike from which students and faculty are still recovering. The City has also hired Canadian Professional Management Services, Inc. (CPMS) to bargain with its unions.

Claiming that the Human Resources Department was currently overloaded, the City offered no explanation about why a Vancouver consulting firm, CPMS, was hired to do the work. We suggest that the hiring originates in the tight relationship between CPMS and Canadian Fire Chiefs (CFC). In 2010, CPMS and CFC collaborated in establishing an International Conference for Fire and Rescue Executives. The Brandon Fire Department participated in the inaugural conference, “Chiefs Under Fire…Are You Ready?” held in Calgary. Mohamed Doma (who was advising the City on labour relations and leading negotiations for the City with the Fire Fighters at the time Wade Ritchie was fired) was a keynote speaker. A second conference, “Leadership at the Edge of Reason,” was held in Toronto in 2011, and again the Brandon Fire Department was there and Mohamed Doma was a speaker. This year, the Conference, “Leadership in Critical Times,” is slated for Vancouver, and again Mohamed Doma is a keynote speaker in a session titled, “Protecting Your Management Rights: Your Critical Role.” In his presentation Doma will explain how fire chiefs lost control of management rights and will propose strategies for getting them back. The interesting thing about the Vancouver conference is that Chief Brent Dane is also on a panel, “Chiefs Under Fire,” and his topic is, “Leadership Control: What Does It Take?: A Case Study.” The program promises that the case study “will address the common concern that the union is ruining the [firehouse culture] and applying the international code for ‘bringing down the chief.’ [The question:] What does it take to regain management control in these situations?”

Mitchell and CPMS charge hefty fees for their services, and we question how ethical it is for the City of Brandon – or Brandon University – to spend lavishly from public funds to attack its unions. There was no evidence of serious labour relations problems before the city hired anti-union consultants. We also question why the City of Brandon has adopted such an aggressive stance even before starting to bargain with the fire fighters and paramedics, and how such a hostile management style and the poisoned workplace climate it creates will affect the vital services that these workers provide. Fire fighters in other cities that have also hired Mitchell are anticipating the same kind of anti-union bargaining and management style. Some union members have even heard that their cities want the right to call in students from the fire college as volunteer fire fighters, and hope to create “mixed” forces, in which unpaid volunteers with no insurance coverage, pay, or benefits work alongside paid, professional fire fighters. The growing trend of cities to create “mixed” police forces by using cadets and volunteers like Citizens on Patrol in place of professional police officers raises questions about how insurance rates are affected. In short, it’s clear that this case is about more than one worker in Brandon; this move is part of a broader attempt by cities to adopt a US model that uses volunteers, who have no union protection or other workplace rights, as first responders.

On the other hand, public sector unionized workforces that are given decent pay and benefits return benefits to the public in high productivity, low turnover and low training costs. A well-trained core of long-term skilled workers also reduces the costs of undertaking new functions (the paramedic function for ambulance drivers, for example) and paves the way for the development and application of innovations in the delivery of services. Whether the task is road maintenance, post-secondary education, or hospital care, the employers, the workers, and their unions share a common goal: to provide the highest quality services at an affordable cost. That these services have been provided without significant conflict for decades suggests that there is nothing wrong with the model or the labour relations legislation that supports it. On the contrary, the current problems appear to be caused by the City, which has adopted an aggressive stance toward its unionized workers, to the detriment of Brandon citizens. Ideally, labour relations in the public sector should strive to avoid conflict – not create it – but focus on goodwill, respectful treatment, and responsible collaboration in the shared goal of ensuring sustainable, high-quality services to citizens.

Julie Guard heads the Labour Studies Department at the University of Manitoba and is a CCPA Mb. board member. Errol Black is a CCPA Mb. board member.

Brandon Park Named in Honour of CCPA-MB founder

On February 3rd, 2012, the City of Brandon dedicated a park in honour of Errol Black. Errol is a founding member of CCPA Manitoba and a long-time board member. CCPA Manitoba extends a heartfelt congratulations to Errol. This is a well deserved honour for his continued dedication to the City where he was raised and has contributed so much to. The following letter from Errol was printed today in the Brandon Sun.

On Feb. 3, the new park in the east end (situated on land occupied for many years by the “Skunk and Junk” and an Imperial Oil Depot) was dedicated in my name.

I’m not really sure I understand how this happened, but it did, and I must say that I’m both humbled and pleased by this honour.

First, I would like to thank the mayor and city councillors for their unanimous decision to do this. I watched on TV the discussion the resolution brought forward by Coun. Len Isleifson and Coun. Jim McCrae. I was touched by the kind words from all councillors.

Second, I tip my hat to the editors at the Brandon Sun who encouraged and approved council’s decision.

And third, I must acknowledge the support of our family members and the many people who either came out to participate in the naming of the park or sent cards or emails of congratulations.

As most people know, I’ve lived virtually my whole life in the east end of Brandon. I was born at 224 Percy St. and later lived at 132 Frederick St. (about a block from the southeast corner of this new park). For the past 42 years, Margaret and I have lived at 212 13th St. E.

All of our lives we’ve been blessed with good friends and neighbours in the east end, and also many others who have shared our interest in politics and life in general.

A lot of east enders were at the ceremony last Friday. I want to recognize all the people past and present who have devoted, and continue to devote their time and energy to make in the east end a robust, civil and engaged community based on mutual respect and sharing.

Their dedication and labour are reflected especially in the assets and activities at the East End Community Centre and Rideau Park.

Among those people, I would include previous city councillors from the east end: Walter Green, Jim Campbell, Emily Lyons (who attended the dedication), Jim Armstrong, Barry Brooking and Ross Martin.

Also present at the ceremony were many people we have met over the years through our places of work, our participation in the East End Community Centre and similar organizations as our children were growing up. And also through our membership on many boards and committees and our longtime involvement in the labour movement and the NDP.

All of the people we’ve come in contact with over these many years have shared with us an abiding interest in the City of Brandon, and a recognition that we are indeed blessed to live in this “city of promise.”

Cheers.

Errol Black, Brandon

Labour-Management Conflict in Brandon’s Public Sector: Chapter 2

PDF version

by Errol Black

Labour-management conflict has once again taken centre stage in the city of Brandon. The first episode involved the Brandon University Faculty Association (BUFA) and Brandon University. The recent conflict involves the City of Brandon and the Brandon Professional Firefighter/Paramedics Association (IAF Local 803). The two conflicts have important similarities.

On October 12, 2011, the Brandon University Faculty Association (BUFA) went on strike against Brandon University in an attempt to resolve a collective bargaining impasse and secure a new collective agreement. As it turned out, Brandon University (assisted by a Vancouver-based consultant and Grant Mitchell, a Winnipeg-based labour lawyer) was intent on crushing the union and imposing conditions detrimental to its members. The strike ended 45 days later, on November 25, when it became evident that BUFA members were prepared to reject the University’s latest offer in a government-mandated vote.

The conflict in the City of Brandon first emerged publicly on October 14, 2011. At that time, Local Union President Wade Ritchie was reprimanded by the City for “deceitful conduct” apparently arising from an exchange of communications on October 3, 2011, relating to the commencement of negotiations on a new collective agreement. Subsequently, the Brandon Sun reported that, following an internal investigation, Ritchie “was stripped of his lieutenant’s rank, demoted to a rank-and-file firefighter and suspended without pay for five days.” In response, the local union filed a complaint with the Manitoba Labour Board.

In the weeks that followed, it became apparent that some of the same people that were advising and acting for Brandon University are employed in the same capacity with the City of Brandon. Grant Mitchell has for many years been the City’s lawyer for labour relations issues. Some months prior to the conflict with the firefighters, the City hired Canadian Professional Management Services, Inc. (CPMS) a Vancouver-based consulting firm (in the person of Mohamed Doma) for the purpose of “showing the City how to get back control of its workers,” and negotiating collective agreements with three of the four City unions – Fire Fighters (and E911 employees), Transit and Police.(1)

In recent months, the City has pushed a number of grievances forward to arbitration, and stalled on negotiations with firefighters. Then on January 26, the City announced that Wade Ritchie was fired. He was given a letter explaining that the action was “based on the totality of his employment record.” Alex Forrest, International Association of Fire Fighters Canadian trustee, said the timing of the action “is very suspicious. This occurred just a few days after they had exchanged [correspondence regarding potential dates for meetings to deal with collective bargaining proposals].” And now this has made it very difficult for the union president to do his job representing his members as they seek a fair and reasonable wage and benefit package.”

Forrest also told Brandon Sun reporter Keith Borkowsky: “There is no limit to the financial support we will give Brandon’s firefighters. It’s unfortunate that Brandon will be known for this incredible action against a labour leader.” On January 31, Ritchie and the Fire Fighters filed an unfair labour practice claim against the City of Brandon. Forrest told Borkowsky that the claim “alleges everything from coercion to intimidation to interfering with the union’s ability to represent its members.”

All the while this has been going on, the City has been embroiled in conflict over its budget for 2012, a budget that proposed major increases in expenditures and a significant tax hike. A petition on ebrandon is accumulating hundreds of names and a number of organizations and prominent individuals, including recently retired city treasurer Grant MacMillan, called on the City to rework the budget. The City has now agreed to rework the budget in an effort to scale back tax increases.

Although the mayor subsequently provided information that demonstrated otherwise, at one point the City tried to blame union wages and collective bargaining costs for the need for tax hikes. They published data on the website reporting major increases in expenditures on labour relations since 2010, highlighting increases for firefighters.

* Includes $80,000 for a new Deputy HR Director.

The amount allocated to labour relations with the Fire Fighters has increased by a significant amount. In 2010, this allocation accounted for 50 per cent of the total labour relations budget; 57 percent when the Deputy Director is removed from the equation. The City told the Brandon Sun “the increase was needed to hire an external labour relations expert to negotiate a new deal because it had ‘neither the staff resources nor the time.’” If this is true, it raises questions as to how the City was able to find staff resources and time to negotiate new deals in the past – new deals that were touted by the City and Union as the outcome of a mature bargaining relationship and in the mutual interest of both the City and the Fire Fighters? And why, at the very time when the City must depend on its employees to secure a collective agreement that works for everyone, would the City hire an external consultant who will not only cost a bundle directly, but seems likely also to drive up other costs – for grievances and claims to the Manitoba Labour Board – and undermine morale in the Fire Department.

A more disturbing question is: why is it that two of Brandon’s major public sector employers – the City and Brandon University – are suddenly seeking to undermine their unions using anti-union consultants and lawyers? Perhaps we will get an answer to this question as the current conflict plays out in the weeks to come.

It the meantime, it would seem that the best course of action for the City is to cut its losses and send the consultant back to Vancouver; reinstate Mr. Ritchie; settle the outstanding grievances; and seek to negotiate a collective agreement that is based on mutual respect and trust.

(1) A story in the February 1 edition of the Brandon Sun reports that the Police Union has ratified a one-year contract that provides for a wage increase of two per cent.

Errol Black is a member of the CCPA-MB board.

Solidarity Forever – the Union Makes us Strong

by Errol Black

The evening of Friday November 25, 2011, the BUFA Bargaining Team at Brandon University issued a terse statement to members declaring that their 45 day strike at Brandon University was over:  

A tentative agreement has been reached between BUFA and the Employer after 10.5 hours of intensive negotiations today. Details of the agreement remain confidential pending a ratification vote….With the tentative agreement, the strike ends tonight at 11.59 p.m. There will be no picketing tomorrow. Classes will resume at 6:00 p.m. on Monday.

The statement concluded with an acknowledgement of the tremendous courage, commitment and solidarity of BUFA members “You won this, guys! Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.”

BUFA went on strike October 12, when it became clear that the Employer, Brandon University Administration, and an anti-union labour lawyer hired by the administration were not prepared to engage in serious negotiations to get a new collective agreement. BUFA had no choice. A strike vote was taken. Seventy per cent voted for strike action. The University Administration and their lawyer interpreted this as a sign of weakness and invited faculty members to cross the picket line and return to work. Less than a handful took the President up on her offer to come back (and these were people who had already turned their backs on their colleagues).

In subsequent weeks, the collective bargaining process moved through conciliation and mediation without resolve. All the while, the union asserted that the University refused to bargain. The University Administration and their lawyer said they couldn’t bargain on wages because of a government mandated restriction on what they pay and called for binding arbitration.

All the while BUFA Union was not only dealing with an Employer dedicated to undermining the union and one of the most expensive anti-union lawyers in the country, who apparently believed that he could break the strike and ultimately the union, but also an increasingly hostile public and sustained hostility from The Brandon Sun.

However, BUFA was not completely isolated. They were supported by other campus unions, the Brandon and District Labour Council, the Brandon University Students Union, many alumni, and, faculty union brothers and sisters in CAUT affiliated universities across the country who showed up every week to demonstrate their recognition of the issues involved in this strike.

The Manitoba government intervened on November 21, to order a vote on the employers last offer, with an apparent intention to force compulsory arbitration if the vote failed. Votes were scheduled for next week.

However, faced with these conditions, the University Administration and BUFA resumed bargaining on November 25. The outcome of this day of bargaining confirmed what the BUFA executive and bargaining team had been saying all along, namely, that they could obtain a new collective agreement if the University would engage in serious negotiations.

The outcome also confirmed what most of the people on the BUFA picket line understood from the outset: collective action based on principles, commitment and solidarity will prevail.

There are lessons for all of us coming out of this strike. We will try and clarify what these lessons are in future PolicyFix posts and in CCPA – Manitoba publications.

Errol Black is a CCPA Manitoba board member

Deveryn Ross on Brandon University Strike

By Errol Black

Deveryn Ross’ column on the Brandon University strike in the November 24 Winnipeg Free Press (“Administration, province will wear this one“), represents a significant advance on his first column on this issue October 13, 2011(“BU strike needs adult supervision“).

That first article was published the day after the strike started on October 12. In this article, Ross cites some of the factors contributing to the strike and the likelihood that it could last for a very long time. Unfortunately, Ross wasn’t able to cobble the pieces together in a way that produced a coherent analysis. On the contrary, he ended up trivializing the issues and blaming equally the University Administration and BUFA for the strike: “While they battle over picayune issues such as whether faculty members will get free gym memberships, they are apparently oblivious to the harm they are doing to a university that already has more than enough problems.”

He concluded that “[I]n the interests of both the university and the students, the situation requires an adult to step in and take charge.” Specifically, he proposed that Labour Minister Jennifer Howard emulate Federal Labour Minister Lisa Raitt and “impose a solution,” a recommendation that seemed to reflect disdain for the democratic rights of workers and their right to protect those rights through fair, collective bargaining.

Over the past six or so weeks, however, Ross has been doing research on the strike and he’s changed his tune. He is now digging closer to where the bone is buried. He now understands that the BU administration went into collective bargaining with a well-defined strategy which was contracted out to Grant Mitchell for execution. The plan was a simple one. Stall, delay, refuse to bargain, confuse the issues, and force BUFA into taking a strike vote.

As so often happens in these situations, the grand plan hatched by the University very quickly unraveled. The strike vote was taken. Support for strike action was around 70%. The University apparently interpreted this result to mean that BUFA would retreat and seek to negotiate a settlement. But BUFA didn’t retreat and a strike was called. Then the University thought they could exploit the divisions in the Union by simply inviting faculty members back to work, thinking presumably that the people who voted against strike action would be eager to cross the picket line. However, solidarity prevailed and the strike continued.

The University has stuck to its original strategy since the strike started. Stall, delay, refuse to bargain and confuse the issues. The University stuck to this strategy through conciliation and mediation, pushing the line that the Manitoba government had put limits on how much they could raise wages and pleading for the government to impose binding arbitration. As well, they fed a lot of nonsense to the media (especially the print media) that was intended to, as Ross clarifies, discredit BUFA members and put the blame for the strike on them.

It is unfortunate that Ross’ October 13 column was not nearly as clear-sighted as today’s; a lot of the misguided attitudes we heard during the early days of the strike were likely inspired by his earlier piece. Nonetheless, Ross clears up a lot of misconceptions today: he concludes that the blame for the strike and the failure to get a negotiated agreement rests squarely on the University. It is important to have this on the record. It is also important to have on the record the fact that the only people who were concerned about the situation of the students (apart from the students themselves) were the members of BUFA.

Ross also blames the government for what has transpired. “The Selinger government doesn’t escape culpability in this debacle. It dictated BU’s initial salary stance and refused to take reasonable steps to pre-empt the strike.” This claim about the government dictating BU’s initial salary stance is what the University and their lawyer told everyone. It is my understanding that this claim was bogus. We should endeavour to find out where the truth is.

The other question that we need to address is: how did it come to pass that all three universities employed the same lawyer, Grant Mitchell, to negotiate with their faculty unions to achieve a uniform outcome on wages?

Hopefully Mr. Ross hasn’t quit digging around.

Errol Black is a CCPA Board Member.

So What Happened to "Free Collective Bargaining" in Manitoba?

by Errol Black

On Saturday, November 19, 2011, a Brandon Sun headline read:

“Province won’t order striking profs back to work”

Well apparently they were wrong.

Labour and Immigration Minister Jennifer Howard’s decision to force striking faculty members to vote on the university’s “last offer” came as a surprise to everyone this morning.   Only a few days ago her colleague Erin Selby, the Minister of Advanced Education, was quoted by the Brandon Sun as saying “this is a difficult time for students and their families…We understand their frustration. They want to be back in the classroom. We want to see students back in the classroom as well. The best way for this to come to a resolution would be for both sides to continue negotiation. That’s the best resolution that we can see…”

Drew Caldwell, MLA Brandon East, took the same position, stating his support for his government’s stance in favour of collective bargaining… “The principle of free collective bargaining is very important in a civil society and we as a government have been providing conciliation, mediation and urging the parties to come to an agreement…”

On Tuesday November 22, 2011, Brandon woke up to a very different headline:

“Govt. orders profs to vote on latest contract offer”

In a letter to Brandon University President Deborah Poff and BUFA president Joe Dolecki, Minister Howard wrote “I have reviewed the circumstances of the dispute and the negative effect of the work stoppage on the students of Brandon University and the city of Brandon… I am of the opinion that a vote of the employees in (BUFA) to accept or reject the last offer of the employer, respecting all matters remaining in dispute between the parties, is in the public interest.”

So what happened between November 19 to November 21 to cause the government to so drastically change their position?

With the benefit of hindsight it appears that the decision was not as drastic as it would appear.  The government seems to have been working on a strategy to force an end to the strike for the past few weeks.

In previous blogs we reported that Brandon University’s Board and Administration and their lawyer, Grant Mitchell, have been seeking to undermine BUFA by stalling the collective bargaining process and forcing the outstanding issues to binding arbitration.

On October 12, the University asked for the appointment of a conciliator. A conciliator was appointed, but because of the University’s reluctance to negotiate, the effort was abandoned on October 21 (an outcome confirmed by the Minister of Labour in response to a question raised during Question Period on November 1).

BUFA then requested the appointment of a mediator. The Minister appointed Michael Werier, who on November 9th reported to the Minister that attempts at mediation had failed. In his report, Werier indicated that he had accepted the University’s argument and recommended that outstanding issues go to binding arbitration. The Minister recommended to the parties that they accept Werier’s recommendation. The University accepted, not surprising since this was the outcome they wanted from the onset. BUFA declined, stating that they would seek to secure an agreement through collective bargaining.

Members of Cabinet also liked the idea of having the matter go to arbitration. On November 9, Premier Selinger told a Winnipeg radio talk show host that the government would like the association [BUFA] to consider binding arbitration to help resolve the situation. And in the November,19 story in which Erin Selby said the province would stay out of the dispute, she let slip that she thought “[t]he best thing would be for both parties to agree to go to arbitration.”

The employer’s final offer will now go to a Manitoba Labour Board supervised vote of the BUFA membership – which could be as early as Thursday.

If it turns out that the BUFA membership rejects the employer’s offer, the Minister has signaled that she will clear the way for quick approval of a request for binding arbitration that will be made by Grant Mitchell on December 12.

This is a sad and unnecessary ending to a sad situation. It could have been avoided if the government had respected the institution of free collective bargaining and forced the employer to accept the fact that there would be no intervention to force a settlement through binding arbitration. Progress was being made. The difference on wages was reduced to $220,000 over a four-year agreement. Although the University backed down on an earlier agreement to follow the back to work protocol used in the 2008 strike, progress was being made on this outstanding issue as well.

As stated by BUFA president Joe Dolecki ““It is a sad day for free collective bargaining in this province”.

Errol Black is a CCPA Board member.

IT’S BRANDON UNIVERSITY!

By Errol Black

On November 16, The Brandon Sun responded to my comments of November 14 in which I argued that that their coverage and commentary relating to the strike at Brandon University was delaying a resolution of the conflict (“You can’t avoid the BU reality”).

The Sun’s concluding paragraph to the editorial implies that the editors didn’t understand my arguments. This paragraph reads as follows:

Up until now, the BUFA executive has ignored the advice of its own hand-picked mediator and refused to agree to binding arbitration. The executive seems to believe it can reach a deal with the university through the collective bargaining process, which has not been successful. As of today, there is only one holdout in this strike, and as we have no voice at the negotiating table, it’s rather obvious that we are not the ones prolonging the strike.

Instead of trying to understand the underlying causes for the failure to “reach a deal with the university through the collective bargaining process,” the editorial argues in effect that what’s gone before is irrelevant: “BUFA has rejected binding arbitration. Therefore, BUFA is responsible for a continuation of the strike. That’s all there is too it.”

I would suggest that if the Sun editorial writers and columnists had looked carefully at the factors leading to strike action and subsequent developments, they would have reached a different conclusion.

In brief, the chronology of key events in this sad state of affairs is as follows:

• May 17, start of collective bargaining.
• October 12, start of strike.
• October 12, in response to request by Brandon University, government names conciliator to help the parties negotiate a collective agreement.
• October 21, given the University’s refusal to get serious about reaching a collective agreement, the conciliator decides there’s no future in prolonging the process. BUFA agrees and requests the Minister of Labour appoint Michael Werier as a mediator.
• October 21, Michael Werier appointed mediator.
• November 7, Michael Werier submitted report to Minister proposing “binding arbitration to resolve the dispute on wage increases, and either arbitrate or negotiate the remaining issues.”

Given that Mr. Werier revealed in his report that he was predisposed to accept the position of the University on wages, BUFA rejected binding arbitration. The University, which had indicated previously a desire to arbitrate rather than negotiate, enthusiastically approved Werier’s recommendation.

Other people, including the editors of the Sun, should have been able to puzzle out that the problem was that the University refused to bargain in good faith and it should have insisted that the University get back to the table and negotiate a collective agreement.

Instead, without much thought, they simply jumped on the arbitration band wagon and called on BUFA to give up on its efforts to bargain a solution. I would submit that the latter response, namely, the endorsement of the university’s wish for arbitration, has prolonged the strike.

Errol Black is a retired member of BUFA and a CCPA Mb. board member.

Brandon Sun Bias Prolongs Brandon University Strike

Editor’s Note: For more information, please also see What You Need To Know About The Brandon University Strike

 

By Errol Black

 

The Brandon University strike of 240 faculty members is now into its 34th day.

The actions and role of the media in small-town labour disputes play an important role in shaping community perspectives on the nature, dynamics and implications of the conflict for both the direct participants and the community at large. The media’s role is, therefore, profoundly important in all labour disputes; it is especially important in situations where deliberate bias in the coverage provided by the media results in a serious misrepresentation of a dispute that potentially involves segments of the community. The Brandon University strike is one such dispute.

 

The Brandon Sun

Of all the media in Brandon, the Sun is the one media enterprise with the most capacity to provide the news and analytical coverage from the balanced perspective that people need to understand the Brandon University strike. Before the Sun was taken over by The Winnipeg Free Press in 2001 it was a fairly robust enterprise and newspaper that provided information and insight on world, national and local issues. Now, it simply characterizes itself as the voice of conservatism in the region – a paper, in other words, with a narrow right-wing slant. This perspective is evident in the Sun’s coverage of the Brandon University Strike.

Brandon Sun Bias

From the outset, the Sun has aligned itself with Brandon University President, Administration and hired guns, notably, employer lawyer Grant Mitchell, and against the members of the Brandon University Faculty Association (BUFA). This is reflected in all aspects of the paper’s analysis and coverage including: the stories that are emphasized and the ones that are ignored or downplayed, the letters that get printed as opposed to the ones that don’t; the editorial perspectives, to name a few.

This bias reached its peak this past week, culminating in back-to-back editorials published on November 9 and 10, 2011.

The first of the editorials, titled “BU students deserve more from Caldwell,” What do they deserve from Caldwell? According to the editors, “,,,it’s rather dispiriting to say the least, when the only elected NDP representative around these parts seems unwilling to step into the fray on behalf of increasingly frustrated university students.” And why exactly, do the editors think Caldwell should step in, and what exactly do they think he should do? The editors say he should intervene, because, while “it is one thing to believe that the provincial government should not interfere with the collective bargaining process [and Caldwell has the right to his opinion], when it become obvious that both sides are incapable of reaching a fair and equitable settlement on their own…a higher power needs to step in – the provincial government.. And you, Mr. Caldwell …need to take a stand that benefits this city, before affected constituents decide to give up the ghost.”

This attack on Caldwell clearly demonstrates the editor’s ignorance of both the broader role the labour movement plays in democratic society and the importance of the collective bargaining process in providing a voice for workers.

In the November 10 editorial (“BUFA, province share the blame”) the editors claim that as of November 9, “the executive of BUFA is now the only entity standing in the way of some 3,100 students being allowed to return to class.” The editors don’t explain how BUFA is responsible for this situation. Are we left to infer that it’s because BUFA rejects binding arbitration and insists that the two parties negotiate a collective agreement? If that’s what the editors believe, then isn’t more plausible to suggest that it is the University and their high-paid legal brains that are responsible for the continuation of the strike? Surely, we might expect that when people are being paid $400 to $600 an hour, they can think of something more creative to say than “we want it to go to binding arbitration.”

In the concluding sections of the editorial the editors state: “At the outset, of this strike, the Sun’s management and editorial board made a decision to stay neutral in the Our View [ by which they mean editorial] column..”

They then say, “. . . but we never expected the strike to extend for so long and for all the wrong reasons.” There is a simple explanation for their failure to get things right; namely, that they never tried to understand the causes of the strike and the reasons for the impasse in collective bargaining. Nor did they bother to try and figure out what the issues were and why Brandon University steadfastly refused to try and negotiate an agreement with BUFA.

The editors wind up their editorial asserting that “we now see clearly who the villains are in this performance – the faculty’s union and the provincial government [and] calling on the government to legislate the strikers back to work.”

I would suggest that there are indeed villains in this situation but not the ones cited by the Sun. On the contrary, the villains are Brandon University and the Brandon Sun, which has failed through its own ineptitude and ideological blinders to provide citizens with the background they need to understand the causes and consequences of the strike.

Errol Black is a CCPA MB. board member and a retired member of the BUFA.