Hi from Winnipeg! It is almost 3 am (1 am Vancouver time). Gerard, Laura, Mark and myself made it in spite of multiple problems with the airplane (we had a very honest pilot...he came on the P.A. system to let us know that he “wasn’t comfortable” flying because the plane’s computer was acting up. Then he let us know that there was a problem with one of the brakes, and the tiny jet engine that was supposed to start the bigger jet engine wasn’t working. Yikes!). The passenger sitting next to me was literally praying.

Hotels in Winnipeg are booked solid with CUPE members. Our little group is meeting in a few hours for breakfast, then it’s off to the library workers’ caucus. We will be discussing common issues and concerns amongst library workers nationwide.

Tomorrow morning we will be attending the new delegates orientation. It’s going to be a busy week. We’ll try and keep you updated on the latest goings on. This convention is huge. Click on the CUPE National link to the left to browse through the convention program, and you’ll get the idea.

We’re hoping to have ‘net access from the convention floor. If that is the case, we will be providing ongoing updates. If not, we will use the internet access from the hotel to give you daily updates. Stay tuned!

D’Arcy

Gerard spoke eloquently about the impact of new technologies on circulation staff, citing self-service checkout as an example, and addressing the potential future of RFID. One of his quotes that struck me was his reference to Seattle Public: “Workers have moved from serving the needs of the public to serving the needs of machines.”

I addressed the group on a variety of topics. Under challenges we are facing, I highlighted workload and RSI issues, pay equity, the downloading of social services from the Provincial government, the need for improved working conditions for part-time and auxiliary staff, and the loss of subject specialty and devaluing of professional skills.

Under our successes I let the attendees know about our Wellness Committee initiative, our recent discussions at the Board strategic planning session on language around workplace intellectual freedom and staff workload issues, the SSP review that management has been instructed to undertake, and the positive relationship we’ve been able to cultivate with our Board over the last several years.

Items of interest from other libraries…

Joy McMann from the City of Winnipeg reported that in the new Millennium Library (I’ll go have a look at it later this week), there has been a huge service shift—management has decided that the public needs subject-specific desks on each floor (!) So, instead of SSP they are dealing with MSP—multiple service points. And staff are being required to become specialists rather than generalists. Go figure.

Donna Holmes from Regina Public Library reported on the crisis of 2003, when the library announced an unexpected funding shortfall of $1,000,000.00. Without public consultation, they announced the closure of three branches and the layoff of twenty-seven staff. CUPE helped support a campaign that mobilized the city—a petition signed by 26,000 people moved City Council to fire the library director. Half the Board resigned. There were no closures.

Almost all libraries reported increased workloads without increased funding for staff. The big issues remain pay equity, health and safety, the use of volunteers, and the need to help non-unionized libraries to become organized.

CUPE National President Paul Moist addresses the Library Workers’ Caucus, emphasizing the need to improve rights for part-time and auxiliary staff in libraries.

More news tonight.

D’Arcy - Sunday, October 2nd

...back at the hotel after the BC Caucus and a dinner meeting with Laura and our National Rep. (Hi, Bren! Hi, Teresa!)

Laura and I just returned from the raucus BC caucus. Not all of the BC delegates have arrived yet, due to flight delays (I hear it’s raining back home!). When they do, we will be a contingent of about three hundred.

A big point of contention is the issue of how resolutions are debated at the national level. Conventions are handled differently than our local meetings, in that rules of order are greatly modified.

Perhaps the most mystifying thing about attending a CUPE convention is what is meant by “concurrence” and “non-concurrence.” At the CUPE BC convention, resolutions are forwarded months prior to convention by locals. They are considered by resolutions committees, who take them forward to convention with a recommendation of “concurrence” (which means that the resolution is not violating any CUPE rules and can be freely debated and voted on) or “non-concurrence” (which means that if you vote in favour, you are killing the resolution. If you defeat it, it just disappears. It can never, in any incarnation, be adopted—the reasoning being that adoption would violate a fundamental CUPE constitutional provisions or the like).

There is a grave problem at the national level. Small committees take our resolutions, and very often for no compelling reason bring them to the convention floor moving non-concurrence—in effect killing the democratic process. For example—we learned tonight that every resolution regarding constitutional amendments coming out of BC except for one will be going forward as non-concurrent! When the two committee representatives were asked for specific reasons on an item by item basis, the reasons given were “...we felt it was too expensive,” or “...we thought that what is in place is sufficient for the membership.”

I thought this was our union! If I’d wanted someone to do my thinking for me, I would have competed on Canadian Idol.

This is shocking! CUPE BC has submitted a resolution to limit the power of committees in a matter consistent with the current practice in our province, so that issues can be freely debated. Guess what? It is going forward as non-concurrent!

So what do we do? BC delegates are working at the grassroots level here, liaising with other provinces. Our only hope is to create enough of an uproar over this that when it hits the convention floor the National Executive and the committees get an earful. Then, someone needs to “move referral” before a vote is taken.

“Referral” is the only way to save a resolution that has been moved as non-concurrent. If the delegates vote in favour of referral, the resolution is sent back to committee to be re-drafted, and time permitting, re-introduced with a recommendation of concurrence.

There are many important issues to be debated in the days ahead. Laura will be involved in the women’s caucus, as CUPE looks to break down barriers. The four of us are working hard studying the resolutions and liaising with delegates. Tune in regularly for updates. If you want to see the resolutions I’m talking about, see the CUPE National site.

In solidarity,
D’Arcy (Sunday, October 2nd)