Sex Workers Solidarity

The Greater Toronto Workers’ Assembly hosted a panel on Sex Workers Solidarity on March 4^th. The speakers on the panel were members of Maggie’s: TheToronto Sex Worker’s Action Project, run by and for local sex workers.

Kathryn Payne started the talk by reading a recent motion passed by the GTWA in solidarity with sex workers. Part of the motion states:

Increased services for the health and safety of sex workers, including services that provide assistance for those who want to exit the trade.

Kathryn pointed out that the GTWA would not have a statement on assistance to exit other types of work that could also be dangerous and exploitative, like in the manufacturing sector.

All the speakers stress the importance of looking at sex work as work and that there are different experiences in the trade. The focus should be on improving working conditions through a union and the decriminalization of sex work rather than trying to end the work. Kathryn says sex work is a way for unskilled women to make a lot of money. However, there is a different level of privilege within the industry with street-based workers being the most vulnerable to poor working conditions.

The GTWA motion highlights the ongoing stigmatization sex workers  face. The discourse around human trafficking further adds to this stigmatization. On a separate occasion, I spoke to Keisha Scott who says that human trafficking gets conflated with sex work and as a result sex work becomes further criminalized.

What is the future of unions?

The Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and the Canadian Energy and Paperworkers (CEP) are discussing a possible merger. In January, they released a discussion paper called A Moment of Truth for Canadian Unions which details the current troubling state of unions in Canada.

They worry that the declining union movement in Canada will mirror that of the US where union membership is 7% in the private sector. In Canada it is about 17.4%. The paper calls for a new kind of Canadian unionism that can confront globalization, aggressive employers and an unsympathetic public and it also lays out why a bigger union is better.

I interviewed David Camfield, author of Canadian Labour in Crisis; Stephanie Ross, Assistant Professor and Co-Director of the Centre for Research on Work and Society at York University; and Winnie Ng, CAW-Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy at Ryerson University to get their views on the discussion paper and a union renewal strategy.

The interviews are divided into three posts below.

What is the future of unions? Interview with Winnie Ng

Winnie Ng is the CAW-Sam Gindin Chair at Ryerson University.

Winnie Ng by FTGU

Q: What surprised or struck you in the CAW-CEP's paper, A Moment of Truth?

WN: The paper confirms the trend. Corporations merge and so should the unions. Having that gathering of strength and strategy is a positive signal for the labour movement and overall the workers movement.

What was surprising is the timing. It might signal in terms of the broader economic and political context that people within the labour movement are recognizing the writing on the wall, that unless we make some drastic changes, it’s a race to bottom and you can't do the same old, same old all the time.

With the recession and the austerity agenda, the two largest private sector unions are taking the lead in coming together in moving some of these initiatives forward. It takes certain courage to have the political will to say, "It's now or never."

Q: What do you feel was missing in the paper?

WN: It would have been important to include a much stronger focus on the inclusion or the equity agenda. If we are going to drastically be looking inward and be reflexive on how we have done things, then take a look at the demographic shifts within the Canadian population.

There is no 'one-size-fits-all' type of union organizing strategy or bargaining strategy. Having full respect for those who are involved in the this merger initiative, we need to recognize the divide and rule tactics that are being used by right-wing populists like Rob Ford; that whole perception out there is that anyone who is in a union and has contract protections action is on the gravy train. We should be asking why shouldn't we have the audacity to ask for decent jobs for all. In underscoring the 'for all', how would a labour renewal strategy include a cornerstone platform on reaching out to those who have been marginalized and further marginalized because they belong to one of the equity seeking groups?

There's recognition that the nature of work has changed, but in terms of the organizing strategy we are still assuming that workers are a homogeneous group. That's the discrepancy. This is only a very preliminary paper, so I'm hoping that there will be more substanstive and more in depth searching questions and discussions on a new vision for a union.

Q: How can unions be more inclusive? 

If you look at the history of the movement from the early days to now, things changed and things improved because the workers were protesting out on the street to the point that - May Day, Haymarket - people died for it. You see the same thing happening in the global south in China, India and elsewhere. As we speak there are 10 million Indian workers that are out on strike against the austerity agenda.

Within the movement here, we become much more at ease in trying to seek legislative change and working within the framework of bargaining in good faith. When actually with the Caterpillar closure, you recognize that employers and the corporate sector - the worst of them - never bargain in good faith. They will try whatever to maximize profits and instill fear in workers. We need to be much more cognizant of the broader corporate agenda along with the political legislative agenda and those two pieces are not there as friends of workers.

I'm by no means knocking down all the gains we have made. But how do we work within the legislative framework, at the same time push for more advocacy and push for more changes? For workers that are doing precarious work or temp work - the right to organize is something that is a privilege - they don’t have access to that right to enjoy. How do we make sure that that we push the frame so that there would be more sectoral organizing, or creatively how do we do some pre-organizing?

There’s some good examples. The Steelworkers are now working with taxi drivers, getting them organized as associate members. At least there’s some representation, some collective pooling of resources. CUPE reached out to domestic caregivers. These are examples where you sometimes see the spark. I'm hoping that it will take shape and take root in a deeper and profound way.

At Ryerson, I met students who wake up a 5’o clock in the morning waiting for the temp agency to call so they can work as day labourers. They get assigned to different work places on a day to day depending on the availability of work. Our pool of –the ones that we could organize - is so much larger than the confinement of organizing workplace by workplace. A lot of times smaller workplaces can’t even get a union organizer to come and take a look. It’s too small. It’s not cost-effective or viable. This is where legislation has impeded how workers can mobilize in a union or organize together.

What is the future of unions? Interview with Stephanie Ross

Stephanie Ross is an Assistant Professor and Co-Director for the Centre for Research on Work and Society. 

This interview was conducted via email.

 Q: Is consolidating unions a good strategy to fight against the attack on unions and workers? Do you agree with the some of the advantages the CAW-CEP discussion paper puts forward?

 SR: There is a lot of fragmentation in the Canadian union movement, and this is a long-standing situation, not a recent development. Workers' organizations in general tend to mirror the structures of workplaces, employers and industrial sectors, which is reinforced by Canada's very decentralized legal framework for union certification and collective bargaining.

This fragmentation, especially as some employers themselves consolidate and globalize, has revealed the limited bargaining power of many private sector unions. We also have very weak labour federations in Canada, which has made building effective solidarity across union lines very difficult. As unions lose members due to the effects of economic restructuring, competition for new members has intensified, and the capacity to cooperate to conduct new organizing is very low.

 So I agree with the authors of A Moment of Truth that the problems of union fragmentation, duplication, competition, and inability to cooperate are real and serious. And a merger between the CAW and CEP specifically makes some sense, as they share a lot in common: both emerged as national unions born out of splits with US-based unions, and both have used mergers and amalgamations as a key growth strategy in the past 20 years which has led them to become general unions.

 However, organizational consolidation through mergers isn't a silver bullet for these problems, and in some ways can create new ones. First, mergers don’t automatically generate more union members. Instead, they reallocate existing union members amongst fewer organizations. So, for organizations that have suffered major declines in their memberships, consolidation is a rational, short-term defensive strategy, but whether it creates a capacity to organize and effectively represent new groups of workers is an open question. It all depends on how those resources are used.

 Second, mergers create larger organizations, in which maintaining membership engagement and democratic control are a real challenge. Third, mergers bring together unions with distinct traditions, political orientations and identities, which are very persistent and to which people are very attached. These can come into conflict and can be very difficult to sort out, no matter how much good will there is. So having to rethink “who we are” and “what we do” is a major task that can sometimes generate lots of internal conflict, which can actually interfere with responding effectively to external attacks.

 Finally, mergers are often desired by and negotiated by leaders, who have their own stakes in the particular shape of any future organization and in where they end up in the new organization. Often, new positions are created to satisfy competing leadership groups and make the merger possible, which can eliminate any cost-savings that might go to other initiatives. So, while I agree that a new merged organization might have a greater potential to do some of the things discussed in the paper, I don't think they are guaranteed outcomes of merger as such.

 Q: How do we strengthen unions when the rank and file is not as militant as we would like them to be?

 SR: I don’t think workers are naturally “militant”. Although workers’ experiences of capitalism create the basis for such militancy, it’s not automatic that they believe that collective opposition to either employers or governments is either effective or possible. That insight must be learned, through both radical forms of union education and real practical opportunities for workers to exercise their collective power and win. In other words, unions themselves must provide both the tools and organizational support for developing a militant orientation amongst the membership.

A major step in this direction would be a more politicized approach to stewards’ training, in which stewards come to see themselves as organizers, both in the workplace and in the community, and are encouraged to look for opportunities to use collective direct action to make gains, no matter how small. Of course, given that many union leaders have themselves retreated from militant tactics, and prefer negotiation, court cases or lobbying instead, we have a vicious cycle in many unions where the voices for more militant responses are quite marginalized.

 The broader left has a role to play in fostering such educational opportunities outside of the unions, but that also has to be grounded in real practices. It’s important for the left not to simply call for militancy for its own sake; otherwise people can dismiss this as unrealistic dreaming. In general, I think fighting is better than always finding ways to “manage the losses” which is typical of much union strategy today.

But militancy which ends in failure can also be counter-productive for movement building, as people learn that collective action makes things worse. It’s important that, as leftists, we be able to point to concrete instances where militancy has produced gains, built workers’ confidence, and enhanced an organization’s capacity for future struggles.

What is the future of unions? Interview with David Camfield

David Camfield is associate professor in labour studies at the University of Manitoba and is the author of Canadian Labour in Crisis.

David Camfield by FTGU

The following is a slightly edited transcript.

Q: Is consolidating unions a good strategy to fight against the attack on unions and workers?

DC: I don’t think the amalgamation strategy by itself is a good strategy. It will be interesting to see what actually happens with the discussion between the CEP and the CAW. But I have major concerns about what kind of union would be produced by a merger of those two organizations. The CAW-CEP discussion paper says that bigger is better in a number of ways.

They talk about more members bringing more visibility, more clout, and more money. I think that some of these things can be true but it’s entirely possible to have a union with more members and more money that’s not actually more effective for workers. That’s why I don’t think there’s anything automatic about bigger being better. Yes, sometimes there can be advantages, but there can also be disadvantages.

If you end up with a union with more money, but  it's a union in which workers have less democratic control within their own organization, then that will be a problem. Or if the merged union has a practice or strategy that's inferior to what the previous union had then that could also be a step backwards. Rather than saying bigger is better, yes or no, we need to be more specific and talk about better in what ways, for which unions, and in what circumstances.

Q: In your book Canadian Labour in Crisis, you write that leadership driven reforms are not the solution, that we need a rank and file approach to reinventing unions. The paper doesn’t address rank and file involvement. How do you see the rank and file reinventing unions?

DC: I think that it is striking that there is virtually nothing about democracy mentioned in this paper.  I think it speaks to the outlook of the leaders of the two unions that we are talking about.   If unions are going to be reinvented they are going to be reinvented by workers. It is going to be a much more prolonged, uneven, and gradual process than flashy high profile mergers and other kinds of reorganizations and I don’t think anyone has a crystal ball for this. I certainly don’t claim to have the ability to see the future or a program to make it happen.

But what we can say from recent experience is that it won’t happen out of a merger like this as opposed to a wave of new initiatives by workers themselves. I don’t know what a reinvented union movement would look like. But are some interesting examples that I touch on in my book that hint at what it could be like.

This is something workers will have to figure out in the early 21st century and I sincerely hope there is some progress in this direction because circumstances for workers are getting worse. The document of the CAW - CEP certainly recognizes that -- it flows out of a sense of growing crisis. It’s not wrong to recognize that the problems are very significant and actually becoming worse. In fact, they're worse now than when the document came out because of the dramatic defeat at Caterpillar, for example.

Q: How do we make unions more democratic?

Sisters in the Struggle

On Friday, March 2, the Network for Pan-Afrikan Solidarity hosted a film screening of Sisters in the Struggle (1991), a documentary directed by Dionne Brand and Ginny Stikeman which "features Afrikan womyn who are active in community organizing electoral politics, labour and feminist organizing" in the late 80s. The film still resonates today with themes of racism, police brutality, sexism, and homophobia both in the mainstream and within social movements.

The screening was part of a month long film series and panels for Afrikan Liberation Month. The organizers wanted to look beyond the past and multiculturalism of Black History Month and see the work that still needs be done to liberate Afrikan people. An article by Wangui Kimari written in rabble provides further details.



The film was followed by a panel discussion with Angela Robertson, Yolisa Dalamba, and Wariri Muhungi focusing on the theme: Toward a Resurgent Afrikan Womyn's Activism in Toronto. The evening's MC was Ijeoma Ekoh.

Angela Robertson, Director of Equity and Community Engagement, gave an overview of black women organizing in anti-racist, feminist, and queer communities in Toronto. She says that the organizing that black women have done contributed to the building of community services and the anti-racist, gender and queer analysis that exists today. Black women have organized around access to employment and the fight for fair labour practices. She gave nursing as an example.

Angela spoke about police brutality recalling the spate of killings by police in the late 80s and mid 90s of young black men and the case of Sophie Cook that became a catalyst for black women organizing against police brutality.

She talked about the organizing around Caribbean domestic workers and the fight against deportations and unjust immigration policies. Other topics that she touched on included black women organizing in education, violence against women, the LGBTQ community, the sexism and exclusion within the black community, and the racism in the feminist community including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

As well as the importance of taking to the streets, she said it was also important to create institutions. She named institutions that black women established: Sister Vision Press, the Black Women Collective, ZAMI, Black CAP, Blackorama, and Black Lesbians of Toronto.

Angela Robertson by FTGU

Yolisa Dalamba, Executive Director of the Association for Part-Time Undergraduate Students at the University of Toronto, gave a framework to challenge white supremacist values. She started her talk about her personal history of leaving apartheid South Africa and finding apartheid in Canada. The apartheid in South Africa was modeled on Canada's reserve system for aboriginal people. She said Afrikan communities are segregated all across Canada particularly in Nova Scotia.

Yolisa talked about the ways Afrikan have been dehumanized by the dominate culture and the importance of resistance, but also the importance of self-care.

Yolisa Dalamba by FTGU


Wariri Muhungi, member of Network for Pan African Solidarity, spoke about building sustainable organizations and mobilizing resources and the challenges and opportunities around that building. She emphasized the importance of inter-generational knowledge sharing and talked that organizations need to take the time to lay out the foundation that brings people together in organizing. She also touched on the NGO Industrial Complex and how the State controls social justice movements through funding.


Wariri Muhungi by FTGU

In the discussion, questions were asked around coalition building while ensuring space for black women, internalized racism, and self-care and caring for others. The first question was asked by Janaya, followed by Kimalee and the last question was from Kalmplex.


Q and A by FTGU