uncharted.ca

It had all started with the union man. He came to the burger joint where they worked, asking their manager if he could speak with them about joining a union. Dumbfounded, the store manager showed him the door but he persisted, suggesting that the store manager call head office and check with the head of the security department. The store manager did so and when asked by the security chief about the union man's identity, told the store manager to allow his request. The union man sat down with the restaurant workers. Few had ever thought about joining a union. Some did not think that restaurant workers could join unions. Still others had heard of workers being fired for daring even to mention unions. The union man soon put their minds at rest.

Creating a union was easy, he told them and he would show them how. He knew people at the head office. They were familiar with the kind of union he had in mind and did not object to it if the workers wanted to join. All the company cared about was that its workers join a good union, one that was right for them. There were some very bad unions out there - unions that were just out to take workers' money and squeeze companies out of business. These were the unions the company did not want. There were other kinds of unions, however, the kind that worked well for the workers and for the company. The union man said he was an expert in these kinds of unions and knew the company would approve. Once the union was established, he would organize their co-workers throughout the company's operations. The workers were somewhat bewildered at first but his easy manner and their managers' apparent tolerance of him put them at ease. Having their own union held out the promise of improved working conditions and better pay and few workers needed it more than they.

What the workers did not know was that the union they thought they were creating was actually the product of the efforts of three men: a prominent Toronto labour lawyer, an Officer of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and an International Organizer with the Hotel and Restaurant Workers and Bartenders International Union. The groundwork for the organization the workers thought they were forming on that day in April 1975 had been laid months before, at the corporate head office. Company officials had selected them as good prospects to lead the new union based largely on their malleability and loyalty to the organization.

Dority and Evans tried hard to win him over. There would be no problems, Evans committed as Dority looked his most compassionate best. The UFCW, at least the part of it that he ran, was not out to cause the company grief. Benn would be completely out of the picture. The stores would be folded into a local under Evans' jurisdiction and Evans would personally see to it that there were no problems. He understood [Dirtbag’s] dismay. If it had been up to him, the campaign would never have happened. And then, in a final act of obsequiousness, Evans offered his humblest and most sincere apology to [Dirtbag] for the whole thing. All he needed were a couple of the Metro locations - something that would allow them to walk gracefully away. [Dirtbag] was unmoved, however, and the talks broke off in the early morning hours.

Although frustrated that he had not obtained a deal on the worst possible terms for the UFCW, [Dirtbag] was somewhat buoyed by Evan's performance, describing him as "our kind of guy". His sincere apology had tugged at [Dirtbag’s] heart. As he began to warm up to the idea of having the UFCW in some of the stores, the germ of an idea occurred to him. With Evans in charge, he could maybe get those wage concessions he so desperately wanted after all. The idea intrigued him. Yes, he could look more favourably on the UFCW demands for some of the locations in exchange for a commitment to wage concessions when it came time to bargain. He did not think that Evans would have any problem with concessions. He could blame the whole thing on Benn whose efforts had so bankrupted the company that it required concessions to remain viable. There could even be a strike at a store or two with Benn still in the picture. The International could then move in to remove Benn and Evans could step in and do a concession deal. This would then set a pattern for the rest of the stores - including those in HERE's territory. The plan excited him - he had not felt this good since he had put the screws to the workers at [a store in Ottawa].

Top Boss Goes to Prison for Union Embezzlement
"[H]e thought of himself first and the union members second. He and other members of his family used the union as a personal asset," said U.S. Labor Department's Joseph S. Wasik in discussing Joseph C. Talarico, the now-former Int'l. Secretary-Treasurer (i.e. #2 post) of the United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l. Union. Talarico was sentenced Jul. 28 in U.S. District Court to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay $1.1 million restitution to UFCW Local 1 in Utica, NY, for embezzling over $925,000 from union members. He was banned from union office for 13 years.

But the scheme that ran 1984-97 went beyond Joseph Talarico, who was the Local 1 president before he took his international union post in 1995, to include his brother, son, daughter and brother-in-law. The Talaricos illegally used union funds for a wide range of personal purposes, including landscaping and lavish renovations to their homes. Joseph Talarico also had the hair on his head paid for with money stolen from Local 1. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, union funds paid for the boss' $10,000 hair transplant and a union airplane flew him from Washington to Saratoga Springs, NY, where the hair job was done. The embezzled funds were on top of the family's already lavish annual compensation from the union. The Talaricos made more than $1 million in union salaries and legitimate expenses in 1996. "It sounds like greed to me," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew T. Baxter.

The other family members face similar situations. This ended the Talaricos' grip on Local 1 that dates back to 1953 when Joseph Talarico's father Samuel J. Talarico, Sr., founded it.

[Buffalo News 07/30/98, BNA Daily Labor Report 07/29/98 & Utica Observer-Dispatch 02/10/98]

HOW THE UFCW LEADERSHIP RESPONDS TO CORRUPTION
After International Union Vice President Leo Cinaglia was convicted in federal court for taking a bribe from an employer, former UFCW International Union President William Wynn praised Cinaglia at an International Union executive board meeting for not informing on others in the union. An Interynational Union President's more appropriate response would have been to condemn Cinaglia for taking bribes from the employer and selling the workers out.

When former UFCW International Secretary-Treasurer Joseph Talarico pled guilty in federal court to stealing more than one million dollars from his former local union's members, current UFCW International Union President Douglas Dority and former International Union President Wynn stated the following in letters to the federal court at Talarico's sentencing.

Letter to Judge Frederick Scullin, Jr., from Dority, dated September 3, 1997, read: "I am writing this letter on behalf of a very dear and close friend of mine, Joseph Talarico. During my time with him (Talarico), I was able to closely monitor his actions and found that he was not only intelligent and creative, but also very honest and forthright with people.... ...In my mind, his (Talarico's) integrity is unquestioned."

Letter to Judge Frederick Scullin, Jr., dated October 7, 1997, from former International President Wynn: "He (Talarico) is one of the most decent, honest and loyal persons we have ever known" (Emphasis added.)

Shocking statements from top UFCW officials to make about an International Union officer who stole more than a million dollars from the members.

When REAP exposed a million-dollar housing scam that former International President Wynn pulled on the union, UFCW officials went around the country holding fund-raising affairs for him in order to replace the hundreds of thousands of dollars he was forced to pay back. When Talarico was indicted for embezzling union funds, officials within UFCW tried to put together a nation-wide legal fund for him.

In a span of four years, the two highest ranking union officers of the 1.3 million member UFCW Union (International Union President and Secretary-Treasurer) were forced to leave office for trying to steal more than two million dollars from the members. Their reward for these misdeeds and betrayal of the members was praise from their peers, fund-raising events and a big pension check every month for the rest of their lives. It is, therefore, not difficult to figure out why the UFCW leadership is not alarmed about corruption within the union.

A brochure calling Talarico a “labor faker” and contrasting his portrayal by the UFCW (as a great unionist) and the US Department of Labor (as a great embezzler) made the rounds on the Internet.

After International Union Vice President Leo Cinaglia was convicted in federal court for taking a bribe from an employer, former UFCW International Union President William Wynn praised Cinaglia at an International Union executive board meeting for not informing on others in the union. An International Union President's more appropriate response would have been to condemn Cinaglia for taking bribes from the employer and selling the workers out.

They Ordered a Union like a Pizza
By: Hugh Finnamore

CAW is challenging collusion that traps workers in unions. The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) threatens to enforce its “no-raid policy” because the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union has signed up members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Buzz Hargrove, CAW’s president, says he’s prepared to depart the CLC to defend Canadian workers’ democratic rights to join any union they choose.

I smell bad fish, but we won’t get into that here. What is important, though, is that Buzz Hargrove has shone a light on longstanding union collusion that is responsible for keeping thousands of Canadians trapped in indifferent, abusive and sometimes corrupt labour unions.

I speak from experience. Before my conscience caught up with me, I was an international union official who relied on the no-raid pacts and CLC policies to keep thousands of unsuspecting dues-payers in unions, which are nearly impossible to leave.

Canadian laws give workers the right to join a union. It is against those laws to use coercion or intimidation to prevent the exercising of that right. Those laws also specify a time during the term of a collective agreement when union members may vote to switch unions. This is commonly called the “raiding period.” The CLC constitution and its coercive sanctions fly in the face of those laws and make them meaningless or inoperable. Workers who wish to change unions are turned away at the other union’s door.

In one assignment I worked on, a large Canadian grocery chain “custom ordered” a Local union from one of North America’s largest international unions. Yes, they ordered it just like you would order a pizza—extra “flexibility,” and hold the high wages. The deal was that in return for five to six thousand yet-to-be-hired employees, the union would create a “friendlier” Local union to represent its employees.

The company wanted a Local that would be covered by a no-raid pact and would give the employer at least a 25% competitive advantage over its competitors. I helped set up that Local union, and then helped structure a long-term collective agreement designed to restrict movement within the employer’s operations. The idea was to create a system in which no union would challenge our right to collect dues and other employer-paid monies. A seniority system was created that discouraged movement within the employer’s departments and work sites: If members can’t communicate, they are powerless to challenge the union or employer.

Was this deal a big secret within industry and labour circles? Not at all. Was this deal an exception? Not really. Weren’t the union members outraged? Of course they were, but what were they going to do—decertify? Not likely. In their minds, a bad union is better than no union at all. And in many jurisdictions such as B.C., the law says the entire bargaining unit must decertify. You cannot decertify one, two or a few stores.

Rank-and-file union members don’t have the money, opportunity or expertise to organize grass-roots revolt. In fact, one B.C. grocery chain fired an employee for talking union reform, and another’s representatives searched an employee’s personal effects for union reform literature, telling him his “activities must cease within the workplace” or it “could result in the termination of [his] employment.”

Unions do have the money, opportunity and expertise, but that’s where the inter-union and CLC no-raid pacts and policies come into play. The CLC constitution prohibits one CLC union from recruiting or even talking to another union’s members.

Trade unionists will argue that enforcement of such a policy keeps unions focused on representing members and fighting employers rather than expending precious resources fending off competing unions. Heck, you’d think they’ve never heard of client satisfaction as a way to raid-proof their bargaining units.

Few, if any, unions are trade- or craft-based today. It doesn’t matter what industry or business work-ers are in; if they have a heartbeat, any union will sign them up. One international union goes as far as to exhort its organizers to increase “market share.” That’s a business term if I’ve ever heard one. Unions are no longer brotherhoods, fraternities or guilds; they are businesses whose purpose is to serve the interests of their shareholders.

The big difference between the corporate business and the union business is that governments more tightly regulate corporations. Government enforcers would have an employer roped and hog-tied if it ever conspired to restrict trade or prevent customers from finding another supplier. However, for some reason, it’s OK when unions do it.

I commend Buzz Hargrove and the CAW for promising to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canadian workers. However, it remains to be seen whether the CAW has the fortitude to carry out its threat, or if it will bend to the wrath of the CLC and federations. The provincial and federal governments must step in to enforce laws that should have stopped the CLC Charter violations and other union collusion that is detrimental to Canadian business and its employees.

Hugh Finnamore is a senior consultant at Workplace Strategies Inc.

From: "Hugh Finnamore"
To: wanda2000@hotmail.com
Subject: Business Unions
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 08:11:52 -0700

Hi Wanda,

I've heard you're doing some research and writing on Business Unions. Over a 20-year period, I've been a Teamster Business Agent, a Textile Processors Local 299 Secretary Treasurer, a UFCW Business Agent and a UFCW
International Representative. I now represent management as a Labour Relations Manager and I run a Labour Relations consulting firm, Workplace Strategies Inc. http://home.istar.ca/~finn/index.htm

I recently wrote some National Post articles that may interest you. If you go to the NP's WEB site at http://www.nationalpost.com/ and type in Finnamore in the "60-day search" box you will find a couple, and if you
then type in "Finnmore" (without the a) you will find another.

I understand the FBI and DOJ are in the midst of investigating the UFCW in Washington D.C. They are interested in my testimony and documents saved
from my UFCW days.

If I can be of help with your research or writing project, feel free to call me during the day at [phone number].

----- Original Message -----
From: <mj_fraser@canada.com <mailto:mj_fraser@canada.com>
To: <slek@ufcw.net <mailto:slek@ufcw.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 5:12 PM
Subject: "Members for Democracy"

I recently decided to visit your web page after hearing about your group during the past year.

After viewing your website, I was left uncertain as to weather or not your organization supports the idea of organized labour at all! You have chosen to publish articles written by the National Post which is - with out a doubt, the most anti-union and anti-labour news publication in the history of Canada. The National Post, owned by Conrad Black is currently being boycotted by the Canadian Labour Congress, the American Federation of Labour, and the International Labour Organization. By publishing/reffering (sic) to National Post articles on your web site, you are insulting millions on union members!

As well, you have chosen to publish aricles from the Kitchener - Waterloo Record (another Conrad Black paper) that criticizes the recent salary increases of Local 1977 executives. I agree that the idea of a 64% pay increase seems ackward, but Brian Williamson and his executives have nothad pay increases for almost 6 years! Their recent salary increase puts them at the Canadian average for labour union leadership. The salaries of UFCW executives is adjusted and voted on by local members. Local UFCW Presidents are very hard working individuals and are paid fairly according to the amount of work that they have to do. By attacking this, you are literally weakening the UFCW and the Canadian labour movement. This leads me to wonder about weather or not you really have the welfare of UFCW members at heart.

Much of your information on your web page is incorrect and repetitive (sic). You seem to know very little about the Labour movement - let alone the UFCW.

I do not support your "fight for democracy" in the UFCW because I know that the UFCW is one of the most democratic unions in Canada. I might be a little more supportive of your cause if you were sincerely fighting for the well being of UFCW members. >From the looks of it, it seems like you are trying to cause trouble and stop the union from providing service to its members.

In Solidarity,

Michael J. Fraser
Canadian Director, UFCW

Dear Brother Fraser,

I must say that my original optimism in learning of your visit to our web site was short lived, and I am at a complete loss as to the worth of your correspondence. You chastise the MFD for both publishing and referring to published works on the UFCW in various newspapers--you mistakenly claim to be owned and operated by Conrad Black. You even go so far as to accuse the MFD of being anti-union for doing so. You refer to the "boycott" of Mr. Blacks companies and subsidiaries, yet you have failed to grasp the fact that it is Mr. Black who owns canada.com, your e-mail service provider! In light of this, it would appear to me that your "boycott" is one of convenience and not of true substance. I put to you sir, that in actual fact what your office is truly opposed to is the airing of UFCW's dirty laundry, and the public scrutiny it so richly deserves.

I am at complete loss as to your justification of the 64% wage increases of the executive officers of local 1977. Never in the history of UFCW has this union ever secured such a lofty raise for it's members, and I question the credibility of anyone who would use the feeble argument that "they had not had a pay increase for almost 6 years!". It appears as though, like the aforementioned incident regarding Conrad Black, you again have failed to recognize the double standard. The very executives, who felt they deserved such an enormous raise, had the unmitigated gall to recommend a six-year collective agreement that secured virtually nothing in terms of increased job security and benefits and brought about what amounted to a six-year wage freeze. Surely sir, you are not suggesting that our dues paying members are not entitled to the very same considerations as those of the UFCW executives you so vehemently defend?

You go on to boldly pronounce that the MFD, by attacking the hogs at the trough we ..."are literally weakening the UFCW and the Canadian labour movement."

Precisely how does accountability to the membership that foots the bill weaken the movement? I put to you sir that if a rift is developing within the labour movement, it is due to the pork-barrel patronage so many of Canada's C.L.C. affiliates sequester to, and the ever growing gap between the executive officers of these unions and the members who make up the rank and file. Like pigs to the trough, you have dipped into the pockets of millions of unsuspecting members and betrayed their trust, and that is what is weakening the Canadian Labour Movement!

You say, "I do not support your fight for democracy" I expected nothing more from an individual, such as yourself, who was not elected by the rank and file members of UFCW to his current post. What do you know of democracy in UFCW when you were given a patronage coronation to the highest-paying, most influential UFCW position in Canada. Perhaps your memory has once again failed you. We are the very group of members who had to resort to filing a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of British Columbia against UFCW Local 1518 and UFCW International, for several voting irregularities, including ballot tampering! Lets see you put your position on the line and turn the election procedure over to an independent accounting firm, run against the likes of me and let the rank-and-file membership vote and perhaps then, sir, you can boast of democracy within the UFCW!

Lastly, you have accused our web page of being "incorrect and repetitive" if the truth repeated bores you, then don't waste your time reading the truth. However, since we are having this chat, I'd like to take this opportunity to formally requesting an up to date copy of the Local 1518 local business agents and support-staff collective agreements so that I may comment on them and provide our viewers with fresh reading material. Likewise, I'd like to request your pay and other monies paid from all UFCW sources including Local 175. Did you receive $180,000 in severance and a car when you left to take on the Canadian Director's job? What are the severance terms for Local 175 leaders? I ask because leaders and "media consultants" have boldly stated that any member may request and receive this information, and I am formally doing so now. I want to also extend to you the opportunity to refute in writing any inaccuracies on our web page. It is not the intent of the MFD to bare false witness against any individual, and we wish to address any inaccuracies immediately.

I look forward to our continued correspondence and dialogue in the best interests of all UFCW members coast to coast.

With Kind Regards

Scott Mcpherson <mailto:scottmcpherson@ufcw.net>
UFCW Members for Democracy, local 1518

From: wanda2000@hotmail.com
To: scottmcpherson@ufcw.net
Date: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:07 PM

Hi Scott,
I came across your web site a few weeks ago while doing some research
for a paper I'm writing on union democracy. You are to be commended for
what you are doing. I am a former labor relations practitioner
who had extensive dealings with the UFCW on both sides of the border in
the 1980's and was witness to what is probably the biggest sellout of
worker interests in recent history. I won't go into details here
(although you can let me know if you're interested in this story) but
all I can say is: the company was beside itself at the hatchet job the
union did on its own members. Two years of concerted union busting
didn't accomplish what a few fat cats were able to pull off at a
downtown Toronto bar in one night. Even today, I still hear that these
guys are the employers' union of choice because they're so full of
themselves.

Anyway, just letting you know you are doing great work - don't stop now!

P.S. I'm thinking about writing a book on the subject of the business
unionism - could I quote you or reference the materials on your site?

From: scottmcpherson@ufcw.net
To: "Wanda S"
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:01:23 -0700

Dear Wanda,
Thank you for your kind words regarding our site, they are very much appreciated. I of coarse would love to here " the story " you have about the night in a Toronto bar, and perhaps one day you'll share it with me. If there is anything in our site that would be of use to you in your writings by all means go ahead and use them. For me what is important is that our message gets out and is understood by people. I do not believe in owning ideas, which in essence is what words and articles truly are. In fact I am very flattered that you would even consider any of the material I had a hand in writing and would be happy to help you in any way. However, if you quote me and use my name I must insist on knowing the title of your book and where to purchase it so that I may show my mom ( lol )

All kidding aside, I wish you the best of luck in your pursuits, and please feel free to contact me anytime. The more business unionism is talked about in academia the better the chance journalists and other professionals will be able to grasp its concept, bring it to the attention of the masses, and ultimately rid the Canadian Labour movement of this destructive force. Your interest and efforts in this endeavor are truly appreciated by all of us who have, and continue to carry the banner of rank and file empowerment, and for that I thank you.
Sincerely

Scott Mcpherson
UFCW Members for Democracy