Membership participation and control

Last week’s column, which I suspected was even-handed enough to upset both sides in the dispute within the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), triggered a letter of polite protest from one of the parties which deserves some space.

Jose Umali Jr., general secretary of the TUCP and national president of the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE), points out that in saying that the Mendoza faction in the dispute “took possession” of the TUCP headquarters, I omitted to mention that force had been used. Quite right, because writing and residing in a country where libel is a criminal offense, I tend to exercise caution in such matters unless the truth is absolutely indisputable. Mr. Umali now advises that, once the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) has rendered its own decision in the matter, a criminal case will be filed against “Mendoza and his cohorts.”

Mr. Umali objected to my use of the word “ostensibly” regarding the recognition of Ernesto Herrera as TUCP general secretary by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). I used the word, Mr. Umali, because I had emailed a labor movement acquaintance to ask whether ITUC head office had confirmed recognition, but I received no reply. Ironically, the acquaintance is — or was, anyway — an NUBE official. Anyway, attached to Mr. Umali’s letter were the ITUC-Asia Pacific statement indicating that it was satisfied that Ernesto Herrera had constitutionally succeeded to the TUCP presidency, and a letter from ITUC-Asia Pacific general secretary Noriyuki Suzuki in which he says that the recognition decision was made in consultation with ITUC general secretary Sharan Burrow.

(Incidentally, my comment that ITUC affiliate the Federation of Free Workers had joined the Nagkaisa coalition with the Mendoza wing was not, as Mr. Umali thinks, intended to suggest that Mendoza had somehow received ITUC recognition by this means.)

I owe Mr. Umali an apology for my remark that the “NUBE is not recognized by the BdO, having yet to demonstrate that it represents the majority of employees.” There is a lesson here: sometimes (but not always), press reports are more accurate than blogs or online comment by interested parties. This error could have been avoided had I reread the editorial which this paper ran on May 24. Furthermore, the online edition of the Philippine Star reported on April 12, 2011 that the Banco de Oro had indeed signed a five-year (2010 to 2015) collective bargaining agreement with the BdO Employees’ Association-NUBE.

The error sprang from a dispute presumably originating from the merger of the BdO with Equitable Bank in 2007. Last year the United Employees of BdO (formerly the Equitable Bank Employees’ Union) petitioned DoLE for a certification election which, although according to the NUBE the petition contained no signatures of rank and file employees, was granted. Despite the fact that a case was pending at the Court of Appeal, DoLE ran an election this January — which NUBE members boycotted. The court case is still unresolved, but DoLE has ordered a further election. This is, of course, yet another example of labor disunity — the subject of this lengthy series.

Last week, I questioned the numerical strength of the Herrera wing of the TUCP because a disproportionately large number of delegates at its special convention in March had come from Mr. Umali’s own NUBE. My confusion was, surely, understandable: the event was called a “convention” and those attending were referred to as “delegates.” In political and labor-movement parlance, a convention is usually a place where voting takes place, with the delegates raising their hands or otherwise at the appropriate junctures.

Mr. Umali advises, however, that the TUCP rule is one vote per federation. Thus, as the TUCP is composed of 24 affiliates there would have been just 24 votes cast at the special convention — and one assumes that each affiliate would have determined its own position, based on its internal procedures, beforehand. Most “delegates,” therefore, would have been little more than observers when it came to voting, and the convention itself now sounds more like a rally.

My initial confusion may have been compounded by the fact that things are done somewhat differently in the labor movement of which I have been a member for 41 years. The Trade Union Congress in Britain may not be as progressive as many would wish, but it has certain features to recommend it.

For a start, it’s the sole labor center in the country. It holds a four-day annual congress (now augmented by a Sunday evening session), to which affiliated unions are entitled to send one delegate per 5,000 members or part thereof. This annual congress debates matters of policy based on motions submitted by the affiliates, following which the presiding officer calls for either a voice vote or a show of hands. If these are deemed unlikely to produce a result reflective of the majority view, there will be a “card vote,” where each affiliate is entitled to one vote per thousand members or part therefore.

It would not be in the interests of affiliates to falsify their membership, as the annual TUC affiliation fee is based on a global average of weekly dues, multiplied by the number of members.

No union is going to pay for members it doesn’t have.

Moreover, dues-payment by the lay members is what gives them legal ownership of their union; it is also what should ensure that they, through agreed democratic procedures, exercise control over their union and the officers it employs.

It may be argued that such emphasis on democracy and lay participation constitutes a “cultural” difference. But it’s a question not of culture but of membership control, and it is my hunch that there would be less division in the Philippine labor movement if there were more of that participation and control by the lay membership. –Ken Fuller Tuesday, Daily Tribune
(Feedback to: outsiders.view@yahoo.com)