7 nationals. 14, 1980. Control of Canadian labor does not end with locals which belong to these inter- Their control extends to the Canadian ‘‘house of labour’’ - the Canadian Labour Congress. By threatening to withhold per capita dues each A- merican union pays to the CLC, these unions hold a firm leverage over the poli- cy decisions of the Canadian labour body. Canadians have never controlled the unions to which most of them belong “various Some people would say all this is just quibbling. None of these powers would ever be used against a Canadian local or the CLC, the argument goes. If fact, they say, Cana- dian workers benefit by belonging to these huge American unions which have eqally huge pools of _ resources. This vision becomes a bit tarnished when we realize a big factor in creating these vast resources for the American unions has been the great profit raked in from Canadian members. Since 1962, when records were first kept, there has been a huge gap between the amount of Canadian union dues money that goes to the various U.S. union headquarters and the a- mount that is spent on the Canadian union member ship. The latest figures from the Canadian federal gov- ernment CALURA (Corpo- rations and Laour Unions Returns Act) report, reveal that in 1978 American unions gathered record pro- fits of 51 million dollars from their Canadian mem- bers. In the past 18 years the ‘*international’’ unions made $400 million from Canadian workers, over and above the amount sent back to Canada in strike pay, administrative costs, and services. The vision of American unions being a great aid to Canadian workers becomes further tarnished when we realized the interests of the American head office are often in conflict with those of their Canadian members. For example, the case of the United Steelworkers of America lobbying Wash— . ington, D.C. in 1978 for an American cutback in im- ports of zinc and copper from countries such as Ca- nada. Even though these cut- backs would throw Cana- dain members of the Steel- workers out of work, the American head office did not express this concern. Their first loyalty is the American membership who make up the bulk of the union. Or take the case of the American Burke-Hartke Act which called for massive restrictions on imports from with APol ogics To Anyowe warmed SP, 'npossh. countries such as Canada in an effort to preserve A- merican jobs. Considering that two- thirds of Canada’s exports go to the American market, it was not surprising to find the CLC opposing the 1973 American legislation. But this did not stop the Amer- ican Federation of Labour (to which the CLC is affil iated) and American union with the Canadian member- ship from throwing full support behind Burke-Har tke when it was debated in the American Congress. In his book Canada’s Unions, historian Robert Laxer put it bluntly in referring to Burke-Hartke and other American protec- tionist policy: ‘*Clearly enough, the lea- ders of the U.S. unions were ‘looking after their own’. Canadians might belong to the international The Other Press unions, but when the chips are down, international pol- icy protects the interests of the ninety-two per cent American membership, not the eight per cent who are Canadians. ‘‘ Still, proponenets of American unions tell their members they need these ‘multinational unions’ to fight the enormous power of multinational corporations. Workers at International Nickel in Sudbury, Ontario had a hard time swallowing this argument two years ago when they went on strike against the multinational corporation. Even though the local voted overwhelmingly to strike, the International Ex- ecutive of their union, the Steelworkers, deemed the ’ American head offices are often in conflict with those of their Canadian members strike foolish. Despite this setback, the strike conti- nued. To punish the local the international executive decided not to ask other locals of the Steelworkers to lend support to the strike. Six months later the local was still on strike. Their big ‘multinational union’ barely lifted a finger in their fight against the big multi- national corporation. And a similiar event hap- pened a few years earlier when members of the Uni- ted Auto Workers went on strike produced the wings for DC 9 and DC 10 air planes which were then sent to American plants where other members of the UAW attached them to U.S. built fuselages. Not long into the strike it became clear that the Cana = dian strike would threaten the ability of the U.S. plants to turn out airplanes, as no wings were being produced. This would probably result in layoffs in the States if the strike in Canada continued. It’s perhaps not surpris- ing, then, to discover that when the local on _ strike appealed to the union for support they were met in- stead with orders to settle the strike. When the local didn’t comply the union cut off strike pay. The strikers in Canada did not find evi- dence of international soli- dary in their dispute. For some Canadian mem ~- bers of the American Unions, benefits from ‘in- ternation unionism’, as it is currently structured, have become non-existent. Lack page seven a doesn’t control unions of services from the union, combined with the lack of financial and political auto- nomy have sent them look- ing for a better type of union. Reform in the ‘interna- nationals’ have proven fruit less. In 1966, for instance, when members of the Steel workers in Hamilton pushed for a Canadian strike fund to be administered by Cana- dians, they met stiff opposi~ tion from the Union’s head office in Pittsburgh. The reformers’ were charged with trying to tam- per with the union’s consti- tution and were thus sus- pended from the union for one year and from running for union office for four years. In Winnipeg, a few years earlier, local 174 of ‘the International Molders com- plained about how their dues went straight to the union headquarters in Cinci natti leaving the local barely enough for administration costs. The ensuing conflict ended with the entire exec- utive of local 174 being suspended from the union and the local placed under trusteeship under the aus- picies of the international office. Canadian unions are a growing force Action such as this form international unions have only served to further con- vince some workers they must create their own Cana dian unions to escape the autocratic rule of the inter- nationals. These workers’ have found a home in_ such independent, Canadian unions as the Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical, and Allied Workers (CAIMAW), Cana dian Textile and Chemical Union (CTCU), and the Canadian Association of Smelter and Allied Workers (CASAW); unions which found their roots in their disillusionment with Amer- ican unions. Although only represent- ing only a fraction of Cana- da’s workers compared to the American unions, these Canadian unions are a grow ing force. They offer an attractive alternative to the workers who know their own union’s first loyalty is the American members. And these Canadian unions offer a democratic structure for those workers who don’t want to belong to a union that is run like the corpora- tion they work for.