As if to demonstrate the philosophy and arguments presented in our successful effort to halt CUPE's certification of the University of Western Ontario's (UWO) technical and support staff, the same union called a strike of the already-unionized food and services maintenance staff in early September --- just when thousands of students were returning to campus to resume their studies.

As with so many unions in the labour movement these days, the strike was called over the issue of increased wages and the ever-critical issue of "job security". And just like the strikes that plagued Canada Post and London's municipal service, this latter issue translated into a militant stand against contracting out of services.(Sound familiar?)

Campus reaction to the strike was a perfect reflection of the public's reaction to major strikes affecting so-called "essential services": a lot of anger, general ignorance about the nature of the issue, and a call for compromise to end the dispute as soon as possible.

But an even more interesting reaction to observe was that of the various political campus clubs who responded in the true tradition of the parties they represent.

As one might expect, the Liberal and Conservative campus clubs refused to take a stand and pandered to a lack of public understanding of the issue by simply urging an undefined "compromise."

However, there were two campus clubs who actually did have something to say, though what they were saying was as different as night and day: Freedom Party versus the New Democrats.

The New Democrats obviously felt that the best way to address the issue was by calling for a boycott of classes, recommending that everyone help create "an unsightly, dilapidated campus" until the strikers got the "pay equity and job security they deserve", and by urging that contempt be directed at anyone trying to offer food services on campus during the strike.

In sharp contrast to the New Democrat approach, Freedom Party's campus club advocated freedom of choice in food services. Written from a students' perspective, the club distributed an eight-page pamphlet calling for the contracting out of food services, an end to the campus monopoly of providing such services, and for the provision of allowing students themselves to become involved in the provision of campus services.

Many of Freedom Party's pamphlets were handed directly to angry students disembarking from buses whose drivers refused to cross CUPE's picket lines. Despite the fact that these students had paid for their bus transportation and that published bus routes indicated they could be dropped off at various stops within the campus, they were nevertheless forced to walk to their classes from the university grounds' entrance. If nothing else, the bus drivers helped illustrate the worth of a union contract; even when signed, there is still no guarantee of service.

Campus media response to our campaign, like every other element of the issue, was another reflection of our experience in the political marketplace.

The Gazette, UWO's student newspaper which is distributed city-wide in London, completely refused to cover Freedom Party's activities, but devoted an entire front page to the New Democrats' approach to the issue. And the London Free Press, which received our press release several days earlier, made only brief mention of Freedom Party's activities when it ran a front-page story on the New Democrats' call for a class boycott.

Apparently, if what one advocates is principled, reasonable, constructive, and appeals to common sense, the media has little interest. But if what one advocates is irrational, disruptive, and unprincipled, then it is worthy of front-page attention. This may well be a handicap that Freedom Party supporters may have to live with.

In any event, when the striking food services and maintenance workers finally returned to work six weeks later, very little was gained in terms of what they went on strike for. But in a very important sense, they still attained a victory.

Aside from Freedom Party's efforts, no one displayed the courage necessary to condemn the strike action, and because of that, CUPE was the winner on the philosophical battlefield.

Though most students agreed with our message, few were willing to challenge the status quo. The vast majority of students simply wanted the strike to end. Few were really interested in discovering and pursuing the paramount issues of right versus wrong, freedom versus coercion, individual responsibility versus collective rule, etc.

Like the general public when faced with strikes, students tend to blame both sides in the issue, which is tantamount to supporting the union.

Blaming both sides, however, implicitly acknowledges that the union's position is as justifiable as management's --- and thus justifies the use of legalized extortion and intimidation. A "compromise" or even a "willingness to negotiate" with those whose ultimate "bargaining power" depends not on their competitive ability, but on threats, violence, extortion and intimidation --- is an explicit acceptance of coercion as a legitimate negotiating tool in human relations.

It is a view that Freedom Party simply cannot share.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002