Lend Me Your Ears, Votes—and Money

Much has been made recently about how Donald Trump’s campaign used Facebook to get people to vote for him in the last US presidential election. Back in 2008, Barack Obama tapped into the power of social media and used it to help get himself elected. 

Swaying votes in elections is nothing new and it will continue. Yesterday, politicians used newspapers, radio, and television. Today, they’re using Facebook and Twitter. We should not only be aware of how social media is being used to sway elections—and assess the propaganda accordingly—but also expect it.

But what do we do if someone not only tells us how to vote, but actually uses our money—without our direct permission—to support a political party that we don’t agree with?

In a recent story about the biggest donors to the political parties across Canada, a lot of names on the list were unions. And the amounts weren’t small. Five of the top six donors in BC were unions. Seven of the top ten donors in Ontario were unions.

The United Steelworkers (USW) alone contributed $3.2 million to the NDP in BC and another $1.6 million in Ontario. With 225,000 members, what is the chance that all of those members support the NDP? Zero.

Even a small family can be divided on how to vote. A union with hundreds of thousands of people will be even more divided. Yet despite what political leanings those USW members may have had, they all contributed to the NDP through their union dues.

When my father was a high school teacher, he had to be a member of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF). He had no choice. If he wanted to be a teacher in Ontario’s public school system, he was required to be a member of the union.

He also had no direct say about whether the OSSTF used his dues to support political parties and social causes that he disagreed with. Sure, he could attend union meetings and conventions and voice his opinion, but the union collectively decided how to spend his dues. He had to hand over his dues and his voice to the union’s control.

When a union says it represents its members, it should be true to that statement. A union cannot possibly represent all of the political views of its members. But because union dues are mandatory, when it decides which party or candidate to support, it is making a political choice for all its members—with their money.  

For this reason, and to avoid the pitfalls of being beholden to anyone but our members, CLAC does not support any political parties or candidates.* We recognize that our members have many different political opinions, and we respect their right to choose whom they want to support without using their dues to make that choice for them.

Many who hear about CLAC’s position find it hard to believe. In today’s hyperpoliticized landscape, it seems almost a given that being a union means you’re involved with trying to buy favours from politicians. The report about the biggest political donors bears this out.

CLAC regularly meets with politicians and submits research briefs on all manner of issues that affect our members and all workers. We advocate for members without telling them how to vote—or using their hard-earned dues money to fill political coffers.

If elected politicians are to represent all people fairly, they cannot be obligated to those who would attempt to buy influence. And if unions are to represent all of their members fairly, they cannot be making political choices for them.

*CLAC has bought tickets to political fundraising dinners to speak with politicians about specific issues of importance to members and all workers. CLAC is nonpartisan in this practice.