Low Roads and Low Blows

Low Roads and Low Blows

By: Ryan Young

If you thought that the Fish-NL vs FFAW battle was going to be simple and straightforward, you probably should have known better. The FFAW has always operated in somewhat of a shadow of controversy in the opinion of many fishers around the province and Ryan Cleary has never been a man to back down from a fight. Months of back and forth between both sides has lead us to what has been an eventful week in the ongoing power struggle to represent inshore fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Neither side has played the game totally clean. The FFAW and other labour factions have been guilty of resorting to personal attacks against Cleary, while on the FISH-NL side, flaring tempers have led to outbursts that have been perceived as threats, and much vitriol has been put forth towards current union executives. Little of that kind action and rhetoric is productive, but the struggle is leading to a growing divide that might be difficult to mend should FISH-NL prove to be successful in its card signing campaign. At the heart of the issue is the harvesters who just want to have a fair chance at making a decent living. The whole situation has taken a turn towards the negative and at this point, nobody can predict which way it will go.

I have tried to stay as much of a neutral observer as I can be. I am supportive of the labour movement and solidarity for workers, but I am also a rural boy who grew up in and around fishing boats for most of my life. I know that harvesters where I come from have felt left behind by the FFAW for decades, and in my own travels around the province I have heard the same concerns again and again. I am not a harvester and I am certainly not qualified to make any personal statements against the FFAW, its executive, or the work they do. I do know, however, that perception often counts for more than truth, and the overwhelming perception that I have heard in my discussions with harvesters points to a widening gap of dissatisfaction and distrust towards the FFAW.

The controversy this week started with the NL Federation of Labour using its triennial convention as a platform to publicly condemn Cleary for attempting to weaken the collective power of people working in the fishing industry and for using divide and conquer tactics to bring down the FFAW. Cleary countered by calling out NLFL President Mary Shortall and FFAW executives for being in a constant conflict of interest and for failing to listen to the concerns of harvesters. UNIFOR Regional Director, Lana Payne, has also been very vocal against the FISH-NL movement, and Cleary in particular, with a constant stream of personal attacks on twitter against the FISH-NL president. While that kind of rhetoric might play well within union circles, it is certainly not stringing a positive chord with the harvesters who are caught in the middle.

I have nothing but respect for leaders like Payne and Shortall, but they seem to be unable to separate their obvious resentment towards Ryan Cleary for his defection from the NDP last fall from the very real concerns that have been raised by inshore harvesters for years. In her most recent string of tweets, Lana Payne accuses Cleary of being a narcissist and a liar and accuses him of spending a lifetime advancing his own cause. To be fair, Payne had no problem with Cleary when he was serving the political agenda of the labour movement when the was an NDP MP, but now that the great defector has taken up the cause of the inshore fisherman he has been cast out as an enemy to the working class who is only out to serve his own interests. 

Think what you will of Cleary, his personality is certainly one of the take it or leave it variety, but you cannot deny that the man has been a vocal advocate for the fishery for much longer than he has been a political figure. No matter what the unions may throw at him, his record of addressing the important issues in the fishery cannot be denied. By all accounts from the labour perspective, this battle has become personal and that is leaving a very bad taste in the mouths of harvesters who have been sitting on the fence.

Whether labour leaders want to admit it or not, the problems with the inshore fishery are very real. Harvesters across the province are expressing serious concerns with the amount of representation they feel they have been getting from the FFAW, and many are ready for a change. Ryan Cleary is not the heart of the FISH-NL movement, he is just the organizer of an idea that has been in the minds of many harvesters for years, if not decades. Cleary’s recent political history makes him a juicy target for rhetoric and personal attacks, and as a result, the labour side is missing the entire point of the FISH-NL movement. Harvesters are fed up and are tired of feeling like they are not being listened too. The FFAW and labour leaders can make all the claims they want about working in the best interests of fishers, but perception is everything and the word around the wharves is that the FFAW is on shaky footing.

While Ryan Cleary is driving around the province offering a sympathetic ear to frustrated harvesters who feel like they are getting a raw deal, the FFAW is spending union dues in expensive media ads and going out of their way to publicly discredit Cleary and FISH-NL through personal attacks. They continue to deny that there are any major issues with the amount of representation given to harvesters and instead of hitting the road themselves and hearing what fishers are saying and offering solutions to their problems, all they have done is make the issue a personal battle against Cleary. This tactic is not working and seems to be alienating an ever-growing number of harvesters.

FISH-NL are certainly not innocent from the mudslinging, but from an outsider’s perspective, they look like the only group that is talking about the issues. The FFAW and the various labour leaders have offered nothing but attacks and criticism towards Ryan Cleary and have offered no solutions to addressing the many issues that have been brought forth by harvesters. By focusing on Cleary, they are totally missing the point that thousands of fish harvesters are trying to make by taking a stand and supporting the Fish-NL movement. If the FFAW and people like Shortall and Payne can’t see past their loathing of Cleary to the real concerns of the workers that they have sworn to protect, then it is quite reasonable to expect that the FISH-NL campaign could very well be successful when the dust settles. The FFAW have had plenty of time to get out there and engage their members and convince them to stay, but instead they have decided to take the low road through personal low-blows and attempts to make the entire situation about one person instead of the many issues being faces by inshore fish harvesters.

If the Fish-NL movement is successful, the end result will see many of the players in this war of words have to eat a little crow and sit down together to work for the best interest of the workers. No matter how much they want to shut Cleary out, if they get enough cards signed to make the break, the other labour leaders will have no choice but to develop a working relationship in the best interest of the fishers. That is after all what the labour movement is all about, right? With so many personal attacks, one must wonder how that will be accomplished with out ego’s and tempers dominating the discussion. Labour seems to be all-in on a FISH-NL failure, but what happens when Shortall, Payne, Sullivan, and Cleary all have to sit down together to chart the best possible course for their members, the workers? I guess we can only hope that all parties involved will be willing to put personalities and political and personal agendas aside to accomplish the one thing that really matters, a better future for the fish harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Getting Personal

Getting Personal

By: Ryan Young

I don’t think anyone would argue with the fact that fish harvesters in this province have a number of issues that they would like to see addressed by the FFAW. Many will tell you they have been fighting for years to get attention from their union. If social media and the open line shows are any indication, a very large portion of these harvesters feel ready for a change. With the upstart FISH-NL group working towards its first convention later this month, while gathering up members willing to sign their new union cards, it has been a very interesting couple of months to say the least.

We have heard from many harvesters and many members within the FFAW since this whole story began, but despite the continued pushback from the union against Ryan Cleary, leader of the FISH-NL movement, the union side has not really had much to say about the issues that are concerning the fishers. The strategy at the FFAW seems to be kill the head and hope that the body will fall. This is why they have spent so much time questioning Mr. Cleary’s motives when they should have been out meeting with harvesters and asking how they can do better to represent them. I was told by one long time fisherman who had no real interest in the union debate in the beginning, that his loyalties shifted to FISH-NL when he repeatedly heard the FFAW making personal attacks instead of addressing the issues that were being brought forth. I would be willing to bet that there are many harvesters that share this same view and it would be wise for the FFAW to be mindful of what they are saying.

To make matters even stranger, Canadian Labour Congress President, Hassan Youseff wrote Cleary a letter last week, accusing him of trying to “raid” the FFAW and making connections to Cleary’s political past. It was strange when Mr. Youseff was asked about this on a VOCM call in show, he said that he had no comment about Cleary’s past political involvement. If he had no comment, then why did he specifically reference it in the letter? It is no secret that Ryan Cleary is a polarizing figure. Most people either like him or they don’t, but I really don’t see the value in Youseff’s letter or his comments. Hassan Youseff’s job is to protect the best interest of his members. There is obviously a large contingent of harvesters that feel that the FFAW is not working in their interests and again, instead of addressing these concerns, the CLC President chose instead to throw personal mud and question Cleary’s motives and integrity. Is this the way a person in Mr. Youseff’s position should act? I don’t know, but I do know that it has strengthened the resolve of those on the FISH-NL side. The really tricky part about all of this is that if FISH-NL is successful they will likely be making an application to join the CLC. How are these workers supposed to feel represented by the CLC when they are feeling betrayed by them before their new union is even off the ground?

I have heard Mr. Cleary say several times that one of the things that he teaches his children is that in an argument, if you get personal, you lose. In this case I think that the analogy is very apt. By choosing to go after Cleary’s character with personal attacks instead of addressing the issues of the harvesters, the FFAW and CLC are not winning over many fans that make a living in a fishing boat. The only chance the FFAW had to keep their support strong was to show their members some real openness and transparency and to offer to discuss the issues and make some changes. Instead they have decided to take the low road by going after Cleary and I fully expect that this approach will ultimately be thing that pushes FISH-NL over the top.

At this point the FISH-NL movement has grown too large to be silenced by silencing one person. Even if the FFAW were having success in their campaign against Cleary, (which they are not!) it wouldn’t matter. Too many harvesters have gotten behind the idea that they don’t have to be screwed over by their union any longer and the momentum has grown large enough to keep the movement going even if Cleary were no longer in the picture. Some made a big deal the other day about Cleary saying that if the FFAW would agree to a complete third party audit that he would walk away from FISH-NL. Yes, on the surface it may sound bad, but Cleary knows that the union will never agree to such an audit so he knows that in the he will come out looking good while the union looks even more secretive and elitist. It’s a good move because even if by some stroke of divine intervention, the FFAW did agree to an independent audit, the fish harvesters would still be getting what they wanted all along which is real openness and transparency from their union.

It will be interesting to watch the lead up to the inaugural FISH-NL Convention on October 27^th, and the card signing drive that is expected to run through to December. Will the union see the errors in their ways and try to make things right with harvesters, or will they continue down the road of personal attacks and continued deniability? Many feel that we are on the verge of a historic shift in representation for fish harvesters in this province, but for now all we can do is wait and watch. Stay tuned!

The Fisher’s Revolt

The Fisher’s Revolt

By: Ryan Young

Go take a walk around any wharf in outport Newfoundland and Labrador and ask the inshore fisherman how they feel about the Fish, Food, and Allied Workers Union (FFAW). For the last two summers I did quite a bit of that, and the reaction was always the same. Either a scowl and a curse at the very mention of the name, or a laugh and a shake of the head and the words: “The union don’t do nothing for us fellers.” That sentiment is common in all corners of the province, and this week it reached a fever pitch.

No matter how much the pundits spin will try to tell you that it was the other way around, a group of concerned fisherman decided they needed to do something and contacted Ryan Cleary and asked him to find out if anything can be done to separate them from their union. A few busy months of research and unsatisfactory answers culminated in a press conference in Petty Harbour on Monday to announce a series of meetings that will determine if there is enough interest among harvesters in the province to break away from the FFAW and form their own Federation of Independent Sea Harvesters-FISH-NL.

The meetings will be held on September 19^th in Corner Brook and September 20^th in Clarenville. According to Cleary, these meetings will determine the future of the movement to break away from the FFAW. The harvesters claim that the union operates in a constant conflict of interest and does not fairly represent their needs. Questionable federal funding, offshore operations, and lack of transparency are all major issues that the harvesters claim are negatively affecting their livelihoods.

The tension between harvesters and the FFAW grew considerably last winter when scallop harvesters brought the union to court over compensation payments and won. During the trial, the union’s lawyers tried to discredit the intelligence of the harvesters, which didn’t do very much for the already strained relationship between the two. In the end the harvesters got their lump-sum payment, but they also got the satisfaction of having it proved in a court of law that the union was doing them wrong. Now the battle is heating up again. One quote from the FISH-NL press release says: “The union has warped into a well-paid branch of the Government of Canada, more interested in feeding itself than representing the best interests of its membership.” If that kind of sentiment is the norm among harvesters, it looks like the FFAW might be in trouble.

FFAW President, Keith Sullivan, has avoided any admission of wrong doing and went on the offensive yesterday, questioning Cleary’s reputation and his motives. He says that the push for a new union is coming from a “vocal minority” of fish harvesters. That type of comment just goes to show how out of touch Sullivan is with the real concerns of people he is supposed to represent. A quick look to social media or a listen to the open line shows paints a very different picture, with support for Cleary and FISH-NL coming in from all over the province. Sullivan might be better off putting the offensive on hold and making himself available to harvesters to really hear their concerns and make promises to do better. I’m sure many feel it is too little, too late for that kind of action, but at least it would send a message that they are listening and willing to do better. By maintaining that the union is currently working in the best interest of the harvesters feels like a kick in the guts to the hard-working men and women who feel that their voices are not being heard. Union membership is mandatory and many feel that they are paying good money to shoot themselves in the foot.

Whether or not you like Ryan Cleary is irrelevant. As much as Sullivan and the FFAW would like to turn this around by attacking the messenger, the message is too important and too loud to be silenced. The harvesters that approached Cleary did so because the man knows the fishery. He has been writing or fighting about it his whole professional career and he has pulled no punches in trying to take the FFAW to task on their actions over the years. The fact that it is Ryan Cleary sending the message makes the media pay attention and that is good for the cause. As they say, any publicity is good publicity and Cleary has never been one to back down from a challenge. But it is important to note that there are no guarantees that Cleary will even be the eventual leader of the movement. They promise to be open and transparent and if a new union is formed the harvesters will have their own say in who leads them. Cleary certainly seems like a tailored fit for the job, but in the end that decision will be left up to the harvesters, as it should be.

No matter what happens at the meetings next week, I am encouraged to see a discussion emerging about the future of the inshore harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fishing is our very raison d’etre, in this province and if we want to get serious about rebuilding our rural communities, the fishery needs to be an integral part of our future plans. Maybe a separate union for our fish harvesters will be a positive thing, that will help facilitate the changes needed to bring the inshore fishery into the 21^st Century. The harvesters certainly are not satisfied with the representation that they have now, and as our fishing industry continues to face massive challenges, maybe it is time that we started listening to them on some of the issues. Sure we need a union that works closely with government, but more importantly we need a union that represents and protects the best interests of its workers. If the FFAW can’t fulfill that mandate, maybe it is time for a union that can.

How Newfoundland Nationalism Can Improve Our Place in Canada

How Newfoundland Nationalism Can Improve Our Place in Canada

By: Ryan Young

What is Newfoundland nationalism? That is the question that has been on my mind ever since I attended a public debate on the issue at MUN  last month. Are we a nation? Greg Malone certainly made a good case based on the Oxford-Dictionary definition of the word. But what does nationalism really mean? Each and every person with Newfoundland roots certainly feels a sense of pride at being a Newfoundlander, but what is it that really makes a person a nationalist? If nationalism is a tangible thing, how can we use that sentiment for the greater good of the people of this province?

Our uniqueness, distinct culture and history are certainly the main drivers behind the heavy nationalist sentiment in this province.  Many people are still alive that were born as Newfoundlanders and not as Canadians, and they still hold true to the pride that came with nationhood. Even the most ardent supporters of Confederation could not help but lament on the loss of something profound on that fateful day in 1949. Subsequent battles with Mother Canada over resource rights throughout the decades have ensured that these strong nationalist sentiments have not only been allowed to linger, but have been encouraged to grow into something very real.

The questions raised by people like Greg Malone and others about the legitimacy of our entry in to Confederation may very well be a moot point at this late stage in the game, but as the old adage says; “We must learn from the mistakes of our past, lest we be doomed to repeat them.” I personally hold no doubts about the fact that Newfoundland was maneuvered into Canada more than it was brought into Confederation under its own free will. The facts as they have been presented seem very clear on that issue. Knowing these facts, however, give us little consolation when we consider our current place in Canada.

All Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans will admit that the quality of life has greatly increased since Confederation, but at the same time we developed at a much slower rate than the rest of Canada, despite our massive national resource wealth. Surely not all of the blame can be placed on Canada, it was our own government, led by Joey Smallwood, that facilitated most of the resource giveaways in return for very little gain to the people of the province.  The issue of blame for these blunders does not fall on the shoulders of Canada, but when it became apparent years later that indeed,  very bad deals had been made,  it was the Canadian courts that ruled against Newfoundland and the case for equality between provinces.

The subsequent battles over Churchill Falls, greater control of the fishery, and offshore oil and gas resources have only solidified Newfoundlanders in the idea that we are not seen as an equal partner within Confederation. It is these feelings that lead to such a strong nationalist sentiment in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it has led to many people considering themselves as Newfoundlanders first and Canadians second. It is not that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not proud Canadians, in fact quite the opposite is true, but when forced to make the choice, most people identify as Newfoundlanders first.

So how can we use this nationalist sentiment to our advantage? In Ryan Cleary’s statements at the debate he said that he is not a separatist, but it may be time to think about leaving. In essence he said that we must take a budget-line approach to the issue and determine once and for all what the realities would be for an independent Newfoundland.  I completely agree with the idea. If we are ever to really understand our place in Canada we need to look at the history of our union in broad terms of dollars and cents. Does all of the iron ore and hydro-electricity shipped to Canada equal the real cash benefits we receive each year from Ottawa? What else needs to be considered? Should the social impacts also be taken into account? These are all very good questions and to the best of my knowledge there has never been a comprehensive study done to determine the real value of Newfoundland and Labrador as a partner in Confederation. The time has come for us to take a real look at the numbers and settle the issue once and for all.

Some may argue what is the point? We are part of Canada and if we do not plan to separate then why even bother with the trouble? They are valid questions, but the real question that we need to ask is how we can be an equal partner if neither side understands what the real relationship really is. By determining our true place in Canada we will not only be proving to Canadians what we bring to the table, but more importantly we will be proving to ourselves that we more than hold up our end of the deal. Indeed, I am often forced to question the motives of academics who are much quicker to point out the benefits we receive from Canada than the benefits we send the other way. This is an idea that has been perpetuated since the Amulree Report more than 80 years ago and the time has come for Newfoundlanders to realize their own worth and potential.

For those who think such revelations are irrelevant, they need only to look across the Atlantic to Scotland, where a separatist referendum very nearly succeeded in breaking away from the U.K. While the separatists may have lost the referendum, the case they made for an independent Scotland was very clear, and the close results forced the U. K. government to take serious notice of the consequences. Ultimately the whole process led to the U.K. giving Scotland much greater control of its territory and how it spends its money and manages its resources. The U.K. still maintains superiority in matters such as national defense and security, but Scotland gained much greater control of how they manage their own affairs.

So what lessons can we learn from Scotland? Despite the loss, they gained greater respect from the U.K. and the EU and were able to have greater control over their own destiny. The case they made for independence was a factual presentation of the value that Scotland brought into the U.K. and even with a victory for the “no” vote, more people than ever before, both in Scotland and around the world, realized what Scotland was really all about. I believe that is the goal we must keep in our minds as we pursue the knowledge that will liberate us from our traditional self-depreciating views.

If we want to stand beside the other provinces as equals we must stop waiting for them to recognize us. We must instead build a case to show our province and our nation the value that Newfoundland and Labrador brings to Confederation. Only with that knowledge can we ever expect to be respected as an equal partner in Canada. If we do not believe in ourselves how can we expect Canadians to believe in us? In our hearts we all feel that nagging question. The time may have come to finally answer it.