Hi inukshuk,

Wait till you find out what really happened and see how surprised you are then.

Unifaith is a community chapter of Unifor.  It is not itself a union.  Unifor is the union created by the merger between the CAW and the CPE.

Unifaith began as Clergy United.  The drive to form a union for Clergy members of The United Church of Canada has been underway for just about 14 years I think.  I can't remember precisely when they started sending me union cards.  I do remember that I was in NL and they were hoping to get X% of United Church clergy in ON to join.

I haven't had a mailing from Clergy United since 2005 and I'm okay with that.

Unifaith is claiming a membership of 300, 000 which is impressive when the active clergy in The United Church of Canada runs at 2, 500 give or take.  Even if all of us Clergy had joined one wonders who the other 297, 500 member are.  Certainly they aren't active clergy of The United Church of Canada.

Depends on who you are talking to.  I am not on record as describing it as a good thing.  I don't think I have come out and said it is a bad thing.  I'm pretty certain I have said it is the wrong thing.

Clergy United has been asked many times what the response has been to their union card drives.  If they have ever answered with a definite number I missed it.  The only thing approaching an answer I have seen is, "memberships keep rolling in."

Baloney.  You have sent out enrolment cards how many have come back in?  How fast are they "rolling in" is too fast to count.  How many were in at the end of 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013?

I suspect the answer is not enough to force a ratification vote.  Whatever that number is.

Unifaith's Bylaws around membership state:

Which explains how 2, 500 active clergy can surprisingly find themselves in an alleged union of 300, 000.

So to say this is a clergy union is to guild the lily greatly.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Inukshuk,

The follow links lead to an early conversation here about the same issue:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/politics/union-ministers-united-chur...

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/politics/buzz-hargrove-united-church...

This was a blog on the matter:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/blogs/jt/uc-clergy-union

Grace and peace to you.

John

WHEW!  Thanks for the explanation ~ as always, revjohn, you are the voice of reason.

Didn't that already happen with the formation (or creation) of UCCan? 

The entire past of the United Church of Canada is that leaders and ministers of three protestant Xian sects joined together: Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregationist.

Disagreement , ironically and strangely, is the glue that holds together the UCCAN.

Hi redhead,

That was a different application of union.

Grace and peace to you.

John

[quote=redhead]

Disagreement , ironically and strangely, is the glue that holds together the UCCAN.

(Respectful) disagreement is something I admire in the UCCAN ~ and can often be the catalyst for positive growth.

What I don't get about this is, would a minister actually consent to go on strike? Isn't ministry more than just a job/profession?

If I was a minister, I would be very, very uncomfortable with the idea that I might be called upon to withold services from my congregation over some management-union dispute between my professional organization and the UCCan. Maybe a work to rule thing where I refuse to serve the higher courts or fill in paperwork or something. But to actually walk out on parishioners? I can't see it.

Then again, that used to be the view of being a professor and now many Canadian universities (or at least Ontario universities) are partly or whollly unionized as faculty associations seek bargaining unit status.

Mendalla

What possible reason could there by for a minister to withdraw services if they were treated with respect?  I have heard some genuine horror stories of the ways ministers can be treated.  If there isn't an effective way to handle disagreements what other options would they have?  

From reading this site I think there may be a slow, expensive, cumbersome process to follow that involves people from the wider area (can't recall the name for the group though).   

One of the ministers involved with this was interviewed, (this morning I think) on CBC radio - I think it was Rev Robin Wardlaw from Glen Rhodes UC.  

He spoke about clergy isolation being an issue, and inadequate or possibly even inappropriate response from Presbytery in situations where there are dismissals or conflict between ministers & church members as being a primary issue driving this forward - at least for him, relative to a past situation.  He emphasized this was a historic situation & not with his current church.  He did acknowledge the UCC is endeavouring to remedy some of this at present.

He also mentionned things like benefits & pension - which are already accessible via UCC, however, perhaps some people are looking for better packages that could be available through an extended union membership. 

At least that's what I recall of it - listening in on my drive to work in my non-unionized workplace :-) 

A clergy job is unique in that it's part contract, and part covenant.

There are contractual parts to the job: a job description, benefits (such as housing and moving allowances,) study leave.

There are covenanting aspects to the job: for example, the length of a pastoral visit, or how many committees to sit on.

We've heard stories about clergy who've lived up to their end of the contract, but not the M&P Committee. We've heard of clergy denied salary, or benefits, or study leave at the whim of a church committee who are annoyed at them. A union can help protect clergy in these circumstances. Unions can provide all kinds of things to members: networking, professional development, mental health care.

But no one is sure what a union's role is in the covenanting aspects of the job.

That is a whole different ballgame, though. Of course if a minister is being badly treated, they should be able to, and should, withdraw services.

However, kay, once you get into a union situation, though, you're dealing with collective bargaining. Depending on how things shake out under relevant labour laws, they could be dealing collectively with Presbyteries or even GCE instead of individual churches. You could have ministers being asked to withold services by the union even if their own clergy relationship is going just fine because of the need to "support the collective bargaining process". That's what a strike is. 

Mendalla

Could this be a political move to make it more difficult for UCCan ministers to not have a job in the event of the UCC having to 'cut the fat' (like it has done with WC)?

Would the gov't (fed?provincial?municipal?) be legally obligated to help out with the ministers?

Just some musings...

Yes, they'll go on unemployment insurance, and wait forever until there is a job opening in their field.

I take a dim view of unionised clergy. Being a church minister is more of a calling than I profession. If I were a minister, I'd refuse to join.

Being involved in the inner workings of presbytery, I know of no cases where salary is denied, given most churches are on the ADP.  Same with study leave.  Of course there are problems and presbytery must go in to try to fix the situation. There are processes within the church to deal with such problems.  Not all are happy with the outcomes and sometimes we do not do a good job.

Part of our problem is too many lone rangers - we do not seek out support from one another.  Many of us though do have support systems with other clergy. We do band together.  My friends who are deeply involved in the union movement or deal with union issues ( those in leadership) suggest this is a fools game.

We have problems, it is true and our processes do not always work.  With support I have helped others to deal with issues of workplace and sometimes got  the person to move with some level of salary ( 90 days  is the rule) and to leave right away.  Of course this means after 90 days unless they have found a new parish they have to go on unemployment.

All so called contract issues are dealt with by presbytery and no call can be issued that does not fit the min.  Then after three years the presbytery checks housing and can force a cong to increase it.  Holidays are a month, study leave a must, and other things like phone have a min but can be more.  No call can be given if the bare min is not in place, like secretary support.

Ah, but depending on what labour laws are in play, you may not have a choice. You can refuse to sign a card but if enough do, you're in the bargaining unit whether you want to be or not. Again, though, I'm thinking that it depends on what labour laws come into play.  I'm not a labour lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

Mendalla

Hi Panentheism,

Agreed.  It has been 15 years since I have heard of this happening.  This is a legitimate complaint which the Church has apparently addressed. 

True.  Not something I think a union can fix.  Particularly when the outcome is the right one.  And even when things have gone wrong it isn't my employers bowing it, it is my colleagues.  Having a union will not automatically make my colleagues more competent.

Agreed.  

While true I have seen the processes work more often than not and where the processes have not worked it is (my observation) that one or both parties had no intention of working with the other to effect a mutual beneficial solution.

It is by no means definite that one side or the other is always resistant to working out a solution

And Presbytery is a mixture of lay people and folk who in union parlance are the employees.  No entity defined as employer is involved in the final decision to ratify a salary-package.

Grace and peace toyou.

John

:3

(...I'm imagining Desmond Tutti Frutti refusing to give someone communion because the wine bottle is nonunion...)

So non-union ministers can't go on UI if they don't have a seperate job?

I think they can, if they were salaried ministers.

I really am in favour of volunteer ministry.

Having worked in many a union locale, it invites more questions than answers.

Who is the employer?
In a ministry of all believers, who is the employee?
Do we have to start paying the congregation?
Who speaks for God at the bargaining table?
If there was a strike does that mean nobody would cross the picket line into the church?
If people go in, are they scabs?

In the context of church it is just ridiculous!

Yes, Stevie, I agree. That's why I prefer volunteer ministry.

In our sector, employers usually keep workplaces non-union by matching the gains made by the unions in other hospitals.  I have had my frustrations with unions (both as a union member and as a manager of unionized staff) but I think we need to recognize the historic gains they have made.  

Yes - you are right p3 - unions have been historically important - I do agree.  And yes, many hospitals do matching - but I think those things may be changing currently, at least in my workplace.  

My husband, a former teacher, is a stong union advocate.  My son, a young electrician is just learning about the many sides of union life. I think they have some usefulness, but also am aware of downsides in the current climate.   So you can imagine we've had some heated debates at the dinner table!   How they would repair some of what the ministers hope is not clear to me at all. 

Hi Carolla, 

Yes, I can certainly imagine the debates at the dinner table! I have two teachers in my family (different generations) and that makes for some lively conversation as well. 

And I get what you are saying about unions and ministers. How are unions going to help them with issues like clergy isolation, I wonder? 

Hi SG,

I agree.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi carolla,

Nor me.

If it is simply a concern about congregations using paycheques as disciplinary measures ADP ensures that clergy are paid properly and on time.  Although I have no idea what happens if the congregation refuses to pay ADP properly and on time and makes a habit of it.

I am sure that there are processes in place.  I just am unaware if those processes have ever been put into play.

If it is about job security then that is a real concern for everyone and it needs to take into account the reality that clergy salaries are generally the fattest portion of most congregational budgets.  Are they excessive fat?  Probably not as most congregations would prefer to have a full-time clergy person serving their needs.  And yet, it would be the easiest and quickest way to cut expenses if you shaved 1/4 or 1/2 off of that line item.

My experikence is that this is more last ditch effort than first round discipline so I don't know how a clergy union can increase revenue.  I'm sure that the auto-unions don't have the power to force the general public to buy Ford or GM so I don't know how a clergy union has the power to compel parishioners to increase their tithes and offerings or compel more of the general public to attend worship and offer tithes and offerings while doing so.

If it is about isolation in ministry I don't know how a union ensures that the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland and Labrador gets smaller and less isolated.  St. Anthony and Raleigh-Griquet pastoral charges are geographically close so those clergy can hang out with one another if they so choose.  Englee is fairly remote from either and Bonne Bay exists primarily in Gros Morne so it is not easily connected to the rest of the gnp but it is handy to Deer Lake and Cornerbrook.  I don't know how a union fixes Englees isolation it cannot force the community to resettle and if it did that would probably cost the clergy serving there their job.

Is Presbytery supportive of clergy?  It is hit or miss and, to be honest, is probably more hit when the clergy in question is somebody you don't mind sitting with and more miss when that clergy is somebody you would really rather not sit with.  There are lay Presbyters who are just as popular.

This is really a socialization issue and not a Church issue.  I don't know how unions make individuals more sociable or how they compel others to treat members more sociably.  I think the Teachers Unions have proved this rather well.  Given the choice between a good relations with the general public and a bigger benefits package money wins out and the teaching profession is forced to bear the brunt of the publics outrage.

I don't think I am betraying confidences when I say that in the discernment process doesn't always identify folks who do not play well with others. 

Presbytery does not exist to meet my needs.  When running properly it serves me as well as it serves another and I in turn serve others.  If things are not running close to ideal then there is a problem and in my experience it is very rare that the problem is the whole of Presbytery save one.

I respect from certain points of view it might look that way.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Amen John