The raison d’être of our union can be summed up in one word: solidarity.
Solidarity involves making common cause to improve the socio-economic conditions of a group. Solidarity implies mutual aid and cooperation, as well as mutual assistance. Solidarity is a commitment aimed at promoting equity and social justice for all.
It is to serve this social justice and the common good of literary artists that the team and the board of directors of the UNEQ have fought tirelessly for more than 30 years to have the Act respecting the status of the artist, finally obtaining on June 3, 2022 the historic mandate to be able to undertake negotiations of collective agreements with publishing houses, broadcasters and producers.
What will these negotiations be used for? To obtain decent working conditions for all authors. To provide them with fair compensation for their services and their writing work, respectful contractual conditions, without abusive clauses, as well as a decent social safety net. To end bullying and power imbalance. To ensure that writers are never alone again facing a publishing house to negotiate a mutual agreement contract, but benefit from the strength of the group.
It is true that these negotiations will require time, human and financial resources. Hence the proposal to establish a contribution from authors in the form of dues, as all unions do. The path may be long and bumpy, but is that a reason to give up at the starting line?
The UNEQ board of directors set up an advisory committee made up of writers with diverse opinions to study this question, including Sophie-Luce Morin. Contrary to what M.me Morin advances in the open letter sent to me this week, the rules of this committee were known to everyone. The press release of last January 18 specified the following: “The UNEQ will therefore set up an advisory committee in the coming days to allow members to participate in the process of determining the terms of union dues. The committee was never intended to determine whether or not contributions should be put in place; rather, it was to think about different models if they were introduced.
Sophie-Luce Morin also states that ” [c]Negotiations will therefore be largely paid for by the writers who earn the most. However, this minority does not need these improvements since it already benefits from contracts exceeding the requirements of a standard contract”.
In other words, why would the richest pay for the poorest? This is the very principle of solidarity: mutual aid, cooperation, mutual support, the common good. Yes, the wealthiest will contribute more than the poorest, but if one day these affluent writers were to experience precariousness or be caught up in a dispute, they and they could in turn benefit from the advantages of collective agreements and the support from their peers.
Another statement made me frown: “All in all, and for several years to come, these new union possibilities will probably only serve one group: the employees of the UNEQ, whose number will increase as the negotiations progress. As if the UNEQ team had made all these efforts for its own account! This is to deny the exceptional dedication of the director general and his collaborators, who devote themselves body and soul to the defense of authors, despite the many obstacles and the violence of certain remarks that are made against them on the social networks for three months.
Finally, Sophie-Luce Morin goes so far as to question the new Status of the Artist Act, claiming that “if UNEQ had clearly presented the real issues of these collective negotiations, this certification project would have died serial “. I wonder there again. Does the prospect of having to contribute $25 to $50 for every $1,000 of income make the “every man for himself” philosophy that much more appealing? If so, it’s because we really have different visions of the common good.
The authors and authors who are members of the UNEQ will choose on March 29, at our extraordinary general meeting, the vision which seems to them the most just, the most constructive and the most equitable.