The March 29 general assembly of the Union of Quebec Writers and Writers (UNEQ) was a disaster. Let’s put aside the incivilities committed by a few and try to better understand the internal division to which the vote testifies. The proposal to levy union dues was rejected and the sale of the Writers’ House was approved. The tight results are however one more indication of the existence, within the UNEQ, of two divergent conceptions of the profession of writer today.
Writer and union member, a contradiction in terms?
The new law defining the professional status of artists (S-32.1) invests the UNEQ with new responsibilities, in particular the negotiation of collective agreements with publishers. Under the law, UNEQ has the mandate to defend the interests of all literary artists. It would therefore be logical for them to pay dues to the union.
This is necessary to provide UNEQ with the means to fulfill its mission. It would also be a concrete gesture by the artists to show their support for their representatives, which could improve the balance of power in their favor during the negotiations. UNEQ’s strategy responded to this logic, and more than 40% of the participants at the March 29 assembly supported it. On the other hand, and this is surprising, the proposal was rejected by a majority.
One might think that the opposition of some of the members to the membership fee stems from a radically individualistic attitude. Therefore, there is no question for these authors to share their income, even if only up to a tiny percentage. However, such a position cannot be attributed to the majority of opponents. We can detect a completely different source of disagreement in the light of numerous interventions, both in the public space in recent months and during the meeting of March 29. From all of these remarks, a romantic conception of the writer clearly emerges, which distills an aversion for the very idea of a union.
One of the reluctances expressed many times concerns the mixing of chaff and wheat. Many were offended at being associated, through a union, with authors of books that were not literary works. Among other things, Monique LaRue considers that the defense of authors in the broad sense should come under an association other than the UNEQ (The duty, December 30, 2022). Yvon Rivard declares for his part: “I resist the idea that writing is a profession like the others” (The dutyJanuary 7, 2023).
At the fatal assembly, it was suggested that if most of the writers had obtained, thanks to their talent, suitable contracts, the UNEQ should take care of negotiating better conditions for the disadvantaged. Some, on the other hand, argued that solidarity was not the province of writers.
The writers’ house, a symbolic buoy
The sale of the House of Writers was supported by a very thin margin, further testifying to the fracture within UNEQ. Regarding the house itself, everyone can see that it is not the ideal place for the promotion of literature. Public events are cramped there, and the possibilities for redevelopment are very limited. If we add the premises required by the new responsibilities of the UNEQ, nothing works.
Yet these practical considerations seem irrelevant to writers opposed to the sale. All their comments harmonize with the sentence that would have been pronounced by Jacques Godbout affirming that “to sell the Maison des écrivains is to sell one’s soul”. This is what some Quebec writers want to preserve: a monument to the romantic image of the writer.
Yet it is another type of house that we need. Montreal lacks a real institution for the promotion of literature in all its diversity. Such a house of literature should be supported and animated not only by writers, but by all the actors concerned.
Rebuilding the UNEQ
For the moment, a majority of UNEQ members have disavowed the plan to introduce union dues. The board of directors, by resigning en bloc, admits having failed to convince of the relevance of its vision. To rebuild our unity, we will have to make the necessary distinctions and embrace diversity. There are obviously differences between authors and between works.
These qualitative differences are the subject of debate, and it is healthy to pursue them. But this cannot be taken into account when it comes to ensuring decent conditions of practice for all. Those who are at the base of the book chain cannot be the weak link.