One of the benefits of researching the recent past is that I get to meet some of the people in the events that I write about. Through the course of my research, I’ve met dozens of people who were (and often are still) involved in the lesbian, gay, and labour movements. Meeting people, either in person, over the phone or on skype, is always a pleasure and one of my favourite of my research. However, sometimes there are also people that you would love to meet and discuss but, for whatever reason, never have the opportunity to meet. Les Dickirson was one of those people.
I’ve never met Les, but he figures pretty prominently in my research. He was the chair of UAW local 195’s human rights committee in the 1970s, and pushed his local to include sexual orientation protection in their collective agreement as early as 1974. He was ahead of his time in that regard.
Local 195 was (and is) a composite local, made up of several different workplaces (Units), each with their own contract. In the 1970s, when Les and UAW 195’s Human Rights Committee recommended that sexual orientation protection be included in its contracts, it had about 60 or so different units. This meant convincing 60 separate Units to fight for the same amendment at a time when same-sex sexuality was not only widely misunderstood, but often loathed. Getting each of them to include “sexual orientation” in their no discrimination clauses would be a tough sell, especially considering that a number of them didn’t even have anti-discrimination language in the first place. Still, Les and his co-workers were able to make progress, not only in getting a number of the local’s Units to include sexual orientation protection, but also in creating a friendlier and less homophobic workplace culture and union. In a letter written to a friend in 1980, he wrote about the progress that they were making in these regards. He wrote: “I’m glad that the subject is now one that we can talk and laugh about in such an open manner. It wasn’t that easy a few years ago when I first introduced the subject.”
I did try to get in touch with him to see if he would participate in an interview. Another person I interviewed gave me Les’ contact information (with Les’ permission, of course), so I gave him a call. I was told that he had been in and out of the hospital, so I didn’t get my hopes up. When I called, there was no answer. I got the machine and left a message. Unfortunately I never heard back from Les, so I missed out the chance to speak to him. It’s a shame that his voice won’t be as present in my research as I would have liked, but I guess that his ultimate legacy lies in the results that came out of the work that he did in both his local and in his community.