quote:

---

It seems to me what Buzz has bought into here is the myth of partnership and equality. I won't speculate on his reasons, though I'd love to. But it's a delusion. You can get some fairness making a deal with Frank Stronach, but it will never be simple, because nearly all the power is on his side. No matter what he gives you, the best word for it will be paternalism. Real fairness and justice, given the inequality, will always have to be won. That's the nature of this society, though we're encouraged to deny it, which has the effect of letting the gulf yawn ever wider, as it keeps doing.

---

ADDING: Local 222 members voted unanimously against the deal at an open meeting. I wonder whether Kenny Lewenza will have an open meeting of local 444 to discuss the deal? I wonder if any of the deals supporters will take it to their members?

quote:

---

Today CAW Local 222 members voted unanimously to support their Executive Board's decision to oppose the CAW/Magna Agreement. In addition, the membership also unanimously endorsed a resolution passed earlier by Local 88 in Ingersol which condemns the deal.

Speaker after speaker spoke out against the Magna deal at a standing room only meeting at the Local 222 union hall on the shores of Lake Ontario. Pent up frustration bubbled to the surface as rank-and-file workers vented their frustration and disillusionment over the seemingly endless retreat of the union in the face of an industry in crisis.

"I have nothing but respect for Buzz Hargrove," began one worker, "but over the last few years he seems to have lost his way."

---

ADDING: Local 4451 President Jeff Casey says:

quote:

---

This agreement contemplates an overhaul of CAW traditional bargaining practices processes, grievance procedures and union representation on the shop floor. Without question the most fundamental change contained in the agreement that moves away from traditional labour practices is; the right to strike.

As you are aware the Canadian Labour Council Code of Ethical Practices provides that all union members have the right to take part fully and freely in their union, vote for officers and stand for and hold office. With all due respect; under the signed agreement of principles between CAW and Magna it would appear these rights have been abolished.

Buzz, establishing a “no-strike” clause goes against the fundamental rights of unionized workers. The right to strike is the cornerstone of workplace democracy and should never be set aside under any circumstance.

---

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

Bob White's item (previously cited) mentions the CAW-CAMI agreement as a previous example of the union being innovative and questionning trade union orthodoxy.

….

I don't know how much of the kaizen 'experiment' is left there. Seems to me not so much -- it might have died like a lot of other labour relations fads. But CAW 88 has and always had the right to strike, and they pick their own shop stewards.

---

I don’t personally think it’s necessary to reject out of hand everything that travels along under the banners of co-dtermination and other fads.

The CAW and Magna:

quote:

---

What's in it for Magna?
Magna has been able to limit the CAW to only three of its 45 units and faces no major organizing drives today. Why then has it suddenly opened the door to the CAW (even if it's on Magna's own terms)? Bringing the union in, even on the company's terms, does mean new administrative headaches (at a minimum, more meetings and consultations take time) and possible hazards for Magna (things are stable now; why risk something blowing up in your face). Other companies, even if they could get the CAW deal, would likely reject it unless the point was to co-opt an actual organizing drive. In fact, its no secret that even most of Magna's top management is not all that enamoured with this new step.

The new relationship to the CAW starts and ends with Frank Stronach. Frank Stronach, Magna's founder and current top officer, has always had a paternalistic vision of workplace relations. Fairness is good as long as he gets to define it. Unions are okay if they are certain kinds of unions. The CAW, which left the American international union in the mid-1980s over how close its leadership had gotten to the companies and how far they had gotten from the membership, was certainly not a potential partner for Stronach. Nor was the Buzz Hargrove of the years following that separation, Stronach's ideal labour leader. But over the past few years Stronach had clearly decided that the new CAW – made desperate by a loss of jobs and with a president vain enough to declare victory no matter the scale of the concessions – does get his stamp of approval. And so Stronach moved ahead to, as he says, 'transform North American labour relations.'

In the Magna model, these foundations for independent unionism are, to all intents and purposes erased. It is true and important that the company has agreed to open the door to the union contacting its workers. But that comes at the cost of the kind of union the workers can then have.

The right to strike is fully erased; it is gone forever. As the CAW press kit puts it: 'There will be no strikes or lockouts under this system' (emphasis added). When the agreement ends, if the members reject the new offer, it goes to arbitration. Period. (The kit goes on to suggest that the strike weapon is, in any case, not really that important.)
Shop stewards do not exist. The CAW has accepted this. Stewards are replaced by a 'fairness committee' staffed by equal numbers of labour and management reps (who are part of the 'concern resolution process'). The key union rep under this structure is the 'Employee Advocate', a carryover from Magna's traditional practice who seems to be the formal equivalent of a plant chairperson. According to the Toronto Star (October 16, 2007), the Employee Advocate is not elected from the membership at large but screened by a committee which included both labour representatives and management(!). To date it is not public information how the final selection is made. This system is reminiscent in some ways to the 'controlled democracy' in communist Europe a while back, where managers – in that case as union members – prepared lists from which the leaders could be chosen.
The Magna units will be part of one Canada-wide – effectively Ontario-wide – amalgamated local. (This in itself may tend to isolate each unit form interaction with other units in the community). The above Employee Advocates will make up the executive of that local and constitute, along with representatives from the national union, the bargaining committee. The local officers – for example, the President and Secretary-Treasurer – will be chosen by this executive rather than, as in current CAW practice, via a vote of the membership.
As for ideology, the CAW president has proudly declared his enthusiasm for a 'non-adversarial' relationship, repeating (without embarrassment) all the mushy clichés about 'teamwork' and 'being in this together' that he not so long ago scorned for their rank hypocrisy. This, it is important to emphasize, is not just about rhetoric. The attitude to labour-management relations is one of the criteria that will be used in evaluating acceptability for being the Employee Advocate. Trouble-makers – those who challenge the system, 'stir up trouble' and have always been the backbone of independent unionism – need not apply.

---

And check out this lovely feature of workplace justice, CAW / Magna style:

"Some local issues will be decided by local secret ballot referendums. In some cases, a disciplined worker can also choose a referendum of their peers to determine if they should be reinstated or discharged (or the worker can also choose traditional arbitration.)"

Source: http://www.caw.ca/campaigns&issues/ongoingcampaigns/magna/pdf/FAQs.pdf

So: let's say you're hurt, you're on modified duties, Magna comes up with some bullshit reason why you need to be disciplined and dismissed, you don't have a steward but you believe that your "brothers and sisters" in this so-called union will stand up for your right to those light duties -- which of course have been cobbled together out of their own jobs so now every day of work for is harder for them.

You better hope you're right because under a collective agreement, you have explicitly lost your recourse to the courts for dismissal or any other issue covered under the contract.

These workers will be utterly screwed.

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Following up on the last post in the previous thread:

I don’t personally think it’s necessary to reject out of hand everything that travels along under the banners of co-dtermination and other fads.

---

I'm not saying I do. Or rather, maybe I do, but it doesn't matter what I think. It matters more that CAMI's CAW Local has backed away from them and is speaking out against the CAW-Magna deal.

Similarly, why would one trust a work place advocate who was appointed by management?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Similarly, why would one trust a work place advocate who was appointed by management?

---

quote:

---

- Shop stewards do not exist. The CAW has accepted this. Stewards are replaced by a 'fairness committee' staffed by equal numbers of labour and management reps (who are part of the 'concern resolution process'). The key union rep under this structure is the 'Employee Advocate', a carryover from Magna's traditional practice who seems to be the formal equivalent of a plant chairperson. According to the Toronto Star (October 16, 2007), the Employee Advocate is not elected from the membership at large but screened by a committee which included both labour representatives and management(!). To date it is not public information how the final selection is made.

---

That's from Gindin's article from the other thread. This was supposedly the big bone of contention in Local 27. Those concerns were assuaged, according to the Local President, at the NEB earlier this week.

But no specifics, no denials of Gindin's information have been delivered to date.

quote:

---

I confess I haven't read all the Magna documents yet.

---

I think we are all in the same boat there, but I may get my hands on a copy next week. A friend at work has read it, and says what Gindin sites is true. I asked if management also has a say in selection of Council Delegates for example, and he kind of shrugged his shoulders as if to say that was up in the air, too.

But this I can't believe. So I want to read it myself.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

quote:

---

It's such a glaring conflict of interest, I would be surprised if it wasn't illegal.

---

Glaring yes. But definitely not illegal, well within what is allowed in contracts.

quote:

---

Shop stewards do not exist. The CAW has accepted this. Stewards are replaced by a 'fairness committee' staffed by equal numbers of labour and management reps (who are part of the 'concern resolution process').

The key union rep under this structure is the 'Employee Advocate', a carryover from Magna's traditional practice who seems to be the formal equivalent of a plant chairperson.

....

Can you point me to where this "work place advocate" is defined or described, please?

---

None of this is in written documents that are on the CAW website- as of a couple of days ago at least.

But it's not all speculation. Apparently the part about 'fairness committee' staffed by equal numbers of labour and management reps (who are part of the 'concern resolution process')" has been confirmed.

My read is that the details of how exactly this will work have not been settled; but the equal representation part is definite. That's telling enough, whatever the details.

Ditto on nothing written about what the employee advocate is- and I've heard nothing more. But again, it's clear enough what the guiding pronciples behind it are... it's going to be a person jointly chosen by management and the union.

And don't forget, it's even worse than it sounds. Because the completely compelling incentive system of the deal is that the union reps chosen will only be people who support the 'non-adverserial' fundamentals of the agreement.

Theis incentive system is bottom to top in the deal: from the shop floor to the fact that the ongoing process of the CAW being offered more plants to 'organize' is dependent on them 'behaving'.

In my opinion, it's not just a bad deal. It is a diabolically crafted deal.

ETA: It'll be interesting to hear what exactly it is that Buzz says he bargained for. Since it reads like a complete replication of the existing management structure [with CAW appointed bums in chairs sprinkled in], plus a mechanism for the CAW to sign people up [which doesn't look contentious either].

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Glaring yes. But definitely not illegal, well withing what is allowed in contracts.

---

Not so fast.

quote:

---

What unions not to be certified

15. The Board shall not certify a trade union if any employer or any employers’ organization has participated in its formation or administration or has contributed financial or other support to it or if it discriminates against any person because of any ground of discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Code or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, s. 15.

---

Ontario Labour Relations Act.

quote:

---

What unions not to be certified

15. The Board shall not certify a trade union if any employer or any employers’ organization has participated in its formation or administration...

---

But the union in question is the CAW. Yes, we are referring to this as what amounts to a company union. But it is the CAW that has entered into the agreement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I confess I haven't read all the Magna documents yet. Can you point me to where this "work place advocate" is defined or described, please?

---

In essence:
- You apply and Magna's HR department confirms that you have three years seniority.
- The "Fairness Committee" then interviews you and gives you a score.
- The "Fairness Committee" is laid out on page 10. It will consist of: Members selected by employees from each department or work area, and shift; and members appointed by plant management, including managers or supervisors. Non-managerial members will constitute at least 50 percent plus one of the members of the Fairness Committee - but an employee can be removed from the FC for disciplinary violations.
- The Assistant to the CAW President then recieves the top three candidates and makes a selection.
- Every three years employees can vote you out.
- "Training" for is provided by CAW and Magna.
- If you're in a new plant the Assistant to the CAW President can appoint an employee advocate from the first 10 people hired.

So, as opposed to direct election, you apply to a panel consisting of management and employees (with clean disciplinary records) and then the CAW President (who signed this deal in the first place) selects you.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

"I'm very concerned at the direction this agreement is taking our union and the effect it could have on the labour movement," he added in an interview. "I couldn't stand idly by any more without expressing how I sincerely feel about this."

---

quote:

---

Or will it be more like, practically speaking, delegates will have to have decided where they stand before the meeting?

---

I can hear the bones creaking already from the arm twisting that will be going on before Council.

I will be doing my best to lobby the Council Delegates from my plant against the deal.

quote:

---

If Magna follows through on this goal of moving into assembly, the degree of competition and uncertainty in the industry rules out Magna trying this on its own. Magna would only do so in some partnership with a major automaker... Magna’s partner would, therefore, most likely be one of the Big Three... The CAW would be expected to use its existing power and influence within either of the Big Three to insist on union recognition at the new operation and a ramp-up to Big Three standards for the workers. This was a key factor in the unionization of CAMI, which was a joint venture between Suzuki and GM. The CAMI workers maintained the right to strike and the steward system and ultimately lagged behind the Big Three by only 2-3 years... This is where the Magna-CAW new Framework of Fairness deal comes in. That deal would trump any unionization drive or alternative agreement. The agreement in the new assembly plant, if workers voted for the CAW, would come under the new Magna-CAW deal and it would be based on Magna’s company-union structure, not the CAW pattern (See Framework of Fairness agreement, p. 5, Part B, #1 and p.23, #2). The wages might be higher than in the rest of the Magna chain, but the core elements of that deal – the permanent strike ban, the absence of a steward body, and the explicit commitment to the priorities of Magna’s philosophy – would remain. (Note too that about 20% of Magna’s workforce is currently ‘temporary’ with lower wages and much lower benefits; this two-tier structure has not been mentioned in the CAW literature on the new deal, and it would presumably remain in place.)

The CAW’s ‘foot-in-the-door’ at Magna, one of the union’s main arguments in its defense of this deal, might then be the Magna Model’s ‘foot-in-the-door’ confronting Big Three workers already facing immense pressures.

---

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

But the union in question is the CAW. Yes, we are referring to this as what amounts to a company union. But it is the CAW that has entered into the agreement.

And that's not splitting hairs, as far as the law goes.

---

But.. the “brand” of the union applying for certification is not the only factor that the OLRB can consider in determining whether the employer connived with or supported the union, contrary to s.15 of the Act. I believe that the “product” itself is also subject to assessment.

It appears the Board looks at a number of questions to decide if the employer knew of the organizing drive and declined to exercise its prerogatives in response to it. They may also assess the extent and severity of the employer’s involvement – how much the parties or process are tainted – and, on the other side, the degree of support for the union demonstrated by the employees, as well as their freedom to choose.

In context of this Magna deal however, there is no competing union. So the problem I see is, who exactly would be in a position – legally and financially – to bring the unfair labour practices complaint? Or will it just be left up to the Board to act unilaterally in refusing the CAW certification application?

In my view, a bargaining unit that has management input on the make up of worker representation qualifies as participating in the administration of a union.

But when the act stipulates "union" does it mean the entire union? Or does it speak to a specific bargaining unit? The fact that there are separate definitions for union and bargaining unit in the act might tend to cut against any complaint, if that's the interpretation.

If we were to go by the spirit of the law, I tend to think it would say that the Magna deal is illegal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

In my view, a bargaining unit that has management input on the make up of worker representation qualifies as participating in the administration of a union.

---

Statutes like these - and related ones saying an employer can't finance the union - are aimed at stopping management from creating its own "union" to keep a real union out.

I looked at CanLII briefly and found an interesting case where the OLRB declined to certify the union citing a breach of s.15.

Source: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlrb/doc/2006/2006canlii18702/2006canlii18702.html

"4. [Section 15] aims to preclude the conflict of interest that might arise where a trade union does not owe its allegiance exclusively to those whom it seeks to represent. A classic iteration of this principle is found in the following passage from Tri-Canada Inc., [1981] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1509:

The bargaining process between employers and employees always implies, in addition to their common interest, some degree of conflict between the immediate economic interests of the bargainers – the payer and the receiver of wages. This conflict of interest will necessarily co-exist with their common interest in the welfare of the enterprise from which they both devive their income; and we do not mean to suggest that harmonious relations do not exist between employers and trade unions. But short-run conflicts of economic interest are inevitable, and if they are to be resolved through the process of collective bargaining, it is highly inappropriate for the agency which represents one party to the bargain, to be in any measure under the influence of the other. Collective bargaining by its very nature requires an arm’s length relationship between the bargaining parties, and there are a number of statutory provisions designed to ensure that this is the case."

As most of these cases, this one involved an entity calling itself a union which had previously been the employer-sponsored staff association. If I'm not mistaken, this is the type of case that unionist is referring to:

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Statutes like these - and related ones saying an employer can't finance the union - are aimed at stopping management from creating its own "union" to keep a real union out.

They're not aimed at (for example) stopping CAW or many other unions I can think of from bargaining (e.g.) a plant chairperson freed full-time for union business without loss of pay. But if an employer sponsored an in-house "association" and contributed money to it in the same fashion (full-time reps etc.), that association would be barred from becoming a bargaining agent under the law.

---

However I do note in obiter, in the same OLRB ruling quoted above:

"6. ... A number of arrangements between a union and an employer that might legitimately be negotiated by parties to a mature arms-length relationship have been found to constitute improper employer support where those arrangements were reached prior to the union’s certification (or voluntary recognition) and prior to the conclusion of a collective agreement...."

There is also another case I found involving CAW and SEIU -- two established unions, where s.15 is explicitly addressed.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlrb/doc/2004/2004canlii24945/2004canlii24945.html

"26. How has the Board interpreted s. 15 of the Act? It has looked to the purpose of the section, and it has evaluated the allegations of a violation in each particular factual context: Covertite Eastern Limited, [1996] OLRB Rep. May/June 386. The questions which underpin the section are: whether the union being given support by the employer has an arm’s length relationship with that employer, or not; and whether there is any aspect of the employer’s support which substantively interferes with the employees’ choice of a bargaining agent. The Board looks at the labour relations history and the pertinent background. As stated in Covertite Eastern Limited, at ¶56:

The Board has made it clear in its jurisprudence that the purposes of section 15 is to preserve the arm’s length relationship between unions and employers which is fundamental to the structure of the Act. A purposive, rather than literal, application of the section has found favour in the Board’s jurisprudence, and is in our view the appropriate approach. Thus, not everything that an employer does that might be said to be supportive of an organizing campaign is sufficient to warrant the application of section 15. It is activity which is of a character or proportion such that it is reasonable to infer that employees have not exercised a free choice in the matter of the selection of a bargaining agent."

CAW's reputation and their history of arms-length bargaining with this employer were both cited as factual grounds for the refusal of SEIU's takeover application. Nevertheless the reasons do support that even CAW doesn't get a bye on s.15. As explicitly laid out in this decision, these situations must always be decided on the facts.

There are undoubtedly other decisions that apply, but surely the least that could be said of this Magna deal is that "the employer's activity is of a character or proportion such that it is reasonable to infer that employees have not exercised a free choice in the selection of a bargaining agent" -- or for that matter, even the most basic framework for the contract.

Not that litigation is always or usually the best answer... but it's nice to have that option.

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

This would include knowing or anticipating the counterarguments to that.

Personally, I think the almost immediate indirect effects of the Magna deal on existing unionized plants is the most alarming. But I wouldn't be surprised if that's a more difficult argument to make. [?Too easy for people to assure themselves that we won't let that happen?]

Calls for something to stand theings on their heads- following Buzz'es example.

Framework for Weakness

Framework of Weakness

Framework of Frankness

Frankenfairness

....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
Former CAW research director Sam Gindin strikes again explaining what will happen if Magna expands in to assembly:

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

---

One angle I am concerned about in this drive is an unspoken two-tier premise, where some current and retired CAW members may believe that by incorporating this new Magna “sharecropper” class – for the workers' own good, of course – this would help to secure their own diminishing fortunes (i.e. pensions).

The objection would be that joint ventures such as CAMI are formally seperate companies requiring a seperate contract.

But joint ventures can take many forms. And Magna's deal with the CAW gives it a great deal to offer in negotiating a joint venture- one that emerges under the Magna brand so that the plant automatically comes under this agreement.

I don't know anywhere near enough about the industry to have an idea what exactly Magna is looking for from a prospective joint venture partner.

But Cerebrus- the owners of Chrysler- can provide access to technology and have deep pockets. And they just happen to have softened up the UAW and CAW on their own account... paving the way for union cooperation around a joint venture moving high end production outside conventional collective bargaining agreements, and opening the way for....

I strongly encourage CAW activists to arm themselves with hard facts around all this.

BTW- I think it risks credibility to portray Cerebrus as 'break-up' capitalists. They are certainly determined to drive costs down. They have a track record succeeding where other owners have failed. That's ominous enough.

quote:

---

The deal has been met with support from most of the CAW local unions,
with a few high profile dissenting parties. All will be in attendance at
today's meeting as national and local union leaders discuss the future of the
agreement.

---

And does that mean something that the media is welcome? Maybe the CAW is different, but the media are ususaly excluded for frank discussion of contentious topics.

I'm going to kick around this thing of the potential for a Magna assembly operation falling automatically under the Magna agreement rather than the CAMI precedent [where any wrinkles take place within the context of a conventional collective bargaining system].

Keeping in mind that CAMI and other North American joint ventures are set up with established near term sunsets on deviations from collective bargaining patterns- while the Magna agreement is designed to effectively make them endless.

I mentioned earlier that the Buzzites can easily say that a joint venture would not fall under the Magna deal because the joint venture would be a seperate company requiring a new collective bargaining agreement.

But there are all types of joint ventures. The reason ownership is generally shared is not just because both partners just want to own a piece of the pie. The bigger reason is that each partner wants the other on the hook for an investment at risk.

Suzuki would not have made all that investment with neither control over marketing of the cars built OR GM having invested enough of its own money that it is also on the hook if they decide they don'e want to sell the cars produced by Suzuki.

But there are other ways to cut this. And a big incentive: because if Magna is the sole owner of the production venture, it falls under the deal with the CAW.

This is not only a dollars and cents labour cost issue. It also simplifies bargaining between Magna and a potential partner and therefore makes a deal more possible. Because the partners don't nned to include the CAW in the bargaining circus- that part is settled.

I can see one way this would work with Magna as owner/operator of the joint venture, and there are probably others.

Somehere in the Big Three there are car models with a sound place in the market, but being built at a plant that the company doesn't want any more. Rather than transfer the production to another plant in the next round of cuts and consolidation- lease the plant to Magna, who takes over production of the car.

This would put the two venture partners on at least roughly equal risk footing. Magna can get whatever it wants out of a joint venture [beyond just a 'subcontracting license' to build a particular car], as much as it can with a more standard joint venture that is also joint ownership. The senior partner still has propriotary control of technology, and has a major incentive in Magna's labour arrangement.

Contracturaly reequired or not, Magna would have to negotiate with the CAW a lot of details around workers who would want to exercise the option of working for Magna under the new arrangement.

[The CAW would not have successor rights for the existing collective agreement at the plant. The dynamic would be the same as if the plant was sold to another owner. Nor would the CAW be disposed to try to fight that.]

Thats just one example of a joint venture that would seem to fall under the Magna agreement.

quote:

---

Originally by Munroe:
Oh dear, I knew it would happen. I was at am LRB hearing into a raid application we have against CLAC today and one of the CLAC Reps took great pleasure in throwing this in my face. He got away before I could swing my cane. As expected, CLAC is saying it is wonderful that the CAW has "woken up" to its philosophy.

---

quote:

---

CAMI is a joint venture between General Motors and Suzuki, built in the Southwest Ontario town of Ingersoll. It was based on the Japanese production management system originally developed at Toyota, with teams and lean production. Before it was first opened in 1989, the CAW reached an agreement with GM and Suzuki to run a unionization drive without interference from the management. It also bargained a collective agreement before the workforce was hired. The agreement itself included a lot of the verbiage of common commitment to productivity, quality, "kaizen" (continuous improvement) and the entire enterprise of teamwork. The grievance procedure was weak. The wage and benefit package was way behind the Big Three... CAMI included an elected workplace committee of union representatives, a democratic structure independent of management, to defend workers’ interests. The CAW as a whole maintained a commitment to an independent union presence in the workplace, expressing a different ideology and set of interests than that of the employer. The CAW national representative who serviced the CAMI union was an experienced working class fighter, who helped to mentor the new union reps. (That was only made possible by the existence of the elected body of union representatives, independent of management and beholden only to the members who elected them)...
As an example of using innovative methods to build a strong, independent union, CAMI is a success.

Magna is another story altogether.

The agreement between the CAW and Frank Stronach contains no provisions for the kind of independent, workplace-based union structures that made Local 88 possible. The entire workplace representational structure rests upon the bogus democracy of Stronach’s system, set up to keep unions out.

As was pointed out by numerous critics of the deal: the one union representative in the workplace, called the Employee Advocate (EA), is vetted by a joint labour-management committee and is then subject to approval by the Assistant to the CAW president. Members have no right to vote for or against them for at least 3 years. Other than the EA, there is no in-plant workplace union representation. Instead, a joint "Fairness Committee" has 51% worker representation, elected with conditions that guarantee support for corporate ideology. The agreement stipulates that workers elected to the latter committee can in no way act as union representatives.

This "Framework of Fairness" is based on Stronach’s time-tested system of anti-union structures. Rooted in the human relations practises developed in the 1920s to keep industrial unionism out of mass workplaces, Magna’s paternalistic system attempts to build-in loyalty and dependence on management. It also seeks to individualize worker concerns and issues. All of this is institutionalized in the CAW-Magna framework.

---

I'm a little confused as to how the CAW leadership can be organizing ratification votes when the CAW Council hasn't even discussed - much less approved this. I know the union's "democratic processes" have always been a sham but isn't this putting the cart before the horse?

For that matter, how long had the "drive" been going on? You'd think word would have gotten out in advance that this vote was coming but (at least in my small universe) this seems like a surprise.

Then again, when your boss is telling you "Just go vote 'yes' and I'll give you a $3 an hour raise" you don't need much convincing.

Maybe Buzz and Franko rushed a vote throught to rally support for their flagging deal?

quote:

---

The two existing CAW plants will vote to move to the new Magna local but you will be surprised by the (vote) results at the rest. The general comment (I'm hearing) is, why should we give up two hours and 20 minutes of wages a month to get something we already have?

What Magna have gained from this deal -- even if nobody joins the CAW -- is probably more work from the OEMs and no interference from Buzz and boys at contract time next year.

Magna has not become the company it is by misstreating its workers. And do not say they hire too many minorities who can be short changed and not complain -- they are some of the most loyal employees Magna have and a lot have way more eductaion qualifications than most.

---

quote:

---

Asked if the CAW was forced to agree to a no-strike clause or see the UAW brought in to sweep 18,000 Canadians into their fold, Mitic said: "That wasn't part of the discussion. What was under discussion was whether or not we'd take the whole thing" - all 32,000 Magna workers in North America without a union.

"But we said, 'We represent workers in Canada, the UAW represents workers in the United States.' If they (the UAW) don't to do it, maybe we'll take another look at it."

---

Keith Osborne, plant chairman at Local 222's huge General Motors' unit in Oshawa, makes some interesting comments in the same article, noting that the concessions in Oshawahave been a disaster:

quote:

---

"What if Toyota said tomorrow, you can organize our plants but no strikes." After agreeing to the same deal to bring Magna's non-union employees into the CAW fold, "how could we say no?" to the famously union-shy Japanese, he asked rhetorically.

"Maybe I'm just fear-mongering. But once you open up that door.... It's no different than the shelf agreement we agreed to," Osborne said, referring to a 2006 re-opening of Local 222's contract with GM.

The union was asked to approve a competitive operating agreement, or COA, which led to sweeping changes in work rules and staffing levels that will save the company more than $100 million per year. The deal became a template which swept the Big Three.

"The threat was they would shut us down if we didn't. But once we did, everybody was asked to do one," Osborne said of the first COA. Deals based on the same work rules were later demanded, and approved, at every GM, Chrysler and Ford plant in North America.

---

Its still a race to the bottom and some of these comments like "who cares about strikes and grievances" sound downright CLACish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
But now we have to compete with Magna workers who have given it up, I guess the 70% will quickly dwindle.

---

Well, that's a slight exaggeration, because "we" were already competing with the 80% or so of the private sector workforce, including most of Magna, which are non-unionized and have no right to strike or even to have their grievances arbitrated or to bargain collectively.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Well, that's a slight exaggeration, because "we" were already competing with the 80% or so of the private sector workforce, including most of Magna, which are non-unionized and have no right to strike or even to have their grievances arbitrated or to bargain collectively.

---

On a related note: management lawyer says the CAW sellout is "creative"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
1 - In an unorganized workforce unionization could happen and a real union could appear - not possible at Magna.

---

Yes it's possible - every three years, in the months leading up to collective agreement expiry, as provided by law, Magna workers can leave the CAW and join a new union - by signing cards and secret ballot - or vote to get rid of the union without joining a new one. If the "new regime" CAW simply takes their dues money and gives them the same as Frank did, and suppresses their legitimate strivings for progress into the bargain, I expect that's exactly what will happen.

quote:

---

2 - Management at the Big 3 could not credibly show up at bargaining asking to get rid of shop stewards before. The facts that non-union workplaces had no grievance procedure could not be raised as a reason to erode existing rights. The fact that the CAW is now willing to scrap those rights will be raised as a reason to erode those rights. Count on it.

---

They may ask, but no union member will ever agree to such a thing. My bet is they won't ask. If my math is right, the CAW goes into Big 3 negotiations next year, so we should know pretty soon.

The Magna "model" is deeply disturbing, but I think the real cause for concern is what it could mean to organizing the unorganized. By mapping out an "easy" way, at a period in North America where such campaigns are incredibly difficult and expensive, it could have a devastating effect - I don't really know, I'm no expert in recruitment. But to think that established unionized workplaces are going to be pressured in any significant way to abandon the right to have their own local union reps? I don't believe it.

[ 12 November 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Yes it's possible - every three years, in the months leading up to collective agreement expiry, as provided by law, Magna workers can leave the CAW and join a new union - by signing cards and secret ballot - or vote to get rid of the union without joining a new one. If the "new regime" CAW simply takes their dues money and gives them the same as Frank did, and suppresses their legitimate strivings for progress into the bargain, I expect that's exactly what will happen.

---

I hope that's true but I'm not convinced, for two reasons:

(1) Legally these workers may have the same opportunity as anyone else to change bargaining agents during the prescribed period. But once this thing gets rolling, the legal rights of these workers will be effectively moot as long as the LRB requires broad-based support for change across the entire local, because it would be very unlikely that internal activists or outside organizers could facilitate concerted action on the scale of the huge amalgamated local or locals that are being proposed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

(1) Legally these workers may have the same opportunity as anyone else to change bargaining agents during the prescribed period. But once this thing gets rolling, the legal rights of these workers will be effectively moot as long as the LRB requires broad-based support for change across the entire local, because it would be very unlikely that internal activists or outside organizers could facilitate concerted action on the scale of the huge amalgamated local or locals that are being proposed.

---

Wrong - unions aren't certified by locals, they're certified by workplace and employer. No one else in an "amalgamated" local gets to vote if a Magna plant wants to decertify or change unions. Otherwise, a union could simply declare that all its 250,000 members across Canada were part of a single "amalgamated" local. The local is purely an internal union structure that is not recognized in the Labour Relations Act nor by the Board.

quote:

---

(2) Universal appetite for radical change is even more unlikely when you consider the organizational structures in place in this 'Framework', which as another poster has noted, are crafted to individualize problems and suppress dissent. I worked in a Procter & Gamble plant for a while with a similar management philosophy, and in my experience it is exceedingly difficult to break through the wall of "we're all family here" propaganda and management quasi-responsiveness -- even on an individual level, much less to try to organize any democratic action under those conditions. And P&G didn't even claim to have a union.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

"...unions aren't certified by locals, they're certified by workplace and employer. No one else in an "amalgamated" local gets to vote if a Magna plant wants to decertify or change unions. Otherwise, a union could simply declare that all its 250,000 members across Canada were part of a single "amalgamated" local. The local is purely an internal union structure that is not recognized in the Labour Relations Act nor by the Board.

---

Thanks brother, I stand corrected -- as you point out, the operative structure in the eyes of the law is the bargaining unit, not the local. A collective agreement may apply to several locals, or a single local may fall under more than one agreement (though that is less likely where the work and conditions are fairly homogenous).

So does anyone know what the makeup of the bargaining unit/s will be?

A friend of a friend who works at Magna said that the discussion in her plant centred on locals to consist of five plants each. I had taken that to mean that each local would form a bargaining unit. However on this site I have read that all of Magna may be administered under a single local. Will all be under the same agreement then I wonder?

If the units are smaller, that would make the possibility of decertification somewhat more likely. On the other hand though, if there is more than one Magna local in a bargaining unit, that adds another layer of complexity to the possibility of ever getting together to decertify the bargaining agent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

So does anyone know what the makeup of the bargaining unit/s will be?

---

That's a great question, and just one of the as-yet unanswered mysteries of this deal.

My understanding (though I haven't got all the docs in front of me) was that the deal was based on "voluntary recognition", which is generally provided by Labour Codes as an alternative to formal certification. If that is right, then the bargaining unit is whatever the two parties agree on.

If, however, anyone starts signing cards and approaches the Board with a real certification application, the Board will make its own independent and binding determination as to what the appropriate bargaining unit should be. In Nova Scotia, the government infamously passed the "Michelin Act", requiring a majority vote in all Michelin plants, as a transparent trick to defeat several consecutive CAW organizing attempts. I think that multi-plant certifications (bargaining units) are the exception, not the rule. In auto, for example (and someone who knows please correct or confirm), I always thought each of GM's plants were separately certified, but I'm not sure.

So your question is very much to the point. But regardless of how Frank and Buzz structure it, the Board would have the final say.

quote:

---

Either way though, I think this brings me back to my concern about CAW taking full union dues from these workers when on the available information, their best opportunity for a functioning union will be the faint hope of, um, decertification.

---

He said he'd be around to talk to me about it today, but didn't get a chance.

I'm dying to know what could possibly have turned him around, and if, whatever it was, could change my mind.

quote:

---

Funny how none of these article mention the vaunted wage increases only moves them from 12 to 15 an hour. This is still at least 3 dollars an hour behind the standard union rate for parts workers.
Its still a race to the bottom and some of these comments like "who cares about strikes and grievances" sound downright CLACish.

A union should be a lot more than an alternate management HR company.

---

quote:

---

By the way under the new UAW deal just signed with the big three new hires will only be makeing 14 dokllars an hour.

---

Yes, but lets compare apples to apples.

In the CBC interview/discussion Charlotte Yates respectfuly but firmly suggested that auto industry employers in general will be coming to the CAW expecting to get no-strike provisions and the defanging of the shop steward system.

Buzz answered, more than once: no, the employers will be coming looking for the UAW two tier wage concession.

At a minimum this is a tacit admission that the CAW has put in a rung on the race to the bottom. Buzz is just saying that the UAW, not the CAW has offered employers the very bottom.

As to the apples to apples about the point made in the quote above: comparing wage effects in CAW concessions versus UAW concessions is only part of the story- and left on it's own, it's misleading.

And I question very much whether employers would choose the UAW concessions over the CAW concessions.

Think about it. What proportion of employees in the near term are new hires? So the savings start very modest and build slowly.

Or employers put pressure on the CAW to get pieces of the Magna agreement that will allow them to roll back management of production to the days when they did not have to worry about input from the union on the production floor.

There is an immediate payback that goes with the CAW concession option. AND, it is much more permanent... while two tier and other wage only concessions have always been removed by unions within not many years. [While it is possible that the CAW and UAW will be in a severely weakened bargaining position indefinitely, employers don't count on that. Hence, the CAW pattern of concessions- a la Magna- offer a more permanent insitutional advantage to employers.]

=========

Highly unlikey that even in the worst case scenario the Magna deal will as a pattern- even pieces of it- appear in current negotiations with the Big Three.

But that's only because things don't change that fast. [Unionized parts manufacturers first.]

When the Magna pattern does rear its ugly head at the Big Three negotiations watch Hargrove's sales rhetoric shift. Then he will be calling it the future for the Canadian auto industry.

The only question is whether he will still be the CAW Prez, or will be pitch man for saving all of Canadian manufacturing.

[ 13 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Magna workers across Ontario are not likely to reap the same $3-per-hour wage boost that they got in Windsor last week when they ratified their first CAW contract, a senior union official says.

That Windsor raise was a bit of a fluke because Magna workers in other cities earn more due to living in tighter labour markets with lower unemployment rates.

Some industry experts and observers were shocked last week when the 250 employees of Windsor Modules, a division of Magna Closures, won the raise along with joining the CAW as the first local to take advantage of founder Frank Stronach's deal with the union.

"I thought (Magna) said the deal wouldn't make any material difference" to the way the company operates, said Tony Faria, the University of Windsor prof and auto analyst.

"But $3 an hour is a big difference" when applied to 18,000 hourly workers in 45 plants, Faria said. That would add up to additional costs of more than $400,000 per day at a time when margins in the parts industry are slim to non-existent.

But most Magna workers are already earning substantially more money than the $12 per hour the Windsor unit was being paid, according to Keith Osborne, plant chairman for CAW Local 222's General Motors Oshawa unit.

The $15 they will now earn will still leave them below what most other Magna workers earn, he said.

---

Call me cynical but I don't believe Stronach and the Magna management raise wages by $3 an hour out of good will. And it's hard to argue that the CAW forced them to. So, what's in it for them?

My own theory is that both Magna and CAW agreed they needed a good news story to seal the deal.

Interestingly, Magna has not commented on the new contract at all that I can see. In fact, the only reference that I can find to any official Magna comment is this notice to Shareholders where the board comments approvingly of Stronach's work on the Framework. It's signed by Mike Harris who now sits on Magna's board, among others.

[ 13 November 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

========

In other words, its very likely that the $3/hour these workers got, they were likely to have got with or without the CAW.

Magna has never been a copmpany to single mindedly pursue paying the lowest wages possible. Rather, they pay as much as they have to to keep the overall situation as they built it and mean to keep it.

This is not unusual. Michelin has done it in Nova Scotia forever. Michelin does not even have to worry about what wages are paid at other manufacturing jobs [there are none], let alone about unions [see unionist's note about the banana republic Michelin Bill].

When this new Windsor Modules contract came up in the interview, Buzz pointed out that wages are lowest in logistics parts plants. That would tend to imply that the CAW and the new contract got the workers the $3 boost.

But I'll bet it's highly likely that the plant is either fairly new or in some other way was establishing a competitive position for its products. And the plant having recently estblished that... even in today's climate, those plant workers were due for some of the typical calculated generosity from Magna anyway.

=====
Edited To Add also:

I agree with Mercy that the contract may have been sweetened for some good news.

But I'm guessing that Frank and Buzz won't be stretching that far. And Buzz knew that the unusually low wages at the plant was going to come up.

I think it's more likely that the Magna folks saw this wage increase as something in the works anyway, and suggested it to the CAW as a good first new 'contract'.

[ 13 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

I know that the CAW can sign that new small Windsor contract, and any other one off arrangement. Presuming the workers vote for it, those parts of the framework that could apply to a single plant would also be part of the contract. [The parts applying to the one big Magna local could come into play later when and if that becomes certified and bargained.]

For some reason this topic, and others on this forum, load very slowly for me and are prone to crashing before they finish. Even when there are not many posts in the thread yet.

That doesn't happen with threads on other forums- no matter how big they are.

Nor do I have a problem posting a reply... which was a trouble spot before I did some opgrading to help the dial-up connection.

The problem is in simply pulling up the thread- whether I click on it from the forum page, or cut and paste the link directly.

[ 13 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Hargrove and Charlotte Yeats on CBC Radio with Enright starting 9:15 your local time [or streamed off net later times]. Most of the hour.

---

Here is an excerpt I taped from the interview between Enright, Buzz Hargrove, and Professor Yates myself:

Recording Excerpt

[ 13 November 2007: Message edited by: Brendan Stone ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
But if the National Council were to vote against the Framework, would that just mean that it was left stillborn?

---

I don't know what they'll be voting on (do they print that in advance??), but I believe (without source references handy) that the CAW Council has no actual binding authority either on Hargrove or on any local. It's a parallel body, a talk shop really. The hierarchy in the CAW constitution is:

Local Union
National Executive Board
Convention

That if so, it will still be a very big deal if Council doesn't like it. [Leaving aside how likely a strong No vote is given that much of the Council is non-manufacturing... many of those people probably with a good deal of gratitude for being organized, period.]

Not inflamatory or long winded- just enough said to get people thinking and hopefully to come talk, or at least come to the meeting.

The problem with Adam's article run in Straight Goods is that it talks only about the right to strike.

It's easy to be even handed when you don't mention abandoning the shop steward system and dispute resolution that isn't just petitioning for goodwill.

So what are the selling points of abandoning all of that?

I'll tell you what the de facto consequence of silence will be.

Workers will accept that a system of justice with teeth was nice, "but it cost too much."

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Tommy - we await with bated breath - do share when you find out!

---

You know, I thought he was busy and hasn't had a chance to get around to me yet... but you know, I saw the beggar walk past my work station today, and he did naught but wave.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

The problem with Adam's article run in Straight Goods is that it talks only about the right to strike.

---

Agreed. The right to strike gets "abandoned" every time you sign a collective agreement, and some unions do long-term agreements - like the gravediggers at Notre-Dame-des-Neiges who were locked out in May and who finally ratified a couple days ago. Their contract runs until (wait for it...) 2018!!!

And if workers ever get pissed off, they will fight - contract or no contract, "framework for fairness" or not.

On a different note, Roy Adams claims in his piece that the new Magna bargaining unit will be certified under the OLRA. Maybe he knows something I don't but the Framework for Fairness states:

quote:

---

The parties waive their right to file an application or complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “OLRB”) in response to a request for recognition. p 22

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:

On a different note, Roy Adams claims in his piece that the new Magna bargaining unit will be certified under the OLRA. Maybe he knows something I don't but the Framework for Fairness states: Am I missing something? Or does Adams not know what he's talking about?

---

I read that bit in the agreement as saying that union and company agree not to use the OLRB to dispute that vote. I don't read it as a general statement about certifying or not. [Which it cannot legaly be.]

What Adams said was:

quote:

---

In the Magna deal, despite Salutin's speculations, the CAW will be certified under the Ontario Labour Relations Act and thus Stronach will not be able to pull the plug on a whim.

---

I think he's just stating the obvious- the new arrangement will and must be certified via the CAW being certified- to counter some presumably baseless speculation by Salutin.

IE, once Magna has let the union in Stronach can't simply change his mind and say 'not doing this anymore'. The law simply does not allow that. [Big deal.]

ETA: I thought that voluntary recognition is a form of certification- or that under the OLRA they are equal forms of recognition under the OLRA. While I [and Adams] may well have that muddled, his point is that this becomes an animal Stronach cannot just walk away from.

[ 15 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

But the ability of workers to have representatives untainted by any link to management is decisive - and that's the aspect of the Magna deal (aside from the nauseating partnership rhetoric) which I'm still puzzled about. If anyone has a very clear notion of how this works, I'd appreciate an explanation.

---

There is a flow chart / organizational diagram for the "Concern Resolution Process" on p.20 of the FFA that Mercy linked.

You have to read the few pages in the body that deal with those institutions to know what any of it means.

Near the top of this thread Mercy did review how tainted is the selection of the Employee Advocate, but did not adress the overall process.

The overall process imports the existing Magna HR institutions lock, stock and barrel; with the layering on of two additions of the EA and the Employee Relations Review Committee [ERRC].

First of all, it is a workers burden and risk to insist that the "concern" move outside and beyond those existing Magna institutions.

When you do so the EA is your union rep in the process. [The EA for the whole plant, who you did not elect and was chosen jointly by management and the top CAW officials who work with Magna.]

And where the "concern" in question lands is that ERRC- which is again joint management and union, the union people's job is to work with Magna and make it productive, and this body of 6 exists for the whole giant Magna "Local".

I'd say calling it fundamentally tainted and rigged is an understatement.

Let alone a comparison of scope and coverage. After taking your beef to the useless and fully tainted Magna Fairness Committee for the whole plant, you have the [tainted] Employee Advocate for the whole plant.

[And the agreement explicitly prohibits a Fairness Comm member from your workplace from pursuing the matter on work time without permisssion from the Supervisor.]

Compare that to Stewards throughout the plant and a Grievance Committee.

[ 15 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

The overall process imports the existing Magna HR institutions lock, stock and barrel; with the layering on of two additions of the EA and the Employee Relations Review Committee [ERRC].

First of all, it is a workers burden and risk to insist that the "concern" move outside and beyond those existing Magna institutions.

When you do so the EA is your union rep in the process. [The EA for the whole plant, who you did not elect and was chosen jointly by management and the top CAW officials who work with Magna.]

And where the "concern" in question lands is that ERRC- which is again joint management and union, the union people's job is to work with Magna and make it productive, and this body of 6 exists for the whole giant Magna "Local".

I'd say calling it fundamentally tainted and rigged is an understatement.

---

EXACTLY.

Framework for Impotence.

Framework for Cynicism.

[ 16 November 2007: Message edited by: co-worker ]

[ 16 November 2007: Message edited by: co-worker ]

[ 16 November 2007: Message edited by: co-worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
When you do so the EA is your union rep in the process. [The EA for the whole plant, who you did not elect and was chosen jointly by management and the top CAW officials who work with Magna.]

---

That's the part I'd like to focus on - humour me, I don't have time to read all the verbiage in that "agreement". Leave aside for a moment the fact that the EA must be approved by Buzz's Assistant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
I thought that voluntary recognition is a form of certification- or that under the OLRA they are equal forms of recognition under the OLRA. While I [and Adams] may well have that muddled, his point is that this becomes an animal Stronach cannot just walk away from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
What exact input does management have in choosing the EAs (other than confirming they have 3 years' of service)? Is there a simple reference to this in the docs?

---

But as I noted above before you become an "Employee Advocate" (EA) you have to be short-listed by the "Fairness Committee" (FC).

The FC is composed of representatives elected by bargaining unit members, and reps selected by management.

The Framework states "non-managerial members will constitute at least 50 percent plus one of the members of the Fairness Committee". However, it's not clear to me whether that ensures that elected union reps will even have a majority. The document also hints that the Fairness Committee will have a tri-partite structure with three facilitators: "Each FC shall select 1 facilitator from its bargaining unit members, 1 facilitator from its non-bargaining unit members, and 1 facilitator from its management members". It seems to me entirely possible that you could fulfill the requirements of the Framework and still not have a union rep majority on the Fairness Committee. I'll note that in other docs the CAW insists workers reps will have a majority so I may be barking up the wrong tree.

Regardless management has a large minority voice. Furthermore, it has other opportunities to influence union reps on the FC: union reps must have "good discilplinary records" before they can run; union reps can be removed from the FC by the (half-management) Employee Relations Review Committee for not living up to the FC guidelines; etc.

Bottom line: management gets a healthy say in who your shop steward is.

[ 16 November 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

Employee Advocate has a short but important paragraph on page 10 of the doc, and then elaboration in the appendix at p18.

People apply to be the EA. A panel composed of Fairness Committee members interviews the applicants, and short lists three of them. The Assistant to the CAW Pres makes the final selection from among the three.

The Fairness Committees are themselves composed of equal numbers of appointees from management and workers elected from the various shifts and divisions.

It needs to be noted that these Fairness Committees already exist. When a plant comes under the agreement, new Fairness Committee members will be elected. But guess who they will be [with normal turnover]? It is explicit that they do not represent the CAW.

It is also virtually guaranteed that the EA for a plant will be someone who is or has been an experienced Fairness Committee member. In other words, someone whose training and background is in the Magna Human Resources system.

It should also be noted that if a worker decides to go outside the existing “Concern Resolution” process your union rep is the EA. From the Agreement: “For clarity, the role of the EA is one of facilitator, assisting an employee in getting their concern resolved.”

The EA is NOT your advocate. Workers have no advocates in this process.

The EA is the one person in the whole plant who reports to the CAW, and she is limited to facilitating you through the process- not mandated to fight on your behalf.

quote:

---

The Framework states "non-managerial members will constitute at least 50 percent plus one of the members of the Fairness Committee". However, it's not clear to me whether that ensures that elected union reps will even have a majority.

---

Correction. There are no union reps period in the Fairness Committee. The FC members are just Magna employees, as they are now. Even the CAW talking points don't claim they are union reps [altho they may have meant to imply that]. And Magna already has them at the "50% plus one" majority.

And its important that these Fairness Committees already exist as part of the Magna HR system.

In fact, the only thing that is changing at all is that these existing unreconstructed Fairness Committees are the ones who nominate the short list for the Employee Advocate selection.

quote:

---

Regardless management has a large minority voice...

Bottom line: management gets a healthy say in who your shop steward is.

---

I would agree with Mercy that even if management votes were formally a minority, their material influence structures the whole system. But they aren't even a minority. Top to bottom, everything is equal numbers: both the existing Magna institutions and the layer added by the agreement with the CAW.

And I think the Employee Advocate is most comparable to a Plant Chairperson. Definitely not a Shop Steward. Not only do stewards not exist, nothing comparable exists- not even a compromised 'something'.

As I pointed out above- the Employee Advocate is the only person in the plant who reports to the CAW. All the institutions she works in are joint employee-management or union-management bodies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
The Fairness Committees are themselves composed of equal numbers of appointees from management and workers elected from the various shifts and divisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
The FC is composed of representatives elected by bargaining unit members, and reps selected by management.

The Framework states "non-managerial members will constitute at least 50 percent plus one of the members of the Fairness Committee". However, it's not clear to me whether that ensures that elected union reps will even have a majority.

---

KenS and Mercy, please compare the above and you'll see perhaps why I still don't understand. If the employee members on the Fairness Committee (yuck) are elected by bargaining unit members; and if they are guaranteed 50%+1 representation; then it would appear that elected reps have complete control over who the EAs will be (subject to the BS about good discipline and 3 years service).

Two possible hiccups: 1) The elected reps don't maintain a united front; 2) are there "non-managerial" employees who are non-union? Seems hard to believe, but I find all of this language so murky that I'd believe anything until it's clarified.

quote:

---

Originall posted by KenS:
In my experience you've been the one thats the careful reader of documents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Correction. There are no union reps period in the Fairness Committee. The FC members are just Magna employees, as they are now. Even the CAW talking points don't claim they are union reps [altho they may have meant to imply that]. And Magna already has them at the "50% plus one" majority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Tommy - we await with bated breath - do share when you find out!

---

Well, I was actually able to button hole my friend near the end of the shift today.

He said Buzz's sell job was what I've heard before ( we already represent nurses who don't have the right to strike) and the only other tid bit that I haven't heard is that we are supposed to like this because the individual managers at Magna hate it.

I gave him my responses to that codswallop, and he didn't have anything but nodding agreement. I think people in the leadership who may think this is wrong are just resigned to it.

I don't know anyone from the rank and file who, informed of the details we here are aware of, who thinks this is anything but lunacy. Maybe I just happened to stumble onto the those few? Or are they representative of the greater rank and file?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Well hang on - are they elected by the union members or not?

---

I think the best case scenario is that management has the power to seriously stimy a worker's chance of becoming an "employee advocate".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:

To be honest I'm as concerned about the hand-picking of all Employee Advocates by the CAW President.

---

Yeah, I agree with that. If that were the criterion in my union, I never would have been elected dogcatcher. In fact, it's not even the CAW president - it's the "Assistant" to the president - and those I believe are entirely non-elected positions in the CAW (like Hemi Mitic, who negotiated this FFF, or like Peggy Nash before her election to Parliament).

There seems to be a code here, that "oh, we top people in the company and union understand each other, we can vet the radicals out". If that's not what it is, then why not trust the workers to have the final say?

I've seen many different union structures, which is why I'm not quick to shout "democracy". I was part of an international union whose shop stewards were all appointed by the local union executive. I never remember a case where the workers' choice was weeded out because of that system, but it could happen.

I was never a "yes man" in my union. If the union treated us like crap, we conspired and rebelled. The rules and structures took second place. But that doesn't mean we should underestimate the institutionalization of the control mechanisms. That's what the Magna deal appears to do (though I still would like some clear answers as per above...). Is it justified in order to increase "union density" in that sector - to get a "foot in the door"? Is it just a prelude to foot amputation?

"While some Fairness Committee members are also members of the Union, they are not union representatives nor does their role include the representation of employees." [10]

I hope no one thinks this is just words. In the first place, although the FFA doesn’t state it [it wouldn’t look good], the Fairness Committees already exist as Magna HR institutions. It has always been very explicit that the FC members do not represent employees- not even the ones who they work with.

It has always been explicit- the FC's are not only meant not to be ‘like’ a shop steward system. They are designed to be the antithesis of shop steward representation, or anything like it.

The FFA explicitly guarantees nothing is going to change under the agreement with the CAW- hence the language quoted above. [And remember this isn’t Magna talking. The CAW signed onto this.]

The 50% plus one majority of FC members that are non-management are composed, as they always have been, of ALL employees. There is no reference in particular to bargaining unit employees because in this institutional framework they don’t exist as a category, period.

The bargaining unit “covers only production, maintenance, and skilled trades employees.” [14] So do the math- in a typical plant X% of non-management and supervisor employees would be in the bargaining unit.

So the bargaining unit employees do not come close to even a nominal majority of the FCs.

To boot, it isn’t just the math: not only are FC members who are bargaining unit members not recognized as union reps, they aren’t even recognized as bargaining unit employees, nor do they actually represent anyone.

And who trains the FC members? Magna, and Magna only.

I’m sure that training will change to reflect the CAW’s presence. But it isn’t CAW training- the CAW doesn't even have a role in the training.

And when it comes to “Concern Resolution”- ie someone with a beef- the FCs don’t even have any specific powers or roles. The FC as a whole, and its members individuals, are facilitators who help steer things – in this case into the various Magna management run formalized concern resolution processes.

[ 16 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

If the employee members on the Fairness Committee (yuck) are elected by bargaining unit members; and if they are guaranteed 50%+1 representation; then it would appear that elected reps have complete control over who the EAs will be (subject to the BS about good discipline and 3 years service).

Two possible hiccups: 1) The elected reps don't maintain a united front; 2) are there "non-managerial" employees who are non-union? Seems hard to believe, but I find all of this language so murky that I'd believe anything until it's clarified.

---

Mercy outlined a number of non-production and non bargaining unit employees. And I clarified above that they are part of that 50%+1 portion that nominally make up a majority of members of the Fairness Committees.

So bargaining unit employees cannot be even a potential majority on the Fairness Committees. And even as a bloc of any numbers they are the polar opposite of potentially being a united front. They are not recognized as bargaining unit reps, let alone union reps. In fact, the FCs are designed to obliterate that distinction... which is easily done since they were designed to do that before the CAW came along.

As noted above Magna will continue to do the training of the FC members. And these company trained cadre will choose from among themselves who is elligible to be the Employee Advocate... who is the only person in the whole plant who represents the CAW.

This is absolutely the opposite of what happened at CAMI- where the CAW trained the shop steward cadre.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

Mercy outlined a number of non-production and non bargaining unit employees. And I clarified above that they are part of that 50%+1 portion that nominally make up a majority of members of the Fairness Committees.

---

No Mercy did not - Mercy speculated:

quote:

---

It's certainly not clear to me. If bargaining unit members are the only ones who get to vote for the employee reps then "yes" if, however, non-bargaining unit members (for example: people in different bargaining units, people in the human resources department, low-level managers) get to vote along with bargaining unit members then the answer is "sort of". It's hard to say.

---

None of us know whether there are any non-union, non-managerial employees. Don't quote Mercy as an authority when Mercy is just asking the question. I'm asking the question too, and clearly at this point, none of us know the answer.

quote:

---

So bargaining unit employees cannot be even a potential majority on the Fairness Committees.

---

See how you arrived at that conclusion, without real evidence?

Irrespective of the actual composition of the "Fairness Committee", it will be the National Office that will ensure a suitably compliant "leadership" always remains in place.

quote:

---

The Fairness Committee (FC) will consist of:

a) Members selected by employees from each department or work area, and shift; and

b) Members appointed by plant management, including managers or supervisors. (10)

---

Group a)- the ones who compose the 50%+1 majority are who we are talking about. Specifically, who is in that group.

There is not anywhere an explicit answer to that. The section is clearly not written well.

But there are a few statements consistent only with ALL employees except direct managers and supervisors- not at all just bargaining unit employees- make up that group in the Fairness Committees.

Before I quote those consider the fact that the FCs pre-existed the agreement. Does it make any sense at all in the corporatist model that Magna HR is, that FCs would only be for the people that are now covered by the bargaining unit... that the FCs were for production and maintenance workers only?

And I know for a fact they include all employees, but I'm not going to go dig in Magna's literature to prove that.

That said, here are the oblique references to who is included as an employee. [Leaving aside my wondering why we should quibble about who is an employee. Everyone is an employee- and only managers and supervisors are and always have been excluded.]

"There shall, where feasible, be one FC member for each department or work area and shift." [16]

Didn't say anything about only production and maintenace 'departments' / areas. And we all know what 'departments' referrs to in the overwhelming majority of cases, not people in the Magna bargaining unit.

"Each FC shall select 1 facilitator from its bargaining unit members, 1 facilitator from its non-bargaining
unit members, and 1 facilitator from its management members." [16]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
But note the reference to bargaining unit [employee] members, and non bargaining unit [employee] members who are not managers or supervisors. So regardless of the fact we don't know why this bit is in there- we know there are the two types of employee members in the FCs.

---

You're right - that reference is quite clear.

quote:

---

I think we should not entirely exclude the possibility that the actual CAW representatives (whoever they are) that agreed to all this language are brain dead.

---

I'm always reluctant to impute why people did things that I strongly object to. But I think the question has a material bearing here.

Here's why I say not brain dead, and that the willingness is worrying.

For the whole in-plant labour relations structure other than negotiating wages and benefits there was no negotiation with Magna.

It's pretty clear that for Magna it was to be their in-plant labour relations structure. Period. No negotiation.

Anything else would be entirely inconsistent for Magna. They just wouldn't do it.

Negotiation was only around the collective bargaining structure, when and how the arbitration works, and the very long shot possibility the CAW negotiated for ever being able to achieve a conventional bargaing structure [the exit door from the present structure the CAW doesn't even bother claiming as a selling point because it is so remote].

All that was done to change the in-plant Magna labour relations structure was the minimum required to 'blend' the CAW into it.

Absolutely no disruption to the Magna structure and essentially zero impact.

I'm sure it was take it or walk away from Magna on that file. Period.

I think Buzz and the CAW staff knew full well what they were agreeing to.

Where 'brain dead'- or willful delusion- might come in is that they might actually have believed that they could keep this from spreading- first to other parts plants, and then to the heart of auto manufacturing.

But I personally would not put it past Buzz having decided this is going to be the way to go- everywhere. Nonetheless, I'd rate that as pointless speculation.

The no strike agreement and it’s implications get lots of airing, but what about the in-plant labour relations structure?

People hear that the shop steward system is gone, as is the grievance process as they know it. Everyone knows this is not a good thing, but what exactly does it mean?

What replaces it? Maybe what we get from the shop stewards and the grievance process is still attainable in the new structures? I have heard Buzz Hargrove imply so about the grievance process, and the CAW talking points emphasise that the in-plant committees are composed of a majority of “worker representatives”.

That seems to leave even some CAW members who smell a rat, reserving judgment somewhat because they don’t understand and cannot explain the new labour relations structure; and because they are giving the national leadership some benefit of the doubt on this score. “Maybe it’s not as bad as it looks” is a common refrain.

If anything, a fair assessment of what has been agreed to for a special Magna labour relations system is worse and more unequivocal than the effects of the no strike agreements. This system removes any independent power for the CAW and it’s members, and it is designed to do so permanently.

Furthermore, the Magna labour relations model that the CAW has accepted provides a new template for major concession demands from other employers- first in parts, then in auto manufacturing and beyond.

The CAW national leadership likes to call this the foot in the door. But the foot is the corporatist model of labour relations with powerless unions; and the door is the whole auto industry, and beyond.

Here are the main points of how the Magna labour relations system works. The CAW has accepted that system unchanged except for integration of the union around the edges. The system was designed to keep unions out of Magna, but with the minor tweaking in the Framework for Fairness Agreement it serves very well for keeping the union from ever being an independent voice for workers.

** The Fairness Committees are the in-plant structures where employee representatives make up the 50%+1 majority the CAW national leadership likes to point to. What they seem quite willing to leave obscured is that is composed of ALL employees who are not managers or supervisors. So bargaining unit members do not form anything close to a majority. And should Magna ever feel the need, in any plant they can freely increase the number of small non-bargaining unit departments who send members to the plant Fairness Committees.

** Not only are the numbers stacked and fluid. But the CAW has agreed and accepted the guiding principles that Fairness Committee members who happen to be members of the bargaining unit do NOT represent the CAW there; and the Magna principle that the members are not there to represent ANY employees, even their co-workers from whom they were selected.

** As it always has, Magna will solely provide the training for Fairness Committee members.

** In each plant, the only person who will represent and report to the CAW is the Employee Advocate. The Magna Fairness Committees produce a short list of three nominees for this person, and the CAW Assistant to the President selects from them. These EAs, with Natonal Union reps, will make up the Executive for the company wide Magna ‘Local’.

** The dispute resolution process- called “Concern Resolution”- agreed to by the CAW is the same one that Magna has always had. The only change is that a worker MAY take the “concern” outside that process, represented by the Employee Advocate, to new joint union-management bodies and ultimately to arbitration. There are enormous personal disincentives for a bargaining unit member to exercise this option, no serious institutional support from the union, and institutional disincentives for the CAW to exercise this option more than very sparingly.

[ 17 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

The Canadian Auto Workers union didn't have to give up the right to strike at a Magna International Inc. plant in Windsor under a controversial new labour agreement, critics charged yesterday.

They said the union had already won bargaining recognition and the strike right at Magna's Windsor Modules in May, and didn't need to wait for last month's "Framework of Fairness" agreement that eliminated it.

"If I was in that unit and realized I had it and then it was taken away, I'd be exploding," said Keith Osborne, plant chair at CAW Local 222 in Oshawa...

In Windsor, a senior Local 444 official said in a union newsletter that negotiators submitted bargaining proposals in May but Magna "clearly stated that this was not the direction that they wanted to travel."

"They (Magna) talked about a document being crafted in Toronto that is a `Framework to Fairness,'" Local 444 vice-president Tom Lesperance added in the newsletter. "They have also told us that they expect a no-strike clause for all their plants."

Jim Reid, first vice-president of CAW Local 27 in London, said it is clear the union had recognition and the corresponding strike right because it had submitted proposals to management.

"They would have had the right to strike and could have leveraged that to get higher wages than they did and also get a democratically elected stewards body, which they don't have now," he noted.

"I also think it's unethical for the union to hold up this group for five months so they could fall under the `Framework of Fairness.'"

---

quote:

---

1. During negotiations, the parties discussed their mutual desire to have the National Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Framework of Fairness Agreement (the “Agreements”) form the framework of their relationship and set out the terms and conditions of employment for employees at divisions that are currently represented by the CAW. In this respect, the parties agreed to implement the terms of the Agreements at such facilities upon expiry of their existing collective agreements. The parties commit to fully support this strategy and to recommend for
ratification, renewal agreements containing the relevant terms of the Agreements.

---

quote:

---

The parties also discussed the possibility of the Company acquiring new facilities that have
existing collective bargaining agreements. In such circumstances, the parties will negotiate in
good faith on the basis of implementing the applicable terms of the Agreements as outlined in
paragraph 1, above.

---

Not only that, but if Magna aquires a plant that already has a union the CAW's already agreed to give up the right to strike in the next round of bargaining. Given that Magna was looking to buy Chrysler not too long ago that's pretty significant. And not just for CAW members - what if Magna aquires an operations organized by another union?

[ 17 November 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

So, workers at the existing CAW-organized Magna plants WILL be losing something. In fact the CAW's already agreed to bring them into the "Framework" in the next round of bargaining - which means no right to strike, no stewards, no grievances, etc (not sure how they'll accomplish this).

---

quote:

---

The parties commit to fully support this strategy and to recommend for
ratification, renewal agreements containing the relevant terms of the Agreements.

---

quote:

---

Not only that, but if Magna aquires a plant that already has a union the CAW's already agreed to give up the right to strike in the next round of bargaining. Given that Magna was looking to buy Chrysler not too long ago that's pretty significant. And not just for CAW members - what if Magna aquires an operations organized by another union?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
I work at Chrysler we asked these questions and Ken Lewenza and Buzz has stated no one is forced into this and no already established unionized workplaces will be subject to this deal if Magna purchases them .

---

Then why is Hemi Mitic's name on a document that says the CAW "agreed to implement the terms of the ["Framework for Fairness"] Agreements at such facilities upon expiry of their existing collective agreements"?

Newsflash: the "Agreements" are the ones that state you don't have the right to strike, you don't have shop stewards, you don't get to file grievances, etc etc etc

Read the black and white.

I understand that workers at the plant get to vote the contract up or down but the CAW leadership has already agreed that these things should be surrendered. So any worker who wants to fight for these things will be fighting management and their so-called "leaders".

So if Buzz told you that no one is "forced into this" he's technically telling the truth - but he will be spending your dues money to convince you to give up your rights.

quote:

---

Rather than being the result of the Fairness agreement, the FFA seems to have been a barrier to an earlier resolution of the collective bargaining relationship. The lesson, it seems, is quite the opposite of what the union has presented. Unionization here was quite ‘traditional.’ It was based on a) the pressures from the local to get de facto recognition and raise standards in the outsourced work; and b) the positive response from Magna workers being paid outrageously low wages...

The recent announcement bringing in new Magna members with a first contract that included an apparently large wage increase and much of what is standard in CAW agreements, did ease opposition to the FFA and restore faith among those who were wavering in their support of this new direction. Now, however, it seems that the announcement was both misleading in regards to how workers came to be CAW members, and was timed to co-opt momentum against the deal as the CAW Council approached.

---

quote:

---

I work at Chrysler we asked these questions and Ken Lewenza and Buzz has stated no one is forced into this and no already established unionized workplaces will be subject to this deal if Magna purchases them .

---

Like Mercy said, someone's not telling the whole truth. Though I would call it being deliberately misleading if that was the answer you got.

The FF Agreement with Magna says what happens in the "possibility of the Company acquiring new facilities that have existing collective bargaining agreements."

If they were talking about Magna buying a whole company, then there is no change: the old collective agreement still is in force. So that's not what the possiility they are talking about.

They are talking about Magna buying facilities [plants] only. This would be the case if for example they were buying a Chrysler parts plant, or if they were buying an assembly plant.

In either case, obviously Magna is going to be building parts or cars that will now be sold to the original owners.

But that's still buying a 'facility'- not a company. So in this case the existing collective agreement is gone.

This is the possibility the Agreement with Magna is referring to. It could include as a more than hypothetical possibility the plant you work in.

So if Magna buys an existing facility where there is a collective agreemnet, that agreement is gone. Technically, the workers in that plant doen't have rights to the jobs, but Magna is going to hire them.

The Agreement that the CAW signed with Magna requires that in this possibility the union negotiate the precise details of how to bring the plant into the Framework for Fairness Agreement, with all that means. Whether or not to bring the FFA principles in is not negotiable- the CAW has signed a commitment to that.

So it is literally not true that "no already established unionized workplaces will be subject to this deal if Magna purchases them." The CAW is contractualy obligated to the opposite of that.

Now you could say that the workers in this case 'will not be forced into it'. They will have the option to vote the first contract down. But it will not be the new first contract versus the old contract. The old contract will be gone, and the choice will be the new FFA contract, or no contract.

As the old saying goes, we all have an equal right to sleep under bridges.

====

In that scenario there would be nothing to stop another union from seeking to organize the plant: getting workers to sign cards on the basis that they will demand the old collective agreement in first contract negotiations with Magna.

And I don't think that is only a hypothetical possibility. We can all see at least one obvious candidate national union with the resources and the will and the bad blood with Buzz. With what Buzz has done now, and the many times in the past he has kicked sand in people's faces, I doubt many would call it raiding.

Whether or not this comes to pass- it's an illustration of the road the national leadership is taking the CAW down.

It ain't no garden path.

[ 18 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

If you work at an organized plant it is not so much whether Magna comes to you and whether the CAW is going to force the Framework for Failure on you...

Its whether your company is going in the not distant future to demand and extract from the CAW a collective agreement that is a cloned Son of Frankenfairness.

Pattern bargaining in reverse.

This could not have happened before the Frankenfairness Agreement monster was created and unleashed.

It's very likely a wet dream that has occured to many a company exec over the years. But even in todays climate, if it were brought to the CAW [or the UAW], it would be easy to reject.

I mean, how is the union supposed to fit into a corporatist labour management system? "We don't fit there."

That was then.

Now the CAW has cooked up for all of them exactly how it can work. Unless of course there is a rank and file revolt that effectively renders the FFA stillborn. That would be a good demonstration it can't work.

[ 18 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]