If you take away Buzz's rhetoric, the CAW's move away from the NDP to the Liberals follows a fairly predictable path from a social union approach to a business union approach to government relations. From a business unionism perspective, being linked to a party that never wins doesn't make a lot of sense. It's a bad investment.

I think simply getting rid of Hargrove might help matters since he was notorious for not being an honest broker.

quote:

---

Just out of curiosity, in how many of the 308 ridings does it matter what the CAW says or does?

---

You get some flavour of the answer[s] to this in the back and forth in that thread after Stephen Gordon asked the question.

What happens in the ridings where CAW members are numerous is pretty independent of what the national union or the local are explicitly endorsing.

I think the comments made about Oshawa Local 222 being Troy are pretty much out of date. But even when it was true, the NDP campaigns were filled with CAW members volunteering. Including when Sid Ryan is the candidate who has a much less than friendly relation with the CAW.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
What changes does the NDP need to make to get CAW support?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Sometimes it is. For example, government handouts to the Big Three help the CAW at the expense of everyone else.

---

If they give money to Toyota, which union do they help "at the expense of everyone else"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
If they give money to Toyota, which union do they help "at the expense of everyone else"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
If you believe government assistance to industry is always bad for "everyone else", say so.

---

Not always, but often enough for it to be a general rule of thumb in these sorts of things.

The most convincing argument for govt support are cases where industries are developing new technologies, and where these technologies will generate significant spillovers. Since those firms will be paying all the costs, but only getting part of the benefits, it makes sense for the govt to make sure that the firm benefits enough to stay in business.

But that's hardly the case for the automotive sector.

[ 18 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

But we all know that you're allergic to such ideas.

[ 18 July 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

We can say some things about the auto industry of the mid-21st century now. It will eventually be centered around a different technology - gasoline internal combustion engines out, something else or several something elses in. It will sell on average smaller and lighter models. It will probably also sell fewer cars than today in what's now the developed world and more in the developing world. It will continue to become more productive, with fewer worker-hours needed to build each vehicle.

There's a lot of new competition out there. Chinese and Indian cars are improving and one day soon will start to meet Western safety and environmental standards. That there's new technology involved in making cars go creates opportunities for new entrants that develop that technology. Perhaps GM won't be here in 20 years but Tesla Motors will.

Nobody subsidized the horse-carriage makers to keep making horse-carriages when GM and company came along, even if it was to help them apply the then latest technology to carriage making, and that's a good thing. The bad part is that nobody helped the horse-carriage workers and they had to deal with that change on their own.

• all this national debt
• a whack load of total indebtedness,
• low-low personal savings rates
• sky-high child poverty
• homelessness in the middle of an ocean of timber with which to build homes
• a hewer and drawer colonial style economy
• higher gasoline prices than the oil hounds themselves
• $130 billion dollar infrastructure deficit
• on the precipice of another phony-majority colonial-style dictatorship
• dropped even further out of the running for top ten most competitive economies

quote:

---

Nobody subsidized the horse-carriage makers to keep making horse-carriages when GM and company came along, even if it was to help them apply the then latest technology to carriage making, and that's a good thing. The bad part is that nobody helped the horse-carriage workers and they had to deal with that change on their own.

---

(edited) Doug, I misread part of your post above. So, I will clarify my answer below if need be. I read my original post, and it hasn't come across as well I would have liked. I apologise if it reads a little harsh or rough around the edges in advance.

Horseless carriage makers like many during the time of regular carriage production were skilled trades.

Skilled trades were used as required, and the goal of manufacturers was to De-skill them.

Nothing has changed, and that is the benefit of the technological gains.

THat is why there are technology clauses in most union agreements.

Trade Unionists identified and fought these battles over close to 1 hundred years ago.

However, if you think it is ok, as some other poster do, that the Auto Sector provides no technology, then I suggest all you all go back to school and get an education.

.....such bunk.

Relocating an operation takes the intellectual capital/property and processese from our juridiction and transfers them into another.

Governments who fund technology with no ties to productivity gains within this country or provinces are serving the needs of the companies foreign operations.

As for carriages, and horseless carriages, you will realize that there were many brands, which were purchased, and became part of the GM, Brand. Same for Ford and Chrysler etc.

Other countries subsidize their industry because it is good for their country. China is subsidizing their industry and benefiting from tremendous growth. Mexico and the southern US are doing the same. China also has a fixed currency designed to benefit exporting to the US.

What I see happening today is two potential governments (LPC/CPC) with a vision to drive the Japanese Manufacturers out of Canada, and displace them with Chinese and Korean Imports.

These imports could have the future brand names, not simply Hyundai and Kia, but GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

I see technology funds to develop hybrids, being used to displace our engineers and our technicians, as the money is used as a company slush fund and not for training.

The technology used to build anything in our country needs to be defended. Watching foreign companies purchase Canadian Technology and Knowledge, for the purpose of shutting down and relocating profitable Canadian ventures for more profitable CHinese, Korean, Mexican ventures, does nothing for us.

What's the point of our government giving money.... hundreds of millions to develop a hybrid car in a foreign country. That is a bad idea.

I believe NDP and CAW worked to have a hybrid built here.

Correct me if I am wrong. I am no CAW/NDP expert.

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: madmax ]

quote:

---

The company announced on June 30, 2008 that it will not build a manufacturing plant in New Mexico as originally planned. Instead, California was able to offer sufficient incentives to enable the manufacturing plant to be built in California. No other details were released at that time.

---

But then, we shouldn't be subsiziding