[ 10 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

"I think it's time for some raw shows of force," Georgetti continued. "What you're doing here is exactly what we need to do in the rest of this country. It's time to say enough."

---

quote:

---

Workers have been protesting GM's decision to close operations at the Oshawa plant, effectively laying off 2,600 workers. The decision to downsize production on high-fuel vehicles came as a surprise to workers as the auto giant failed to reveal their plan during union contract negotiations with the Canadian Auto Workers union just two weeks before.

---

I thought it was notable that even the mainstream media- and broadcast media at that- is at least at times treating GMs bad faith bargaining as a fact rather than "CAW alleges...". Good sign for generating public support.

quote:

---

The CAW has long said that Canada's trading practices are unfair as we sell vehicles manufactured in countries who do not sell Canadian-manufactured vehicles in theirs. Georgetti said this type of trading practice will only ensure more job cuts in the future.

---

Not a big deal... and even if it matters, not central to THIS struggle... but with those caveats in mind:

If this is just more or less something that motivates people, then its harmless. But its delusional, and given the number of people who seem to think it has some kind of practical bearing, sometimes I wonder if it is harmless.

This statement and similar ones made all the time by CAW folks are really directed at the Asian manufacturers. To the degree those manufacturers have partially protected home markets- loosening them is never going to lead to ANY North American assembled vehicles sold there.

And a similar dynamic for Latin America and Europe/Middle East/Africa. Even the Big Three do not and will not sell North American produced vehicles into global markets.

These statements are really code for rationalizing subsidies for the Big Three to compete HERE with the Asian transplants.

And there is a parallel pandering going on with talking about another look at Autopact.

There's nothing wrong with raising everything and putting it all on the table for discussion. But actually beleiving that there is any traction for bringing back Autopact is a distraction.

Leaving aside that Autopact is dead, IF NAFTA were ever to be fully reopened, Canada has no basis for rejigging auto trade agreements.

I must admitt this is not something I watch closely. But it sure looks like we've had an industry surplus with the US for so long, and no current changes make reversing that imminent. So rejigging auto industry agreements will leave us WORSE off than we are now.

ETA: Probably too cryptic, but the reason I brought this up is that to my mind this is a diversion from 'sticking to the knitting': which includes for example what the GM workers are doing in Oshawa, supporting that, the CAW strategizing how they will tackle GM, etc.

To the degree there also are going to be broader and longer looking discussions over what to do about the auto industry and manufacturing in general... the statements I'm taking issue with strike me as a distraction from moving us forward.

[ 08 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

First of all its 'we're fed up with the shit end of the stick.'

Then when the discussion moves to trying to get beyond putting out fires and reacting to crises... that is the time for discussing what has a chance of working and what is a distraction.

quote:

---

General Motors of Canada Ltd. said Monday it will act to end the blockade of its Oshawa, Ont., head office by employees angered over its announcement last week that it will cease production next year of pickup trucks at an assembly plant in that city.

The auto maker said it would seek “collaborative or such necessary legal means to end the ongoing blockade of its Canadian headquarters allowing the company to reasonably continue conducting its business in Canada.”

---

The article referrs to discussions between GM and CAW. Buzz isn't making them sound serious, but he wouldn't while the membership is organizing escalations. The membership would know if there are serious discussions, but the rest of us are not going to hear immediately.

An injunction is only going to free up GMs corporate headquarters, while disruptions that cannot be stopped by further injunctions ripple through operations.

Since both parties are operating outside the collective agreement [not that GM is publicly admitting that] they can hardly have a formal agreement to stand back while negotiations take place.

Unless GM refuses meaningful negotiation I think whet we will see is that they do not seek an injunction, while the CAW agrees to not dirupt production while talks take place. The blockade will go on and escalation will be organized that takes place if talks get nowhere.

I think there is probably quite a bit of room for negotiation. Right now the truck plant is working on rotating short layoffs. This means that GM is paying for every production hour all the normal costs, plus the full benefit package for anoter laid off worker and the supplemental EI top up for that worker. Thats got too add up to 70-80% above the normal hourly labor cost.

Not paying that is a pretty big temptation. Apparently big enough that GM agreed to pay it for another 3 years to get the CAW concessions, but had no intention of doing so.

May not look pretty from our side, but there is some pretty big field for negotiation. Where GM agrees to keep several hundred jobs going at the truck plant after next year [the jobs that are currently slated to go elsewhere], and the CAW agrees to drop the rotating layoffs. Not only does that save GM on immediate hourly costs, but it starts the clock ticking on a bunch of people for whom they will eventually pay no further benefits.

For the union that leaves a whole bunch of people out in the cold; but not the whole 2600 it is slated to be next year.

To mitigate the numbers that will be left out in the cold, the CAW will have the foot in the door for keeping the truck plant open permanently and even hiring some people back. Look to 'shelf agreement' in plant production concessions for that. Although I've never heard it mentioned, the truck plant is very efficient and could produce trucks for the Japanese companies. Chrysler already has an agreement to do that for Nissan in the US. Honda and Toyota do not have excess production capacity and their plants are flexible- so they are going to be switching to more cars anyway. If GM produces trucks for them it allows them to continue a sales cash cow they are going to lose otherwise. And the production would be a cash cow for GM to partially compensate for the hole that has suddenly appeared in their plans.

And then there is the Oshawa car plant. The CAW is obviously not going to accept any more soft promises from GM. But there is whatever possibility that GM has 'hard plans' for the car plant that can be bolstered by shelf aggreement production concessions from the union... with GMs promises fortified by some serious sanctions should they not deliver.

Summarised: further concessions to lower costs big time at the truck plant, and more tangible/enforceable production guarantees from GM to get as many laid off workers as possible back into one plant or the other.

I guess there is also the possibility of GM ponying up for some US style buyouts to take some of the pressure off. 5% of the number of voluntary buyouts they are doing in the US would take care of everyone that might end up out in the cold. GM pays those big bucks in the US to get those workers replaced by someone making half, which won't happen here. But you have to think smaller buyouts would still entice enough workers close to retirement.

[ 10 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

But the contract clauses also state that if market conditions change, “the CAW national union and the General Motors of Canada leadership will have advance discussions in conjunction with the anticipated business decision changes.”

It said the two sides would “explore other innovative alternatives” to try to mitigate any decisions.

The union was informed of the company's move last Monday morning, 24 hours before the production cutback was announced publicly.

---

So, while this is not a huge violation of the contract in it's own right.... it is a clear violation and will not impress an arbitrator as to the credibility of key GM claims that it was a very sudden change in sales picture- after the signing of the collective aggreement- that precipitated the layoffs.

This CTV article has a fair bit about what is going on in Oshawa, including plans for a big rally Thursday:

GM workers plan massive rally to protest closure

[ 10 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Here from the Detroit News is the best article I have seen on the business considerations of the comprehensive plant re-tooling from the production of trucks to producing cars. [As distinct from the typical situation in the Asian manufacturers newer and more flexible plants- where it is only the less comprehensive requirements of retooling
lines of production.]

So this has obvious parallels to what is feasible for the Oshawa truck plant.

Ford to retool truck plants to build cars. Costly move is prompted by consumer demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Some major differences here:

** what differences arise from the fact this is all about changes in the US. [Ford Canadian manufacturing is already about cars, and has solid prospects.]

** Ford has implicitly decided it can tough out the anticipated negative market opinion of investing such a big chunk of cash in this. And the risks. They already backtracked from saying the will soon turn a consistent profit. I have no idea how much GM could or would make a similar move.

** Ford already has fully developed the cars to produce in re-tooled plants. It makes all the difference in the world that GM is still working on those 'details'. So much so that it's not even clear they are soon in a position to fully utilize the Oshawa car plant that they have already re-tooled... let alone whether they are ready in the near future to risk throwing money [they only maybe have] into re-tooling a truck plant to produce cars that they are nowhere near proving.

And a related wet blanket that comes up in the article. Ford, not GM, is the leader in that shrinking market for trucks. So for the prospects of hanging on to production at Oshawa truck, on top of the higher Canadian labour costs GM is trying to weasel out of, and the radicaly shrinking market.... what will be left of the light truck market, GM is second fiddle to start with, plus Ford has already designed a much lighter truck...

Ford, Mexican production, and the compact cars Ford has ready for North American production were also touched on in the thread Gindin: CAW & Panic Bargaining

[ 11 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Yes truck production can be replaced with auto production.

Yes McGuinty handed over $235 Million to GM for Technological innovation.

quote:

---

I guess that means they'll seek an injunction?

---

You weren't surprised by this? I was surprised that someone was willing to comment that they wouldn't seek an injunction.

quote:

---

General Motors says police have refused to intervene in a high profile illegal union blockade at its Canadian headquarters in Oshawa ...

---

quote:

---

"It is not our intent to intercede between disputing parties and aggravate an ostensibly peaceful demonstration by creating a major breach of the peace," (police chief)Ewles said in the letter that GM includes in its application for an injunction.

"The ends simply do not justify the means."

---

quote:

---

GM requested a police presence later in the day so staff could enter and leave headquarters. A duty inspector indicated a police unit would be there the next day, but then Chief Ewles rejected the request, according to O'Neill.

Ewles said demonstrators would "have their time" and staff employees could gain access "thereafter."

---

This is *my* Durham Regional Police??? I guess we've come a ways since Premier Mitch Hepburn sent tanks to the streets of Oshawa quell strikers.

[ 12 June 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

The five stages of personal crisis. I can understand the frustration of being stabbed in the back and thrown out on the street - boy,do I ever - but frenzied picketing will create no response from the corporate tower.

I read an interview with the British actor, Rupert Everett where he said that the English public school system created graduates with calcified emotions that were the perfect model to furthur the Empire. There is a parallel in the corporate model where emotion and concern for the human condition are counterproductive and considered weakness.

So far,corporatism has mitigated opposition to its relentless drive to own all the debt and all the assets by allowing opposition dissent to fracture along the natural fissures of emotion driven entitlement.

More evidence who is winning the hearts and minds battle here. Flat out.

And not just in Oshawa and Durham.

As noted previously, the cant of media coverage is refreshingly the opposite the usual in such circumstances.

When GM gets their injunction that clears the way to the headquarters, big deal. I wouldn't be surprised if 222 prempts them and moves on to the next stage of the demonstrations. I'd love to see it all.

Something incredible is going on. I can't find one "ordinary" person who: (a) hasn't heard about the Oshawa story; and (b) doesn't sympathize with the workers. [Exception: one or two babblers, but that just shows how ecumenical we are.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Thanks for the report J D.

Something incredible is going on. I can't find one "ordinary" person who: (a) hasn't heard about the Oshawa story; and (b) doesn't sympathize with the workers. [Exception: one or two babblers, but that just shows how ecumenical we are.]

"Inspiring" is the word, all right. I wish I were there.

---

I have sympathy for the workers, having been thrown out on street more than once as a contractor, along with my employees and the rest of the workforce. Towns in BC are dying as all the town's industrial employers shut down and leave. Mackenzie has lost all its mills. Prince George just had its Canfor plywood mill burn down and a sawmill close. The pulp mills are still struggling along but the sawmill shutdowns and reduced timber harvest has reduced fibre supply and impacted their costs.

The pine beetle, high dollar and housing slump in the US will kill the interior forest industry and high costs/lower quality fibre has killed the coastal industry.

I suppose the buggy wheel and gas lamp industries also went through the same upheaval but survival means manufacturing products that there is demand for not flogging a dead horse in the hope the horse will respond.

UNBC is developing new structural products using wood fibre/epoxy/concrete etc. Wood products have been under continuous threat from new products that do not deteriorate or require expensive upkeep. New products like vinyl siding,composite decking from recycled tires,aluminum trim,steel studs and roof girder trusses etc.

Unionist - what is your expert union organiser opinion? Should the BC forest workers picket the forest companies and try to force them to manufacture products that no-one wants or should the workers proactively seek other solutions?

I've asked before - what can the Oshawa plant be converted to manufacture and is GM the optimal solution to manufacture new products?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

I've asked before - what can the Oshawa plant be converted to manufacture and is GM the optimal solution to manufacture new products?

---

I believe GM made a contractual promise. They must abide by it. Simple, no?

I also believe the current government doesn't give a damn about stopping the disintegration and exile of our manufacturing economy. They must protect Canadians' interests in that regard. If that means renouncing various fraudulent "free" trade covenants, then the time is probably long overdue.

quote:

---

I also believe the current government doesn't give a damn about stopping the disintegration and exile of our manufacturing economy. They must protect Canadians' interests in that regard. If that means renouncing various fraudulent "free" trade covenants, then the time is probably long overdue.

---

I've never seen any government give a damn about anything other than being reelected. Canada is not well served by existing free trade agreements and as incentives for the status quo in Canada like the auto industry disappear, Canada's hand becomes stronger because we have less and less to lose.

Our ace is our vast energy resources but playing the energy card will require fortitude. Something our spoiled society will take some getting used to even if the vestigial inculcations of generations past can be easily coaxed to the fore.

quote:

---

And I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of Canadians (properly informed) will be on the same side.

---

I talk a lot about the 'details' to the degree people can or want to make of them what they will.

But you asked about converting the truck plant. I've already alluded to how expensive a proposition it would be- in a company that is highly unlikely to need anywhere near all the production capacity it has. Can't even fully utilize plants cheaper to use than the truck plant.

As to producing something else in that plant- if it isn't assembling vehicles, its just a big empty box with a good power supply infrastructure.

Ontario does have a great deal of 'latent value' for manufacturing just about anything. And your suggestions about shifting to products like drilling supply has a lot of merit.

But it just is not something for a union to get into. It might be for the CLC or the OFL- but thats because the CLC is more a political lobbying outfit than it is some kind of 'super-union'.

The kind of thing you suggest is for governments- and for citizens to make demands on their governments.

Unions have to focus on what they can do well. Let alone that the members EXPECT the union to do everything possible to protect the jobs they HAVE. Its a fast slippery slope to get into what tou are going to replace this job with, except when people have lost their jobs.

And its not like transportation vehicles are going the way of the do-do, or that most of the manufacturing can move offshore.

There is a huge potential for industrial benefit from the radical changes that increased commodities prices and environmental impacts will force upon us. Addressing the R+D required to get ahead of the curve can be done just from the slop in government expenditures if the political will is there.

The photovoltaic cell,or solar panel is only 14% efficient and has an inherent drop of .7 volt.

Transportation costs of both raw materials and finished products will negate the cheap labour advantage of Asian counties.

Investing in the technology to process garbage at source and utilise the result for both energy and urban agriculture.

Investing in transport and infrastructure.

Canada is on of the few countries capable of prospering on its own resources and Ontario has the industrial capacity and the educated workforce to make it happen.

The proponents of the status quo benefit from the waste and rampant consumerism of our economy and actively counter any effort to reduce their entitlements. They want the populace in thrall to foreign fruits and vegetables,disposable plastic crap and high energy use,whether gas guzzlers,overheated homes or air conditioned comfort.

When more and more quality jobs are dismantled by nervous corporations adjusting to the new realities and the cost of living rises for everyone to the point that present middle class individuals must decide between food and heat, government will offer knee-jerk platitudes and short-term subsidies. Government will create quick fixes to stay in power,not to solve issues.

I understand your point about lobbying being a CLC mandate but Ken Georgetti has been banging away about pension reform for years with no result. No result because his proposals directly threaten the retail financial industry (hello,Toronto) that preys on this segment for its profits,not the retirement aspirations of its clients.

quote:

---

"The world has changed dramatically over the past few months for our business and our industry," Joe Hinrichs, Ford's global manufacturing chief, said in a statement. He was one of the Ford executives who attended the meeting.

---

Here is an Automotive News article that probably covers the same turf. Don't think you have to be a subscriber to get this article.

Ford, UAW discuss shift from trucks to cars

One thing that is not in this article at least. Ford is in much better shape than GM. Besides stronger finances, it has already proven vehicles from being a small car leader in Europe. Now that those vehicles are in line with North American consumer expectations, they are ready to roll.

BUT, the fine print, even for Ford- is that a lot of money has to spent on re-tooling... and Ford like everyone else except Toyota does not make money on small cars. It makes 4 figure and even 5 figure profits on each truck built and sold, it makes a few hundred on the sales leader Focus.

And suddenly there are going to be a LOT fewer of those cash cow trucks to back investments in the shift to small cars.

And the whip saw for the CAW is that GM and Ford are plowing all this money into US buyouts. There are no amortized shared long term silver linings in that for Canadian workers: just investment capital gone, and a new less level playing field with half price workers in the US.

ETA: the Detroit News article I linked 2 days ago preceeded the meeting talked about in these more recent stories, and has a whole lot more meat to it. There is no substantive additional news to the more recent articles.

[ 13 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080613.wgm0613/BNStory/Business/

The judge also ruled that GM bargained in bad faith and needed to be punished. The article didn't report how or if the judge said that punishment would be implemented.

Personally, I think the CAW should maintain the blockade until jobs are guaranteed for all 2600 people until the end of the current contract.

quote:

---

The Canadian Auto Workers union has been ordered to lift its blockade of the General Motors of Canada Ltd. headquarters, but an Ontario Superior Court of Justice has found that the company acted deceitfully in announcing the shutdown of its Oshawa, Ont., assembly plant two weeks after signing a new contract with the union.

GM's actions must be punished, Mr. Justice David Salmers of the Ontario Superior Court ruled, so he will permit the blockade to continue this weekend before it has to be ended at 7 a.m. Monday.

---

I'm no lawyer, but I think I grasp the basic logic of jurisdiction in a case.

And it strikes me as extraordinary that in a case about a normally straightforward injunction against illegal activity, a judge admonishes GM for bad faith bargaining.

Doesn't matter how obvious it looks, the judge had no direct jurisdiction into whether GM bargained in bad faith.

quote:

---

"The CAW respects the decision from Judge (David) Salmers and will abide by the terms for picketing near GM headquarters starting Monday," Peter Kennedy, assistant to the CAW national secretary-treasurer, said in a release.

"We applaud the judge's acknowledgment that people have the right to peacefully protest unjust decisions such as this." ...

But the union vowed to keep up the fight.

"We are not giving up on this struggle," Kennedy said. "We are now planning the next stage of our response to GM's unjust and unlawful decision to close the Oshawa truck plant."

He added: "We will look at all options available to us to force GM to live up to the commitments they made in bargaining to keep the plant open."

---

I was impressed yesterday just hearing that they managed to put questions to GM's negotiator... let alone how the judgement ended.

Edited to Add:
There was an update on that Globe article posted above that added this:

quote:

---

He also wrote that a party such as GM seeking relief from the court should possess so-called "clean hands," which means its own actions should not have created the situation it is trying to resolve.

"I find without hesitation that GM Canada does not come to court with clean hands," he ruled.

---

Presumably that puts the kybosh on GM's claim for damages.

[ 14 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Presumably that puts the kybosh on GM's claim for damages.

---

quote:

---

Mr. Justice David Salmers granted an injunction yesterday ordering the union to end a blockade of the company's Canadian head office and limit its pickets to 20 people, but said the auto maker "should not be rewarded for improper conduct." ...

"Knowing the dire straits of the truck market, for some time before June 1, 2008, these sophisticated business people would have considered the possibility that the Oshawa truck plant might have to be closed," he wrote. ...

Two clauses in the new contract between the two parties called for the company to give notice to the union and have discussions before making major changes in production at any of GM's Canadian plants.

The judge found that GM ignored those clauses.

"I find that GM Corp. engaged in almost deceitful business practice by allowing GM Canada's lead negotiators to agree to the advance notice and discussion clauses in the May 15, 2008, agreement at a time when the truck business was in dire straits and when GM Corp. should have been at least aware of the possibility that plants, possibly including the Oshawa truck plant, might have to be closed," he wrote.

---

Just a very sort broadcast news clip, also mentioned on CBC. Maybe something with more infor in print media later.

quote:

---

CAW boss Buzz Hargrove and local union officials will be meeting with the executive director of labour relations for GM North America.

---

Obviously the CAW has lots of leverage now- given that the potential for penalties imposed by OLRB is pretty high. Millions of dollars in penalties won't hurt GM- but being forced to honour the agreement would.

These must be early stages talks- essentially the CAW laying out to the labour relations person what they can do to them.

Presumably, and negotiations around the truck and car plants would have to be with higher level execs.

quote:

---

A party should not be rewarded for improper conduct. To do so, would send a message to others that if you are powerful or important enough, you can act in an improper manner, cause a myriad of problems, and still rely on the court to protect your interests. As described above, GM Corp has acted in such a manner and its Canadian operation, GM Canada, now seeks relief from problems caused by that improper conduct of GM Corp.

---

Notwithstanding all that, the judge goes on to find that more harm would be done to GM if the blockade continues than to the CAW if they are limited to 20 picketers, so he awards the injunction. Funny how he didn't follow his own advice...

[ 17 June 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

This is why unions shouldn't be blockading or whipsawing the Big Three into submission, but should be helping shift the auto workforce from an army of whiny and combative blue collars to teams of innovative technologists who know the status quo is not an option.

Meanwhile, Toyota and its non-unionized workforces in Canada and the United States are expanding and are making money.

---

Agreements get torn up all the time. I say do whatever is most productive to move the issue forward but quit dreaming in technicolour that GM is of itself a solution.

quote:

---

- The Quebec government has authorized a three-year pilot project allowing low-speed electric cars on city roads - if you can actually get one.

Officials with the Canadian-owned Zenn Motor Company say even if it will be allowed on some Quebec roads as of July 17, the car is not currently available for sale on the Canadian market.

Zenn has produced 350 vehicles -- touted as "zero-emission, no-noise" -- since 2007 in its St. Jerome plant, north of Montreal, but every one of them has been shipped to the 44 states south of the border where they are authorized. The car retails for about US$16,000.

Ian Clifford, chief executive of Zenn, says the company is now evaluating the potential sale of vehicles in Canada in light of the Quebec announcement.

---

Lemme get this straight. A Canadian company is building low speed electric cars in Canada but Canadians can't buy them because the Americans have bought them all.

This is an outrage! Where's the picket line. The CAW should protest and make sure that cars not sold in Canada should not be built here either.

NO need. Zenn Motors will probably be driven out of Canada by the less productive nature of our economy and its byzantine interprovincial trade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I would have been more impressed had you, and Ms. Francis, given this advice to workers after GM signed production guarantees till 2011 and before they tore them up.

Under the circumstances, it sounds more like cover fire for GM while it cuts and runs.

---

You weren't impressed with my advice before the contract was signed and you won't be impressed with my advice after either.

I live in the real world, the one where I know there is no Santa Claus. If you and the rest of the dreamers believe that a piece of paper will protect you from the predations of corporations, good luck to you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

I live in the real world, the one where I know there is no Santa Claus. If you and the rest of the dreamers believe that a piece of paper will protect you from the predations of corporations, good luck to you.

---

Actually, I believe no such thing, but I was curious as to what you thought of a corporation like GM signing such a contract and then reneging on it. Please focus on that side just for a moment, because I really would like your take on that.

Let's say, hypothetically, the violation is proven (and the injunction judge all but said that, even though the matter wasn't properly before him). Should our reaction be, "Hahaha, the workers are suckers!". Or should it be: "The government of Ontario should act at once to confiscate GM property and require it to live up to its contract" (which of course it could easily do through legislation, irrespective of whether the courts had such a remedy available)? Or something in between?

Note that they have sold all of 350 [!] in the US- and that is probably hugely inflated.

They do a good job of conitnuing to generate news- even in the US where it is harder to make a dent- despite not delivering on their last several claims. And I guess that keeps getting them a trickle from enough gullible investors to stay in operation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Actually, I believe no such thing, but I was curious as to what you thought of a corporation like GM signing such a contract and then reneging on it. Please focus on that side just for a moment, because I really would like your take on that.

---

A contract is a contract and GM should live up to it or pay for damages inflicted by their default.

Forget about the workers' future for a moment, although I appreciate that's hard for a caring person to do. Focus on GM. Should we pass the message to corporations doing business here that they violate solemn binding engagements of this nature at their extreme peril? Or would Canada come crashing down helplessly if we were to defend our citizens' interests in this way?[/QB][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Let's say, hypothetically, the violation is proven (and the injunction judge all but said that, even though the matter wasn't properly before him). Should our reaction be, "Hahaha, the workers are suckers!". Or should it be: "The government of Ontario should act at once to confiscate GM property and require it to live up to its contract" (which of course it could easily do through legislation, irrespective of whether the courts had such a remedy available)? Or something in between?

---

Our reaction should be to seek redress from the courts and demand that government protect workers from the predations of unfair business and labour practice, particularly since GM is the beneficiary of public largess.

In reality, shit flows downhill and politicians are already in industy's pocket. If the union bigwigs are not also, sue GM for default and after 10 or 20 years of procedural wrangling,the union will probably win a large enough settlement to pay their legal bills. In the meantime, the workers have to live and proactively seeking another solution is in the individuals' interests.

The workers are not suckers. They are simply pawns that have invested emotional capital in a corporation that has no use for emotion or morals because it is governed by calculated processes to maximise profit. If GM calculates that it can win a situation by crapping all over the workers and gambling that the workers will be too emotionally wrenched to respond, that is what they will do.

Have you ever fought an insurance company or bank in the courts? Information is everything. Keeping your opponent in the dark and blindsiding him is the path to victory. Picketing and demonstrations mean nothing to your opponents except to give them a sense of direction as to where to put more pressure.

quote:

---

If GM calculates that it can win a situation by crapping all over the workers and gambling that the workers will be too emotionally wrenched to respond, that is what they will do.

---

Are you saying that the membership in Oshawa is too emotionally wrenched to respond??? I think the members of local 222 should be commended for their response. Everyone was kept guessing, including the media as to the next action of the workers. On the ground the vast majority of the city got behind us. Our membership is awake, energized and behind our leadership. Their determination should not be underestimated.

We are pursuing the legal route as well. web page

You obviously don’t know much about collective bargaining and the law around it. This will not be a long drawn out battle like suing an insurance company that has blatantly screwed you. Not even remotely like that.

Going to the OLRB is not like going to court. And with the case that the CAW has, they have leverage that gives GM a significant incentive to negotiate rather than try their luck at the OLRB.

Nor are the protests just whining by workers for someone to rescue them- if not GM, then the government.

GM isn’t the only one that can play the game of violating at least the spirit of the contract while staying within the letter of an agreement. [GM seems to have ineptly botched that- but it was the intent.]

The workers can inflict pain on GM that stays this side of the letter of the agreement, and is strategically applied at points where GM doesn’t have an acceptable option of retaliating by shutting down operations.

Collective bargaining can be a 10 ring circus even in normal circumstances- and by violating the contract GM has not just screwed the workers... it did so with some risk to itself. The CAW and GM workers are simply engaging in prying on that risk GM [heedlessly] took.

Edited to Add:

GM thought they had their cake and could eat it too: take the parts of the contract they liked and get away with walking away from the commitments. But they made the latter too obvious. So they have in practice re-opened the collective agreement to more precise and binding commitments than the general ones they thought they could just ignore.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

[Local 222 Pres] Osborne said GM wanted union to drop a grievance filed against the company claiming the company broke their collective agreement. It also wanted the CAW to drop complaints brought to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and to stop talking to the media about the issue, before moving on, he said.

"I told him (Weiner), coming up here with a package, instead of saying drop everything and then we'll discuss things, because I don't trust you guys any more," Osborne said.

---

The 'package' he is talking about is the same thing as I was saying that GM has in practice re-opened the commitment part of the collective agreement.

Not at all to say the CAW is destined to win this, but what the GM exec told Osborne is just them bluffing.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

It's been refreshing to see the General Motors workers in Oshawa refusing to submit passively to the dictates of the market.

We've been taught that the market knows best. So workers are supposed to simply accept that market conditions have dictated the closure of their plant, eliminating 2,600 jobs. (The company's signed commitment to keep the Oshawa truck plant operating is supposed to count for nothing, when the market speaks.)

Some 180,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Canada in the past two years while the federal government stood by doing nothing.

Such wilful impotence wasn't always the norm. In the 1930s, the brilliant British economist John Maynard Keynes figured out that the marketplace isn't the all-perfect instrument it's cracked up to be, and it's sometimes necessary for government to intervene.

That insight effectively solved the Depression.

---

excerpt:

General Motors has reversed its decision not to build any hybrid pickups in Oshawa and will start assembling them this fall, despite plans to close its truck plant there next year, union leaders say.

Keith Osborne, chair of Canadian Auto Workers Local 222 at GM's Oshawa complex, said yesterday that adding hybrids at the truck plant represents some hope the move will lead to keeping it open.

"It's positive because if hybrid truck sales take off, it would make us more attractive to building trucks in Oshawa," said Osborne after a meeting with local GM management.

"It is a little encouraging but they still haven't changed their plans to close it," added Greg Moffatt, union chair at the truck plant.

A GM spokesperson could not be reached to confirm the change and the reasons for it.

And, from the same article:

Meanwhile, GM told workers in a bulletin yesterday that it will extend Cheverolet Impala production at the adjacent car plant on three shifts beyond January 2009 because of strong sales. The company had planned to reduce car plant output to two shifts.

[ 21 June 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

Yesterday we held a fundraiser at one of our local GM dealerships. It was a special opportunity as the radio station is being renovated so they are broadcasting from the dealership all week. They offered charities the opportunity to do 'something' during the day to raise money.

We sold cookies - very yummy cookies too

Guess who baked the cookies???????!!!!!

The CAW Family Education Center in Port Elgin!!

They are very supportive of what we do.

The DJ's loved the irony and suggested we take any leftover cookies down to Oshawa to sooth the situation.

Personally, it looks like too little, too late, although I guess anything in terms of production from GM is better than nothing at all.

[ 21 June 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

[Nothing has to be serious all the time. For that matter, they're probably goofing off most of the time they are on the blockade.]

From that story on the hybrid pickups:

quote:

---

Keith Osborne, chair of Canadian Auto Workers Local 222 at GM's Oshawa complex, said yesterday that adding hybrids at the truck plant represents some hope the move will lead to keeping it open.

"It's positive because if hybrid truck sales take off, it would make us more attractive to building trucks in Oshawa," said Osborne after a meeting with local GM management.

---

I'd put it differently than Osborne. He would know more, but there might be diplomacy reasons for putting it his way.

Hybrid pickup sales cannot possibly be enough to change GMs mind about closing the plant. There just won't be enough of them.

However many of the hybrids there are to make, they will be made wherever the model is being built.

But there is some crack of light here. Because the norm if it is planned the models are going to be built elsewhere, would be to start now working out the kinks building the hybrids where production is moved to.

If the Sierra and Silverado are NOT already built in Mexico, then it may only be there is a nessecary delay in moving the hybrid production... until regular production of the new models has been worked out.

I don't know if those models are already built in Mexico. But I'm guessing theey are, and this sounds like it could be encouraging news.

Because if GM is really convinced they are going to move production, and the models are already built in Mexico, then they have every reason to move the hybrid production there soon to make sure they are ready for when/if sales go up.

On the other hand it may just be that sales of the hybrid trucks are already picking up and they don't want to take any chances on losing that market niche, so they are going to build up what for these days counts as a big inventory before they move production to Mexico.

I think it is also possible- just a guess, that the CAW has enough leverage with GM to have asked them to keep production there as a good faith gesture, or it was offered by GM as that [GM being in potential real trouble with the OLRB]... and that GM has agreed on the clear condition that it does not indicate any softening on the decision to close. If that were the case, it would still be a crack towards keeping the truck plant open.... for which there may be some negotiations, or at least feelers being put out.

[ 21 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Should support some pick-up sales, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
And, then, there's the matter of disposal of nuclear waste...

---

First, so that they will be monitored, not "put away" or "disposed of" out of sight and mind.

(I'm serious, I'd like to see that debate happen, since I think some progressives might be in favour of it while others oppose.)

quote:

---

General Motors of Canada will temporarily halt production at its sputtering Oshawa truck plant for up to eight more weeks this year because of a continuing sharp drop in pickup sales.

GM said in a bulletin posted at the plant yesterday it intends to idle production for an extra week next month plus possibly another seven weeks in the fall.

The automaker, which plans to shutter the truck plant next year, said the amount of downtime could change depending on market demand, which has slid dramatically in the United States in recent months.

"I don't think they really know yet where the market is going or how many weeks will be taken out," said Greg Moffatt, Canadian Auto Workers chair at the truck plant.

GM has already scheduled a regular two-week summer shutdown in July at its Oshawa operations.

In the United States, GM is also slashing truck and sport utility vehicle production. The company's Janesville, Wisc., plant faces the biggest cut, a two-week stoppage next month and 10 more weeks through the rest of the year.

snip...

GM produced about 320,000 trucks at the plant in 2007, but production is down more than 70 per cent in the first four months this year.

---

quote:

---

Canadian autoworkers acknowledged that General Motors' decision to close a Oshawa, Ontario, truck plant next year was irrevocable, a union leader said on Thursday after a meeting with company officials.

"Are we accepting it? Eventually, if someone keeps hitting you over the head with a sledgehammer, you're going to wake up," said Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, said at the union's headquarters.

Hargrove said GM told the union it may decide to build a new model in its Oshawa car plant, where the new Chevrolet Camaro muscle car is set to begin production, but he added the situation looked bleak.

"We talked about putting together an incentive program that will help with the downsizing of the Oshawa operation over the next four or five years," said Hargrove.

The CAW said it would take a couple of weeks to look at the GM proposal on incentives before responding.

---