============================================

I just don’t go for the kind of general motives for this deal that people attribute to Frank Stronach. In the absence of anything better I’ve engaged in my own speculation- but I don’t put any more stock in that.

The case of the Windsor Modules plant gives me a better sense of the concrete advantages for Magna- that it did not already have everything it wanted.

This story was linked a few days ago in the previous thread: Workers at Windsor Modules won recognition, before union inked no-strike pact with parts maker

Bargaining was well under way that would have seen the workers with a traditional collective agreement. Those negotiations came to a halt during the Framework for Fairness negotiations, and were then trumped by the latter.

So Frank Stronach already had a handful of plants organized because voluntary recognition was a requirement of outsourcing contracts with Big Three manufacturers. He was looking at another one at Windsor Modules. It is in Magna’s plan to do more outsourcing. Not to mention the granddaddy of Stronach’s dreams: assembly of vehicles in North America.

So at a minimum, Stronach was looking at a path of incremental unionization through requirements of voluntary recognition. Worse, this ‘beachhead’ of what is achieved at organized Magna plants might ultimately infect existing Magna plants that had otherwise sloughed off many organizing attempts.

And it is unlikely Stronach was going to get a deal for assembling cars without voluntary recognition.

So the choice he faced was creeping unionization on the CAW terms- with the potential that a tipping point is reached that leaves all Magna plants vulnerable to unionization.

OR- brain wave from the stars- invite the CAW in for labour relations on Magna’s terms: totally on Magna’s terms for in-plant labour relations, and with minimal concessions to the CAW on the structure of bargaining over wages and benefits.

Capped by the virtually permanent no-strike provision to make sure neither the basic balance of power nor the essential details of the arrangement ever changes.

Free bonus for Magna: when shopping the assembly plant thing to the Big Three, or in negotiations with them, the wild card of what unionization will mean in costs and control disappears. Instead, the relationship with the CAW actually turns into an asset for the negotiations.

The flip of all that is to really ask why should the CAW enter into this deal with Magna?

The national leadership seems to have backed off their initial spin of selling this as the way to go. They have backpeddled to arguing that it is not as bad as it looks. [Notably, they say that about the no strike provisions. Almost nothing is said about the far more sweeping concessions on in-plant labour relations. People are still wondering what it all means, which suits Buzz and company fine.]

I’m a pragmatist. I really do more than sympathize with the position the national leadership is in. The auto industry is slipping away from them, and they have to do something about it. They don’t have the luxury of simply saying ‘No’ to everything that doesn’t look great.

quote:

---

Bargaining was well under way that would have seen the workers with a traditional collective agreement. Those negotiations came to a halt during the Framework for Fairness negotiations, and were then trumped by the latter.

---

quote:

---

So Frank Stronach already had a handful of plants organized because voluntary recognition was a requirement of outsourcing contracts with Big Three manufacturers.

---

quote:

---

Capped by the virtually permanent no-strike provision to make sure neither the basic balance of power nor the essential details of the arrangement ever changes.

---

[ 19 November 2007: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Thats bull crap there will be contract negotiations every three years where anything and everything can change.

---

Brother that may be what you were told, but that's not what you bargained.

The following quote is from the Framework of Fairness Agreement on the CAW website:

- On page 8, section a, "Collective Bargaining", 9th bullet:

"No modifications shall be made to either the National Agreeement or any local terms unless the ERCC agrees or the Neutral (i.e. Arbitrator) so decides through binding arbitration, ***PROVIDED THAT*** such decision must be consistent with the provisions of the Framework of Fairness Agreement and Part A of the National Agreement.

In other words: neither CAW nor the Magna membership will ever be able to change or modify any of the terms of the Framework of Fairness Agreement. The Framework is not on the table when the National Collective Bargaining Agreement is up for renegotiation.

- In Appendix A of the Framework, page 15, "No strike - no lockout", the union has agreed that Magna members of the CAW will never be able to take any kind of individual or concerted action, for collective bargaining purposes or otherwise, that would in any way impede the operation of the business.

That means no strikes -- and that is written right in the Agreement in black and white.

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

[ 19 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
How exactly do you think Magna Closures and the CAW came up with this agreement ??? It is called collective bargaining the negotiations did not come to a halt as a matter of fact they continued for months as i am a member of CAW local 444 and our local was the lead negotiators for this plant . Magna from day one did not want to give the wage increases that they eventually conceded to as well they continually mentioned the fairness agreement . Eventually the fairness agreement and considerable wage increases were put into the offer that the membership voted on and ratified by 87 % . The membership knew exactly what it was voteing on and decided to accept it .

---

You don't give up the right to strike forever because some suits in Toronto cooked up a sellout deal.

And you are right, the workers at the plant voted to accept this. Ideally, they would have seen the deal for the sellout it was and told their useless "union" leaders to stick their deal where the sun doesn't shine.

Unfortunately, they didn't. Probably because they assumed that they were dealing with a powerful independent union of working women and men called the Canadian Autoworkers. A union that organized workers so they could fight for themselves and get decent wages and respect on the job.

Unfortunately, they didn't know that their union doesn't do that anymore.

[ 19 November 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

How exactly do you think Magna Closures and the CAW came up with this agreement ??? It is called collective bargaining the negotiations did not come to a halt as a matter of fact they continued for months as i am a member of CAW local 444 and our local was the lead negotiators for this plant . Magna from day one did not want to give the wage increases that they eventually conceded to as well they continually mentioned the fairness agreement .

---

In first contracts employers ALWAYS drag their feet until the last minute- acting as if they will never agree to any demands.

No matter how hard it looked- before the Framework for Fairness was in the air anybody close to the bargaining in your local knew that Magna was going to sign, and not with token wage increases in a plant where the wages were low even by non-union standards.

Two biggest reasons Magna had to settle, and be reasonable. One is because they want more outsourcing deals with the Big Three where union agreements require that- as in the case of Windsor Modules- so they had to settle, and on something close to standard terms in comparable organized plants.

Second reason is that too much foot dragging leads to serious fines from the OLRB for not bargaining in good faith. Which is why Wal-Mart settles in the few successfully organized stores, and THEN closes the store. Magna invests to much in a plant for that option.

Sure Magna was going to drag the process out as long as possible.

And then the Framework for Fairness negotiations came along. So of course they are going to put everything on hold until that went up or down.

Before the Framework for Fairness possibility came along Magna had to assume it was getting an independent union with it's several Shop Stewards, grievance committees and pocesses- the whole nine yards.

They don't like that. They structured the company so they wouldn't have that. But for some of those outsourcing deals- having the union is just required. So they do it.

And then of course, they drag their feet on the wages and bebefits for that first contract.

BUT, if suddenly the game changes, they get to keep their in plant labour relations structure, and no independent union... well that's different.

quote:

---

And you are right, the workers at the [Windsor Module] voted to accept this. Ideally, they would have seen the deal for the sellout it was and told their useless "union" leaders to stick their deal where the sun doesn't shine.

Unfortunately, they didn't. Probably because they assumed that they were dealing with a powerful independent union of working women and men called the Canadian Autoworkers.

---

We don't actually know what they thought.

The ballot choice was between the new contract under the Framework for Fairness structure with the wage increase; or no contract.

There was no ballot choice for: "this sucks, we deserve and should get the wage increase with a real contract and a real union like every other autoworker has."

windsorworker:

quote:

---

KenS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capped by the virtually permanent no-strike provision to make sure neither the basic balance of power nor the essential details of the arrangement ever changes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
windsorworker:

Thats bull crap there will be contract negotiations every three years where anything and everything can change.

---

Technically, there is a provision in the Framework for Fairness Agreements where the no strikes provision can come to an end.

It's so convoluted and unlikley that the national leadership doesn't bother pointing it out. And there isn't even that remote technical chance of the threat of a strike for at least a couple rounds of contracts- thats 6 years plus.

There will of course be bargaining in 3 years. But you are absolutely wrong that 'everything can change'.

In fact, nothing can change except wages and benefits and marginal tweaking of the overall structure.

My statement that you flat contradicted was that as long as the no-strike provision lasts it ensures that neither the basic balance of power nor the essential details of the CAW-Magna arrangement ever changes.

When it comes to the in-plant labour relations and basic independent power of the union, the CAW got absolutely nothing from Magna in the FFA, and they never will get anything without a strike.

Magna insisted on and got the continuation of a union free company for everything except the every three years bargaining over wages and benefits.

Magna has to have someone besides the national leadership to bargain with, so the CAW had to have some kind of institutional presence within Magna.

What the CAW got is the completely unchanged Magna insitutionalized anti-union labour relations structure- with a few harmless CAW people gafted onto the margins.

Instead of something like 3 Shop Stewards, a Plant Chair, Grievence Committee and Negotiating Committee that a plant like Windsor Modules would have under a normal collective bargaining agreement... there is ONE "Employee Advocate".

Magna even has a say in who that EA is. And those EAs collectively are what is to be the 'backbone' of the executive for that huge amalgamated Magna 'Local'.

So they are supposed to do both that and be the advocate for every issue in the plant [without any definite powers to require anything to happen].

That no-strike provision is precisely so that none of that can change.

It's true that the no strike provision is not in itself the be all and end all. But no strike provisions coupled with making the Magna labour relations model permanent even with a union- the union making it even more secure for Magna- that's a horse of another colour altogether.

So the no-strike provision in this case is enshrining an absolutely toothless union presence within an the Magna HR system- with not even a remote chance that can change for at least several years.

I'm sure that in the next several years the CAW can manage even without threat of strike to get better wages and benefits in newly organized plants. But even over wages and benefits, over time, the no strike provision erodes the unions power even on that score.

So stack those dubious benefits up against letting the wolf in the door.

Because if the Framework for Fairness Agreements go ahead you'll be seeing them as a pattern for future collective bargaining everywhere- first in parts plants, and in vehicle manufacturing after the current round of negotiations.

So you better be sure they are peachy with you.

[ 20 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

windsorworker argues, as do many, that the Windsor Modules workers would never have got those wage increases without the Framework for Fairness Agreement. That Magna had been stonewalling.

So let's look at waht would have happened if events had run their course without the FFA.

Safe to say that the numbers agreed to were essentially what the CAW had been demanding and Magna was refusung to agree to. With the FFA, they agreed. [And threw in the $500 bonus, because now Magna also has a stake in the ratification of the contract.]

It sounds like those negotiated wages are just typical for comparable plants- that they are not high even by non-union standards. [Higher than some of course, but not significantly higher than the median.]

Given that, if Magna had continued to refuse those levels, the CAW would have taken it to the OLRB for not bargaining in good faith.

quote:

---

CAW shop floor leadership from
independent automotive parts plants across Ontario voted overwhelmingly today in support of the Framework of Fairness Agreement between the union and parts maker Magna.
After a detailed presentation this morning at CAW Local 1520 hall followed by a lively debate with speaker after speaker coming to the microphones, more than 300 of approximately 325 elected in-plant shop floor leadership at the meeting voted in support of welcoming all Magna workers into CAW under the FFA.

---

[ 20 November 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

In other words: neither CAW nor the Magna membership will ever be able to change or modify any of the terms of the Framework of Fairness Agreement. The Framework is not on the table when the National Collective Bargaining Agreement is up for renegotiation.

---

quote:

---

I guess I'm old fashioned but it seems to me that when you're in bargaining and the employer doesn't want to give you a raise YOU GO ON STRIKE.

---

quote:

---

You don't give up the right to strike forever because some suits in Toronto cooked up a sellout deal.

---

quote:

---

A union that organized workers so they could fight for themselves and get decent wages and respect on the job.

---

quote:

---

No matter how hard it looked- before the Framework for Fairness was in the air anybody close to the bargaining in your local knew that Magna was going to sign, and not with token wage increases in a plant where the wages were low even by non-union standards.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, they didn't know that their union doesn't do that anymore.

---

quote:

---

One is because they want more outsourcing deals with the Big Three where union agreements require that- as in the case of Windsor Modules- so they had to settle, and on something close to standard terms in comparable organized plants.

---

quote:

---

It's so convoluted and unlikley that the national leadership doesn't bother pointing it out. And there isn't even that remote technical chance of the threat of a strike for at least a couple rounds of contracts- thats 6 years plus.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure what's new about this - the CAW website has this letter from a few weeks ago saying the same.

---

[ 20 November 2007: Message edited by: windsorworker ]

How can any union activist justify giving management some say in the selection of the worker's representation?

How can any democratic union justify giving the unelected management of the union the ability to select and appoint Magna's version of shop stewards?

There was no economic cost to holding elections. Instead this agreement is all about control and doing everything possible to ensure a compliant membersheep.

Would you want YOUR management and union management to have the ability to appoint YOUR reps?

No matter how one slices it, there is no justification for this extreme departure from the core tenant of worker empowerment: the workers alone elect their leadership.

Your puerile attacks against the NDP and puffed up defence of all things Buzz are no answer to these gross breaches in principles.

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
TRY WORKING IN A MAGNA FACILITY before you judge what you think the Magna workers had before the union and what they will get now joining the CAW.

---

Not that I agree. But theres a lot of substance to chew on. I'll put up my take eventually. Busy, and there's too much there for quick comments.

Meanwhile...

What is in Local 444? And are you also the lead negotiators for the other parts plants being organized that you referred to?

I guess I always assumed that independent parts plants were not in Locals with Big Three Plants. What is the case?

Whether or not this deal is good for Magna workers is something of a red herring for both sides.

People who run down whether or not its good for Magna workers, or say things like 'they'll have to get a real union some day' think the deal sucks because of it's implications for all autoworkers and labour in general... and would still think so even if it could be persuasively demonstrated that Magna workers are better off under this deal than the alternative.

Best to leave that question for Magna workers to decide themselves.

The red herring thing for defenders of the deal is that simply touting its advantages for Magna workers avoids the questions highest in peoples' minds: is this good for autoworkers? [And if it isn't good for autoworkers, it has implications for all of us.]

I will be visiting in Michigan, and flying home to Halifax from Windsor. Can I get on public transportation from Detroit to the Windsor airport? Or is public transport frequent enough across the border that I can expect to pick up a taxi or limo in Windsor? [I won't be weighted down.]

Have to pick a flight time in the next couple hours and would like to take an earlier flight if I think I can swing it.

[Send me a private message.]

[ 21 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

SUPPORTERS do not think the limitations of union power and independence are as great or as permanent. This is the foot in the door- the ‘rest’ will come later.

CRITICS see the limitations of union power and independence as greater, and as way too unlikely to change. Instead of foot in Magna’s door we see Trojan Horse being let into labour’s home. We see a union that will be institutionalized as a toothless poddle: able to do no more than be a collective voice of workers requests for higher wages and benefits [ANY collective voice being able to do better at such requests than workers facing a company solely as individuals].

To some degree we don’t speak the same language. Critics don’t address the reality that the CAW has to do something different. If you don’t acknowledge the position people are in, its easy to dismiss your criticisms.

And supporters only ever address the details of criticisms- and often only the ones convenient to them. They seem to dismiss out of hand the possibility that once in place the Magna deal as it stands now will be successfully demanded by employers throughout the industry.

[ 22 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

Fuck Buzz, fuck Stronach.

Whatever you think of this Magna deal, there is one big item in the CAW Parts Council letter [linked by Mercy] that deserves everyone’s attention. That is the need for the CAW to make sure it has a ‘critical mass’ of enough the parts industry organized.

The background to the deal is that non-union Magna is successful and growing at a time when the intense competitive pressures in the industry are shutting down plants and jobs that are organized. The trickle of Magna workers that the CAW has been able to organize is way too inadequate to slow this trend.

The letter from the IPS Exec talks about needing to maintain half the parts suppliers being organized. That threshold can be disputed, but somewhere there is a ‘tipping point’.
If the amount of the industry that is union organized goes below the tipping point, then there is a very real danger that the erosion of the CAW’s strength will become rapid… and no one knows where the bottom is.

In many ways there is not a lot of point of arguing back and forth where that tipping point is. Not only is it ‘not good’ that less of the industry is not organized- there is a real risk that if that trend is not checked its pace will get considerably worse.

The CAW has tried and has not been able to reverse this trend. Admonishing them to work harder at it just doesn’t cut it. They are in a position that they have to do something that WORKS, period.

What the Magna deal does is take a situation where the numbers are going in the direction towards a danger point, and effectively reverses it in one fell swoop.

So there is a floor now.

The deal with Magna should keep the bottom from falling out for how much of the industry is organized. I acknowledge the ‘grand strategic’ importance of that for the CAW.

But where is that floor?

Magna has got a tradeoff from the union. They let the union in, but with significant restrictions on how much OVERALL power and independence the union has.

The no strike provision gets most of the attention in discussions about this deal.

Supporters usually point to the fact that strikes are already very infrequent in the industry. But the possibility of a strike always has material force in negotiations. Take that threat away, and the bargaining chip goes with it.

Nurses and other essential workers are also held as examples of unionized workers who do well without the threat of a strike. But in all of the examples used the bargaining position of the employer is considerably tempered by the scarcity of the skills in question. Not a problem for auto employers.

There is also the question about how long the no strike provision lasts. The Agreement says 6 years for sure. There is a lot of built in leverage for Magna to extend that.

Take all of those arguments into account and I could still be persuaded that giving up the right to strike- even not knowing how long that will last in practice- is necessary and desirable in the circumstances.

And the compelling circumstances are the absolute necessity to stem the erosion of the percentage of the industry that is organized.

But there’s a key qualifier to that.

Accepting the no strike provisions may be a tenable strategic position to take if autoworkers can reasonably expect that this will be a temporary concession and consolidation

If the means are not at hand for the CAW to retire the no-strike concessions, these will become a pattern that spreads through the industry. [Not to mention the significant risk it will spread well before that 6 years is up- merely from the example of the CAW having opened the door.]

The CAW is entering into this relationship fully aware of the fact that it has no institutional presence among Magna workers. If the CAW is to ever be in a position to retire the no-strike provisions [keep them from being renewed beyond 6 years], the union will need the solid and well organized backing of Magna workers.

That will be quite a task, but one the CAW is up to. It was done at the CAMI plant and there is no reason it cannot be done on a larger scale.

Or, there would be no reason it could not be done… if it wasn’t for the other half of the Framework for Fairness Agreement: where the CAW acceded completely to Magna’s frank demands to continue unchanged their in-plant labour relations structure and free of the traditional autonomous union presence.

The CAW will now be anointed by the Company as OK; and allowed to speak freely to workers, inviting them into all manner of union functions.

But that is a very far cry from the organizational building and activist cadre development that the traditional in-plant union structures make possible.

It’s bad enough that the CAW has completelyconceded the hard won means for in-plant democracy and justice. But for those willing to concede that for what you think are strategic gains- think again. Because there is also a crucial strategic strength dimension to that sweeping concession.

Without a traditional in-plant union organizational structure the CAW cannot expect to build the strength it will need to eventually alter the terms of its arrangement with Magna.

And if it fails to do so, expect the Magna arrangement to become the norm in the industry.

To say that Magna workers had no in-plant democracy to lose is not an answer. It’s not even part of an answer. Because this is not just about the Magna workers. As the IPS Council said, it’s about the union’s strength in the whole industry.

[ 22 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

How can any union activist justify giving management some say in the selection of the worker's representation?

---

quote:

---

BTW, when will the workers of Local 444 get to vote on this issue? Many other CAW Locals are doing this so why not 444?

---

quote:

---

Your puerile attacks against the NDP and puffed up defence of all things Buzz are no answer to these gross breaches in principles.

---

quote:

---

What is in Local 444? And are you also the lead negotiators for the other parts plants being organized that you referred to?

---

quote:

---

Personal info request for anyone who lives in Windsor or knows the public transport options from the US side.
I will be visiting in Michigan, and flying home to Halifax from Windsor. Can I get on public transportation from Detroit to the Windsor airport? Or is public transport frequent enough across the border that I can expect to pick up a taxi or limo in Windsor?

---

quote:

---

Management has absolutly no say in the selection of the Workers advocate , the WA is picked by the union side of the fairness committee . The fairness committee is made up of 51% union members and 49% company the company does not get a the final say on who is picked . This is a huge misnomer and has been confirmed by Buzz and every other NEB executive .

---

Good to get that clarification brother.

Although it of course just opens to more questions.

The FFA document just says that the selection of the Employee Advocate will be done by a panel of 4 from the Fairness Committee- one of whom plays the role of recorder for the interviews.

So it was unclear who exactly chooses. I figured that even Magna would see the wisdom in leaving that choice predominately to union people. But I wondered nonetheless how it would work, and I'm still wondering.

But I feel the need to question your saying that "The fairness committee is made up of 51% union members and 49% company the company does not get a the final say on who is picked."

Are you sure that is true? Because the Fairness Committees already exist at Magna plants and the 50%+1 are composed of all employees except management and supervisors.

So if it's going to be the 51% are bargaining unit members, then that is a change. And if so why isn't it mentioned in the agreement?

It would not be consistent for Magna- let alone not in their interest- to exclude the non-bargaining unit employees from that 51% employee side of the Fairness Committees. And the CAW IPS Council itself acknowledged that in negotiating the Agreement the union accepted Magna would not budge on the Fairness Committees.

The Agreement itself is not clear about who is in that 51%. But there is that reference which I quoted when this discussion came up in the earlier thread. CAW and Magna - Sellout? Or bold new tommorrow?

quote:

---

here are the oblique references in the Framework for Fairness Agreement as to who is included as an employee [for purposes of who is on the Fairness Committees].

"There shall, where feasible, be one FC member for each department or work area and shift." [page16]

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]

This comes immediately after saying every FC member is trained to be a facilitator. So it's not at all clear what function is being referred to. 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.

---

As noted in that thread there is also in the Aggreement the very explicit point: "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." [page10]

[ 22 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Local 444 has two Magna facilities which we organized back in 2001 , Integram and Innovatech so yes those parts plants belong to our local . The 5 new parts companies (which includes magna closures) who now do work which was previously done by workers from 444 at Windsor assembley,were organized by our local because under a past agreement in 2005 those facilities were supposed to unionized prior to getting our work . But like i said earlier Chrysler did not put that stipulation in the contract tendering process and that forced our local and the organizing department to get the members to sign cards.

---

This is kind of off topic on my part, and there is probably little more than just curiousity behind these questions, but...

So those 2, and with Windsor Closures, 3 Magna plants will leave the 444 nest and become part of the new amalgamated Magna Local.

But it looks like you have 4-5 more plants coming in- not to mention the 2 Magna plants until they move.

Does this happen often in the CAW, that parts plants are in large assembly Locals? Or has it only happened in the wake of the outsourcing organizing/certification?

quote:

---

A new union drive at the Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada plant, this time by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, is getting "overwhelming" support, according an organizer for that union.

Ian Morland hopes the machinists' union will have enough cards signed by Christmas to be able to apply to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a vote in the plant...

Although the CAW won't undermine the machinists' effort, the CAW has not entirely dropped its interest in Toyota either, [says John Aman, the CAW's director of organizing]

Aman also doesn't completely discount the possibility of a future agreement at Toyota modelled along the lines of the recent controversial agreement that the CAW struck with Magna International Inc.

Under that agreement, the company agreed not to oppose the CAW's bid to represent 18,000 workers at 45 Magna plants, in exchange for a no-strike provision. Disputes would be resolved through binding arbitration.

"Our union is always looking at new ways of organizing. The traditional ways don't always work and so we have to evolve," Aman said.

---

With the IAM doing a real drive the CAW certainly can't start working on any sort of deal - at least not without risking raiding charges and possible charges under the OLRB.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
Even more interesting: the IAM if they succeed (another big "if") will have proven Buzz wrong about the need to sell out and cut deals.

---

I disagree with what the CAW is doing at Magna, but how exactly would this "prove Buzz wrong"? The CAW (like other unions) organizes new units all the time without giving up the right to strike. I think if you're going to draw blood in criticizing the Magna deal, it's not helpful to exaggerate what the CAW is saying.

There are more reasons than just the OLRA that the CAW would not pursue a Magna-pattern deal with Toyota until after the dust settles with this IAM drive. [Not least of them being that the dust has to also settle on the Magna deal.]

Interesting reflection on the Magna deal. From that linked article on the IAM drive:

quote:

---

John Aman, the CAW's director of organizing, said the irony is that Toyota gives its workers similar benefits and wages as those negotiated in the CAW contracts.

"What is missing for those workers is their ability to deal with day-to-day issues," he said. "It's not just about dollars and cents, but about having respect and a voice in the workplace."

---

Apply this to the Magna workers and the Framework for Fairness Agreement, where the CAW simply conceded "having respect and a voice in the workplace."

I've already said that I don't question whether the deal is good for Magna workers. Not my place to say in first place, and second I don't doubt the CAW can bring them some improvements.

But the non-union formula that Aman says is not good enough for Toyota workers is precisely what the CAW has negotiated for Magna workers with a union.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
But the non-union formula that Aman says is not good enough for Toyota workers is precisely what the CAW has negotiated for Magna workers with a union.

---

When I worked at P&G our wages and benefits were comparable to or better than the local union production rates -- specifically to keep the unions out. The employer still saved a ton of money by being able to assign work as well as discipline and dismiss employees freely (as I was fired), with virtually no recourse for those who get screwed.

Similarly, my husband's printing plant has always paid equivalent to CEP wages. However they just this year signed a first contract with CAW specifically to try to address long-term problems with discipline and dismissal as well as favouritism in promotions and shift schedules, serious health and safety problems and other non-money issues.

If not for this contract they know that as they hit their 50's and start having chronic injuries, the employer will find reasons to replace them with younger workers.

So if we're only looking at practical benefits then this Magna or Toyota-type deal is fine as long as you're only worried about wages and benefits; you don't think that you personally will ever need the protection of a union; and you don't care what happens to your coworkers.

[ 26 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

So if we're only looking at practical benefits then this Magna or Toyota-type deal is fine as long as you're only worried about wages and benefits; you don't think that you personally will ever need the protection of a union; and you don't care what happens to your coworkers.

---

That puts it in a nutshell very nicely.

Just to be clear: there is no Toyota deal or Toyota-type deal, existing or in the works. I can see it could sound like that from my post where I’m going back and forth from comparing the Magna deal and Aman from the CAW talking about what the Toyota workers have and don’t have.

I also did say that I could see IAM might have some traction with organizing at Toyota that CAW didn’t have by suggesting a different approach than CAW to collective bargaining. But it should be noted that the IAM is not talking about anything as different as the Framework for Fairness Agreement.

I think one thing that can be added that isn’t just speculation.

Suppose that the IAM is certified and then goes for a first contract. The IAM has implicitly accepted that it will not seek CAW patterns with the Big Three. This was to assure the workers they aren’t going to go in with a sledgehammer.

And this is not without precedent for the CAW. This was the recipe at CAMI even though that was a case of voluntary recognition and it was a new plant. But I think the CAW understands that it is easier for another union to overcome the CAW’s image of inflexibility.

So the IAM would go into negotiations not expecting the sun and the moon.

But with the Magna Framework for Fairness very much as the elephant in the room, will such moderation from the IAM on wages and benefits be enough? Why would not Toyota demand and hold out for a similar in plant labour relations regime?

Whether or not IAM gets as far as first contract negotiations is a speculative question. But the effect the Magna deal would have on collective bargaining is NOT speculative at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

Just to be clear: there is no Toyota deal or Toyota-type deal, existing or in the works. I can see it could sound like that from my post

---

Sorry, I didn't express that very clearly. What I meant is that that the CAW Magna proposal is effectively the same deal as Toyota workers already have, or P&G, or any number of other non-union shops.

[ 26 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

So if we're only looking at practical benefits then this Magna or Toyota-type deal is fine as long as you're only worried about your own personal wages and benefits, and you don't think that you personally will ever need the protection of a union.

---

I'm not sure I understand this.

In any non-unionized workplace, you can be fired without cause, with just a statutory minimum notice period or pay in lieu.

In any unionized workplace, you can't be fired or disciplined without just cause, and you have access to arbitration. The arbitrator can reinstate you (with or without compensation), which can't happen in a non-union setting.

Likewise with issues of harassment, discrimination, accommodation of disability, health and safety, etc. No matter whether you have a good or bad collective agreement, all these statutory issues can be handled through arbitration (at the union's expense - and it has a legal obligation to represent you fairly), instead of going to court or some other administrative tribunal. The arbitrator has all the same powers to remedy the damage as any other tribunal, and in some cases (like dismissal without just cause, as mentioned above), he has far broader powers.

These are pretty significant advantages that unionized workers have over non-unionized ones, that go beyond wages and benefits - and it's simply not possible that Toyota or Magna workers have those right now.

ETA: Sorry, you posted this after I'd started typing:

quote:

---

Sorry, I didn't express that very clearly. What I meant is that the CAW Magna proposal is effectovely the same deal as Toyota workers already have, or P&G, or any number of other non-union shops.

---

That's not my understanding at all. A fired Magna worker will have the choice of going to arbitration. They don't have that choice now. Neither do Toyota workers.

[ 26 November 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

That's not my understanding at all. A fired Magna worker will have the choice of going to arbitration. They don't have that choice now. Neither do Toyota workers.

---

Toyota and P&G and non-unionized Magna workers don't have access to arbitration.

For Magna workers to be able to access arbitration under the Framework of Fairness, it's my understanding they will have to push their own grievance (or whatever it's called) through about three or four levels of Magna management, with no steward to assist them, in order to possibly gain access to mediation or arbitration, where they will be represented by -- who? Others with stakes in the same compromised system?

I believe that many workers will not have the heart to follow through on this, much less the ability to work the system effectively for their own cause. Others will opt out of the whole process and go for the option of 'trial by secret ballot' of one's eligible coworkers, with predictably less than positive results for many dismissed workers.

So I'm suggesting that under this CAW Magna scheme, the actual rights of dismissed workers will not be appreciably better than in a non-union workplace such as Toyota or P&G --particularly considering that in becoming members of a union, they also lose their independent recourse to the courts.

[ 26 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

This can be taken as a partial corrective to what I have said as well as to what triciamarie said.

I'll explain why I say 'partial'.

I have said that I don't question that this deal is an improvement for Magna workers.

There is an inherent difficulty in this discussion of keeping clear whether this is good for Magna workers, and the very different issue of how/whether this Magna deal will become a pattern.... so whether the Magna deal would be good for unionized workers who may well see "Son of Framework for Fairness" knocking at the door.

So it is relevant to set aside the question of whether under the agreement Magna workers will be better off than they are now, and compare the Framework for Fairness process to what happens under a typical in plant labour relaions regime.

And most unionize workers have far more robust support and tools at hand than mere access to arbitartion.

You look at the Framework for Fairness process and there is going to be a lot of pressure on the Employee Advocate to not necessarily encourage workers to use arbitration, let alone help them make the case. Your case at arbitration is not going to look good if you had to insist it go there, or that the EA and the union just quietly but without telling you took it forward with only marginal support.

Let alone the comparison that other unionized workers have a robust grievance process, that taps the support of people much closer to them in the plant, who they elected and are directly accounatble to them, etc.

quote:

---

What I meant is that that the CAW Magna proposal is effectively the same deal as Toyota workers already have, or P&G, or any number of other non-union shops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsorworker:
Wow ...Really ?? You mean to tell me Toyota workers get to negotiate new contracts every three years ?

---

No, Toyota workers won't have to devote endless hours to going through the motions of collective bargaining, with zero negotiating leverage, and where the majority of issues of any potential benefit to union members are not even on the table.

quote:

---

You mean to tell me there are equity reps in the Toyota plants today ??

---

Not sure what those are -- sounds Orwellian so I'm assuming it means the opposite.

quote:

---

You mean to tell me that Toyota workers have at their disposal an off site union education facility like Port Elgin ???

---

That would be where the rest of us go to learn about standing up to management, collective bargaining, grievances and other features of actual unions right?

quote:

---

You mean to tell me Toyota workers get paid afternoon and midnight shift premiums....

---

The Toyota workers I know earn more than any of those Magna folks you just signed up. And guess what? They don't pay out 2.5% of their wages to the CAW.

[ 26 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

The Toyota workers I know earn more than any of those Magna folks you just signed up. And guess what? They don't pay out 2.5% of their wages to the CAW.

---

That's almost double my union dues. Are you sure CAW members pay 2.5% of their wages in dues? That seems exorbitant, even when you consider union dues are subtracted from taxable income.

[ 26 November 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

For Magna workers to be able to access arbitration under the Framework of Fairness, it's my understanding they will have to push their own grievance (or whatever it's called) through about three or four levels of Magna management, with no steward to assist them, in order to possibly gain access to mediation or arbitration, where they will be represented by -- who? Others with stakes in the same compromised system?

---

quote:

---

Management has absolutely no say in the selection of the Workers advocate , the WA is picked by the union side of the fairness committee . The fairness committee is made up of 51% union members and 49% company the company does not get a the final say on who is picked .

---

If management is comprised of 49% of the selection committee then they will have a say. If non-union workers are considered part of non-management, the non-union side could be higher than 49% on the committee.

I never said corporate management had the final say in the selection, I said UNION management had. It is the Assistant to the President of the CAW who selects the individual from the final 3 candidates. This is completely undemocratic and union appointed stewards are just as repugnant as company ones.

quote:

---

This is a huge misnomer and has been confirmed by Buzz and every other NEB executive .

---

Chris Buckley voted against it on the NEB so it wasn't unanimous.

Again you never answered my question about the likelihood of any type of Chris Buckley being appointed in this system.

Your silence on this issue says it all.

The union movement was built on democracy. Management was built by appointment. If some in the CAW want to turn it into a contract HR agency then they should just open up shop and stop hi-jacking a once progressive union.

I get the feeling many leaders of the CAW would vote tory if Buzz told them to. Oh wait, didn't they just have Danny Williams at their last convention being given a standing ovation?

[ 26 November 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
This is completely undemocratic and union appointed stewards are just as repugnant as company ones.

---

See, now you're taking a good argument and going too far. I used to belong to a union where the local union executive (elected by the members) appointed shop stewards. On the rare occasion when there were two volunteers, we sometimes had a straw vote, sometimes not - but the executive appointed.

Buzz Hargrove is not elected by the membership either. Neither are various officers of my union, who are elected at convention. The IAM is the most historically democratic union I know, where everything and everyone is voted on by the full membership.

In fact there's not even a "straw poll" as one senior manager of the union has the final say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

The Toyota workers I know earn more than any of those Magna folks you just signed up. And guess what? They don't pay out 2.5% of their wages to the CAW.

---

All right, I hope someone appreciates this, it took me hours to find what windsorworker could surely have told us from memory.

It would appear that CAW standard dues (according to Art. 17, Section 2(b) of their constitution) are as follows:

quote:

---

Effective January, 2002 minimum monthly dues will be equivalent to two hours 20 minutes straight time pay for all members who work 40 hours or more in a month.

---

Now assuming 2,088 paid hours in a year, that means the rate of CAW dues is (2 1/3 times 12) divided by 2088 = approximately 1.35%, not 2.5%. That's roughly the same as my union dues.

Mind you, it says "minimum" dues, because apparently local unions can slap on a surtax - but that has to be approved by a secret ballot at a meeting called for that purpose (Art. 45, Section 2), and then must be approved by the national president.

Hey windsorworker, how much dues do you pay? Two hours 20 min., or is there a local union surcharge?

quote:

---

Chris Buckley voted against it on the NEB so it wasn't unanimous.

Again you never answered my question about the likelihood of any type of Chris Buckley being appointed in this system.

Your silence on this issue says it all.

The union movement was built on democracy. Management was built by appointment. If some in the CAW want to turn it into a contract HR agency then they should just open up shop and stop hi-jacking a once progressive union.

I get the feeling many leaders of the CAW would vote tory if Buzz told them to. Oh wait, didn't they just have Danny Williams at their last convention being given a standing ovation?

---

quote:

---

Hey windsorworker, how much dues do you pay? Two hours 20 min., or is there a local union surcharge?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Now assuming 2,088 paid hours in a year, that means the rate of CAW dues is (2 1/3 times 12) divided by 2088 = approximately 1.35%, not 2.5%. That's roughly the same as my union dues.

---

Sorry, my husband told me it was 2.5%. That'll teach me to listen to him.

"Battle over right to strike looms in Nova Scotia"

http://www.lancasterhouse.com/about/headlines_nov22.asp

A coalition of unions representing 32,000 health care workers in N.S. is fighting to retain the right to strike in the face of the federal government's support for removing it.

This raises for me an interesting question about freedom of association. Since last June this has been recognized as a constitutional right under s.2(b) of the Charter. Exceptions to Charter rights can be made to protect the public interest, but I'm wondering if these NS health care workers may nevertheless be able to rely on that law to achieve their ends.

And in terms of this Magna problem, clearly the production needs of a manufacturer don't immediately affect the general public to any great degree. I don't think that the SCC decision actually goes so far as to protect the right to strike -- but as has been pointed out, the language in that Magna agreement is far broader than removing just that particular right. This agreement substantially -- in fact almost entirely -- removes these worker's freedom to act in concert viz their circumstances of employment.

Would there be any way to get an arbitrator to make a ruling on this? I know the Charter doesn't protect private interests but is the LRA reviewable?

To say nothing of the language that referrs to the discrettion of the company to voluntarily recognize the union on a plant by plant basis. [More precisely, to hold a vote among workers which if succesful leads to voluntary recognition of the CAW at the unit.] IE, if they don't like how the union acts they stop cooperating in the gradual organizing process.

quote:

---

When the FFA was being sold to the elected CAW leadership at the NEB and at the various Councils [these matters arising from the Master Agreement] was never disclosed.
In fact they were told the opposite - that once we get in there we can set up our steward body like usual and that the law says the employer can't interfere.
The fact is a number of folks at the meeting have even read the FFA and fewer still have read the Master Agreement which in extricably ties in the FFA.

---

Even the FFA that is much shorter than the Master Agreement makes it quite clear that it is anything but "we get in there we can set up our steward body like usual and that the law says the employer can't interfere."

It says quite the opposite: that the CAW agrees to the existing Magna [non union] in plant system based in the Fairness Committees, with the addition of a single 'Employee Advocate' for each unit and no representatial structure at all.

So I do not see what the CAW is bringing to the workers what they did not already have.

Oh one thing. The right to pay dues.

I was wondering how these company chosen shop stewards are going to soft shoe around their representation obligations under the Labour Relations Act.

But then, what do I know about these things, being a former member of what I guess is now an "Unfairness Committee".

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

I was wondering how these company chosen shop stewards are going to soft shoe around their representation obligations under the Labour Relations Act.

---

They aren't shop stewards. If the LRA referrs to shop stewards specifically, then it simply does not apply in the case of the agreement with Magna.

Even if the LRA makes reference to a more general class of worker representatives that are or approximate stewards and their functions, the Act still would not apply because the FFA defines the Employee Advocate in entirely different terms.

Which leads to a question in my mind. Armchair made reference to CAW leadership talking about how the agreement is going to allow us to have our steward body.

Windsorworker said that something similar came from Buzz himself. WW referred to a 'union side' of the Fairness Committees, that union workers make up 51%, and that the union reps on the Fairness Committees are the only ones involved in screening applicants for the Employee Advocate.

For all of these statements everything except [possibly] part of the 3rd point made by WW is flatly and explicitly contradicted by the Framework for Fairness Agreement. And we are definitely NOT just talking different words used to describe the same thing.

The FFA explicitly describes the single Employee Advocate per plant as not like a steward [much less stewards plural], the Fairness Committees as composed of 51% non-manangement employees- both bargaining unit AND non bargaining unit, explicitly says the ones in the union are not on the Committees as union reps, that in fact the FC members do not even represent employees, let alone 'the union side'. This isn't Magna talking, this is the Agreement the CAW signed on to. [Nor does the union have the numbers to ever have a majority 'union side' as has been implied- let alone that at best it will be some time before even the minority bargaining unit members identify with the union in the way typical to organized plants and which CAW activists understandably have in mind when they talk about a 'union side'.]

This realistic assessment is supported by the CAW Parts Supplier Council Exec letter of 31 October that was linked by Mercy in the previous thread discussing this deal. Despite their support of the deal the IPC Council Exec had the forthright honesty to acknowledge the deal's weaknesses- one of which is that to get the agreement the CAW accepted and signed on to Magna making no concessions on maintaining the company corporatist labour relations structure.

All of this flatly contradicts what armchair and windsorworker have given as understandings that circulate among CAW members.

What is not clear is whether this widely held misinformation actually is coming from the national leadership. It wouldn't be surprising if the national leadership have not actually said these things, or even what amounts to the same thing... that to a great deal it springs from a combination peoples' typical and understandable hopes for the best, the unusual nature of the agreement making things not easy to sort out, and an understandable confidence that the leadership would not walk them into something as dubious as this sounds.

In a way it doesn't really matter where this misinformation originates and generates. It is the responsibility of the national leadership to educate and clarify. The fact they appear not to have done so would indicate they find these circulating myths convenient.

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

It is unlikely that the Union will challenge any of the terms of the Framework or at least during the organizing phase which expires in 9 years.

---

If the CAW leadership won't challenge it -- and there is really no reason to expect they will -- what about those three existing Magna CAW plants that are expected to fold in under the FFA when their current contracts expire -- has anyone heard anything from them? Although it appears that two of them are in L.444 and according to WW, there is virtually unanimous support there for this whole scheme. But that could still change when the time comes, as more information comes out.

Or otherwise, is there any possibility that an individual CAW Magna member (or a democracy caucus within Magna, if that were ever to evolve) could ask the LRB to rule on this? For example, this could arise in the situation that has been noted, where a member is not fairly represented in the terms of the LRA. There could be other aspects that the LRB might agree to look at -- taking it out of the hands of the parties and the arbitrator.

If the LRB then supports the FFA scheme, would that ruling be potentially reviewable under the Charter? Or even if they refuse to exercise their discretion to decide on this issue, that could be subject to judicial review. That would give eg. the OFL an angle to intervene -- since they have now denounced the Agreement.

What if rumours are true and another union is, or is intending to, sign cards in those plants --they could certainly challenge the FFA couldn't they?

quote:

---

What is troubling is the fact this was not disclosed to the Local Union leadership who have so far endorsed this corporatist paternalistic peice of crap.

---

That is horrible.

So arm chair critic, do you happen to know if there's any discussion going on about this misrepresentation within the auto parts council or leadership?

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

And permanently?

It looks in this article like that was announced last week.

CAW bracing for more layoff weeks

quote:

---

What if rumours are true and another union is, or is intending to, sign cards in those plants --they could certainly challenge the FFA couldn't they?

---

You can be guaranteed these rumours would exist whether or not there is substance to them.

I can't see there is legally anything to stop them. But no one is going to do it- not atleast in the near future.

A general comment: I think it's premature to be talking about scattering tacks under tires. However much it may look like the CAW membership is most likely to let the deal go forward, and may even give it more support than that, lets wait to see what develops from the process.

[ 28 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

[ 28 November 2007: Message edited by: arm chair critic ]

quote:

---

Ultimately it will be decided by workers in Magna plants like Formet in St Thomas where unlike Windsor Modules they currently have the same labour relations structure (minus arbitration)and are compensated at wages and benefits comparable to Unionized workplaces.

---

Interesting. How many plants are there like that I wonder?

quote:

---

As for other Unions coming in to sign up Magna workers: I fully expect that to happen if for no other reason than to throw a screw into the CAW. The advantage they will have is that they are not bound by the FFA. The disadvantage they have if they successfully organize outside the FFA is the real capacity and history of Stronach spending big bucks on decertification or closing Unionized plants and moving them.

---

That is frightening. But I'm just curious, how did CAW manage to get into those three Magna plants with real unions (albeit initially limited right to strike)?

Does this go back to the information posted by KenS about Innovatech in L.444 coming up on rolling shut-downs? Is that anything to do with a show of power by Stronach?

I wonder if the playing field will be any different after he is gone (the US /Fidel theory!) That's a long time to wait though.

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

A general comment: I think it's premature to be talking about scattering tacks under tires.

---

I hadn't considered that one. Do you think it would work?

Seriously though, I'm optimistic that the more that is understood about this whole deal, the more options will surface for addressing it.

Part of that I think is identifying mechanisms and opportunities outside of CAW ranks. I have been talking about legal avenues because in my experience (if you'll pardon a mixed metaphor) folks are a lot more willing to get down off their high horse and talk, if they know there is a low bridge coming up! They may even decide to change course.

I'm not uncomfortable about opposing this deal because I think this is much larger than CAW. This is a motherhood issue for the whole Canadian labour movement. This Magna thing is not a real, honourable collective agreement with workers standing together to achieve dignity and respect for all. It's more like a pyramid scheme. And if the mighty CAW can be coopted into this kind of shady deal -- safeguarding market share and the security of their pension investments by recruiting new "members lite" and assessing full dues for nothing but the trappings of a union -- that compromises the moral authority of every trade unionist (sorry, I don't mean you specifically unionist).

In the Star yesterday the Liberal international trade critic Navdeep Bains said that one in six Ontarions is employed in the automotive sector.

This is a public policy issue -- but we don't have the right government to deal with it.

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

They focus on one concern only: the CAW membership. Despite those concerns they need to have, the Buzzites seem confident they will keep carrying the day. [Confident is different than complacent. I really doubt they will be the latter.]

This is not a done deal, no matter how little coherent, let alone organized, opposition to it there is.

In fact, given the framework process the CAW and Magna have to go through, it looks to me like it will be a considerable time before it can become an essentially consolidated deal.

Thats a long time for opposition to develop. As armchair critic said, "The questions and issues raised by this entire episode will not die after Council next week."

I'm going to write up the lay of the land as I see it- and I promise to be uncharacteristically brief.

[In my defence, its hard to brief when working to weigh all sorts of information. Especially with the Framework for Fairness Agreement being both very non-standard and very turgid.]

But I first wanted to draw the focus back to the CAW membership and emphasise that we're still in early satges.

By the way "arm chair critic" seems an odd moniker for the brother in question- being anything but that.

Interested to see what others think.

The CAW and Magna will be implementing the Framework for Fairness Agreement separate from the CAW’s internal governance processes. The agreement at Windsor Closures is an illustration of that. So as long as there is not a revolt within the CAW- or until there is- plants/bargaining units will be added incrementally.

But Windsor Closures was the exception. The CAW was certified already, and the FFA simply trumped existing first contract negotiations.

From here on out the CAW and Magna have to hold secret ballot votes in each plant, which if successful, result in Magna’s voluntary recognition and then first contract negotiations.

This isn’t going to happen overnight. The first of those votes alone will be quite some time organizing- and that’s assuming the CAW and Magna are as we speak negotiating all the access and union presence details as quickly as possible. There are a lot of protocol and power balance questions to hammer out that have implications well beyond those votes. So even though both parties have an interest in getting those votes done ASAP, they can’t hammer the process out overnight.

Then they have to negotiate the first contract.

Compared to the speed with which internal debate within and throughout the CAW will develop- it is going to be a long time before there are ‘facts on the ground’. Longer still before [if] there are enough bargaining units to put together this new amalgamated Local as anything more than a scarecrow.

And I doubt that Magna will rush things to consummate the marriage. From their perspective, Buzz has to be able to deliver without depending on them propping him up. The worst possibility for them would be to rush through agreements in a few plants and then opposition stops the process.

There is a potential tipping point somewhere: the amount of opposition within the CAW that would make it impossible for the Team Buzz to keep negotiating agreements under the FFA. I wouldn’t have any idea where that is- but it doesn’t have anything to do with 51%. And I suspect CAW activists will just be making educated guesses how much of that opposition would be required to effectively stop the process.

Right now, internal CAW opposition to the deal seems minimal. Even with that, and as armchair said- people are just finding their voices about this, there has already been a shift.

Buzz started out with glowing praise of what an example of positive change this was going to be. That had to be dropped. Now the message from Buzz is about how critics vastly overstate how much things will change. Actually they go further- the message is that there will not be any real change.

Set aside arguing with that for the moment. Even taken at face value, it’s a defensive argument. So as confident as the Buzzites are, and with overwhelming numbers on their side, they are still on the defensive. Already.

So far the message that things will not substantially change is supported by circulating understandings such as ‘we’ll still have/get our steward body’ and understandings that the Fairness Committees will be under de fact majority control of the ‘union side’.

So what happens when those statements start being challenged? When people point out how the FFA says there will not be a steward body? … that the Fairness Committees will just be the unreconstructed corporatist institution they have always been? ….and that the union does not even have a potential majority on them?

We know what will happen if the national leadership doesn’t have adequate answers to those fundamental criticisms. In that case it will be fallback #2- “we MUST have this deal. It is essential for the health, if not survival of the union.”

That argument will still carry a lot of weight. And so it should.

But it’s a VERY different message than what is out there now: “We need this deal, and it doesn’t really change anything anyway.”

Lots of time for all this to develop.

And as opposition develops some Local execs will be persuaded on the merits of the fuller information, and break ranks. Then others will start looking to cover their asses.

[ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
The change in title was done in hopes people get brave enough to offer thoughts they have on practical steps. More questions always help too- grope along together to solutions.

---

Your above comments were back at the top of this thread. Judging by your most recent posts however, it now appears that you believe only CAW members should undertake steps or conceive of solutions.

Is this a change in perspective?

It is true -- consistent with your initial comments -- that it doesn't require much courage for those of us outside the union to voice our opinion.

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

, it now appears that you believe only CAW members should undertake steps or conceive of solutions.

---

I don't see that. It's pretty clear that I would like to see CAW members do the thumbs down on this deal.

And I didn't say that others shouldn't talk about doing something about the deal. I said it's premature- that first we see what CAW members are going to say and do.

Part of that is for me at least a respect thing- give people the time and space to work things out.

Since there appears to be a lot of mythology running around that greatly contributes to CAW members generally accepting the deal so far, I try to help in cutting through the myths and getting the facts straight. Even doing that, I have a lot of ambivalence about what amounts to being very frre with the advice to others.

You have generally suggested doing things that would happen after the deal is done- which hasn't happened yet, a decision that is ultimately up to CAW members. I just suggested maybe we should see what they have to say before rushing on to try to stop the deal.

Not to mention the pragmatics. It's one thing to yell from the outside that this deal affects all of us and we think it sucks. CAW members may not like it, but they at least know it goes with the territory.

But to hear people talk about what they might do to try to stop you if you make the 'wrong decison'- a decision they have not made yet- that is guaranteed to get people's backs up.

In fact, I'll bet you any amount of money there are CAW members reading these posts who think just that.

quote:

---

It is true -- consistent with your initial comments -- that it doesn't require much courage for those of us outside the union to voice our opinion.

---

This was referring to my words that you highlighted: "The change in title was done in hopes people get brave enough to offer thoughts they have on practical steps."

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but it doesn't look like you understood my point, and maybe you are not the only one.

The heading recognizes that in any thread like this there are people who are reading, and have opinions, but would never voice them.

The majority of people have those reservations. Even in an anonymous site like this it's a minority of people who will up and speak their mind.

That may be even more true for someone who is a CAW member- but I didn't have them in particular in mind.

I for one do certainly appreciate the time and diligence that you and others have dedicated to carefully reviewing these documents and giving us your considered points of view.

However, I also think it is important to be discussing this deal in context of both the ideology and the potential forces of the broader labour movement -- whether or not that puts some members' backs up, at least initially.

To paraphrase Saul Alinsky -- it takes clearsightedness, rhetoric and power to create change.

[ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

Have you given any thought to maybe passing out some leaflets to briefly explain the relevant highlights of in the FFA and other documents? Since it's so long and dense, and you said even some of the executive couldn't slog all through it.

Would that be something that we could maybe help with?

We could even possibly arrange for them to be translated, if there are specific other languages that a lot of these parts workers may speak.

Just a thought...

Hang tough at your council meeting Brother.

[ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

SIX POINT BOTTOM LINE ARGUMENT
...against the coming “We NEED the Framework for Fairness Agreement” push

1.] Team Buzz will eventually be forced to concede that the FFA says there will not be a steward body, that the Fairness Committees will just be the unreconstructed corporatist institution they have always been, and that the union does not even have a potential majority on them. Then the focus will shift to an unvarnished “we NEED this”. As the Oct 31 letter from the IPS Council Exec said- the CAW cannot afford to let the organized portion of the parts industry fall below 50%. Closures and layoffs at organized plants are steadily sliding things the wrong way. There is no question that is a serious threat to the union’s basic bargaining position throughout the industry.

This will be a persuasive argument that cannot be answered solely by saying that surrendering the strong traditional strong union in plant presence to keep member numbers up is unthinkable. Nor is it necessary to depend entirely on that principled position. Because the Magna deal poses an even greater risk to the union’s industry wide bargaining power.

2.] If the deal with Magna goes forward the only way that the CAW can keep it from becoming the pattern is if at the end of the 6 year absolute ban the union can strike Magna to get the normal in plant institutions of worker rep and union power. Without a strike Magna will absolutely never concede this. And if the change is not forced on Magna, other employers will demand the same.

3.] Even the 6 year span of that absolute ban on strikes may well already be too long to hold employers back from demanding equivalents of the Magana regime. Not to mention Master Agreement sections, plus the union needing Magna’s willingness to organize each successive plant, means that no one knows when the union will be in a position to keep the strike ban from being renewed. All of that formal limitation is more than bad enough, but the hobbling is still more comprehensive than that.

4.] A credible threat of strike requires an enormous amount of education and development among the members of any newly organized plant. And the CAW cannot reasonably expect that to be achieved at Magna plants without the union in plant independent union presence that builds commitment and recruits the activists who are the backbone of union power. No steward body and the rest of the in plant institutional power base = way insufficient development of member commitment and activist recruitment/training = no capability to mount a credible strike threat.

5.] If the CAW permanently hobbles its capability to credibly threaten strikes- first at Magna, then beyond- then that is an absolutely HUGE and wholesale infeebling of union power.

6.] In his Pied Piper role of leading CAW members out of the frying pan, Buzz is apparently oblivious to the flames below. Or he is not oblivious, and thinks autoworkers will be better off in the warm glow of “cooperating” with the employers… their terms of course. No point puzzling over whether Buzz is fool or snake oil salesman.

NOTE: If there is no credible strike threat this eventually erodes the unions mediated clout in the arbitration process. Ditto for clout in successive collective bargaining rounds. So much so that if the CAW is not able to develop the support of Magna workers for strikes, the high point of its bargaining power will turn out to be that round of first contracts. All downhill from there.

[ 01 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

CAMI is not an alternative to the Magna deal per se. Because Magna would have refused it. As the Parts Council Exec acknowledged, it was the Magna non-union in plant labour relations system, or no deal. Period.

But if the Magna deal goes forward, then it is going to become the industry pattern for employer demands. And as a pattern for collective bargaining the CAMI example is hugely better than the Magna surrender.

The reasons CAMI is a far better an alternative are elaborated in that thread, but the advantage is essentially and foremost the maintenace of the union in plant insitutions and how that sustains the CAW's power.

CAMI as an alternative pattern would pose thorny internal problems for the CAW- because all work rules would be on the table. Elaborating that sticky problem is more what I wrote about in the other thread.

It's not difficult to argue that negotiating work rules is a better alternative than totally surrendering on that account, and surrendering the union in plant power as well... which is what happens if the Magna pattern spreads.

My position would be to walk away from the Magna deal because it is just too risky... the risks of facing an eroding satus quo are a better worst case scenario, and that still leaves the possibility of addressing the slide in the parts industry by the old fashioned means of organizing. The CAW taking the initiative to promote the CAMI model would give some new traction to those drives.

Walk away from the Magna deal, and take the initiative on spreading a 'CAMI pattern' both in coming collective bargaining, and as a carrot in organizing drives.

[ 03 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

This is a false analogy because the public sector has political leverage that private sector workers do not. If public services are not being delivered due to labour disruption, public pressure is put on the Minister responsible to solve the problem. If the problem isn't solved, voters hold the government responsible.

Secondly, public sector workers' hands are not tied -- as would be those of Magna workers -- by the explicit threat of dismissal for "politicizing the work envirnoment" or any other action taken individually or in concert that could interfere with production. So even without the right to strike, public sector workers can join associations that are powerful lobbying forces for addressing workers' mutual concerns and increasing public funding. For example, nurses' associations are a force to contend with for hospital boards. Firefighters in Ontario recently managed to push through legislation that dramatic improves their ability to claim compensation for certian cancers cause by their work exposures. Part-time college workers in Ontario are massively signing OPSEU cards and preparing for a court battle to win the right to strike, if our government doesn't come through with this change voluntarily as they have signalled they will.

These options will not exist for Magna workers.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
This is a false analogy because the public sector has political leverage that private sector workers do not. If public services are not being delivered due to labour disruption, public pressure is put on the Minister responsible to solve the problem.

---

The significant sections of public service employees who don't have the legal right to strike can't legally cause "labour disruption" of any kind (including overtime bans, work-to-rule, slowdown, etc.). So services continue and there's no pressure on the Minister. I don't follow your point at all.

quote:

---

Secondly, public sector workers' hands are not tied -- as would be those of Magna workers -- by the explicit threat of dismissal for "politicizing the work envirnoment" or any other action taken individually or in concert that could interfere with production.

---

Two points:

1. If a worker's off-duty conduct is in conflict with her job through conflict of interest, or causing disruption of production (somehow), or attacking the employer's reputation, etc., it may be cause for discipline or dismissal. That's always the case - doesn't need a Magna deal.

2. It is inconceivable to me that the kinds of examples you gave (lobbying politicians, court battles, etc.) could be the cause of discipline at Magna under this agreement. Discipline requires "just cause", and no arbitrator would interpret a stupid clause about "politicizing the workplace" as restricting off-duty political freedoms of workers - unless, of course, they come under category 1 above.

The more important question, for me, is:

Why would the CAW even agree to a loaded term like "politicizing" the workplace? If they wanted to have a feel-good we're-all-social-partners-now clause, they could have left it at "disruption of production", which of course is disciplinable in any workplace. Did they just let Stronach's people do the drafts?

The CAW should be challenged, directly, on why this is there and what it means, in addition to the other (IMO) major challenges:

- right to strike
- independence of union representation
- maintenance of overall union bargaining position
- the goal(s) of organizing the unorganized.

I also agree that making too much of things like "politicizing" the workplace makes it easy for people to deflect from these central issues. Weak arguments- which includes anything that sounds bad but you aren’t sure what it’s about- make easy targets and allow people to slip away from the central criticisms.

That said, I think the "politicizing the workplace” thing is part of a pattern in the Framework that does have relevance to what the CAW has signed on to, and it’s rather frightening implications.

unionist:

quote:

---

Why would the CAW even agree to a loaded term like "politicizing" the workplace? If they wanted to have a feel-good we're-all-social-partners-now clause, they could have left it at "disruption of production", which of course is disciplinable in any workplace. Did they just let Stronach's people do the drafts?

---

First a note that I don’t remember this "politicizing the workplace” thing. It’s not central enough for me to feel like diving back into the Agreement. The point I’m about to make is a general one. And presuming there is such language, this item fits into that pattern.

There are the now oft referred to sections of the Agreement which explicitly state that CAW members who are members of the Fairness Committees are not there as union reps, and that they do not actually represent any employees.

Same question. Really, what are these doing there? What are they doing in the document? They aren’t things that need enforcing or are enforceable.

What they are is statements of what Magna expects from the CAW and which the CAW has accepted and affirmed as ‘standards of behaviour’ that go well beyond normal collective bargaining or even assuring a feel good collective bargaining environment.

They are blunt statements of power.

More precisely, they are blunt statements of who is in charge, and how the CAW is obligated to keep it that way. This is why that clause unionist is questioning is not merely about disruption of the workplace.

It goes further because Magna wants to head off CAW attempts to raise its profile or agitate among the workers in ways that could not be called the more conventional and limited ‘disruption’.

Ditto for the language about the Fairness Committees: no union reps, and no reps period. This isn’t just gratuitous breast beating. The CAW has signed on to very draconian ‘standards of behaviour’ that are meant to hamper even the precursors of organizing an autonomous union power.

These people are slick.

The Framework isn’t a collective bargaining agreement. And in it’s own right, none of that language would directly constrain how the union acts- from, you know, doing normal union education things.

But there is a hidden dotted line [not that Buzz didn’t see it] from that language straight to Magna’s discretion at incrementally offering plants for the process that leads to voluntary recognition of the union.

Magna has got the CAW to sign onto all these things it will not do. So when Maga wants to jerk the chain by not offering them plants to organize, the union will not be able to acuse them of arbitrary withholding from an agreed process.

It’s no autonomous union power, permanently; or it’s the highway…. With all the t’s crossed and the I’s dotted.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

The significant sections of public service employees who don't have the legal right to strike can't legally cause "labour disruption" of any kind (including overtime bans, work-to-rule, slowdown, etc.). So services continue and there's no pressure on the Minister. I don't follow your point at all.

---

It is politically expedient for both ministers and governments (with the exception of radical right-wing governments) to appear to be dealing even-handedly with their own employees.

Some of the pressure takes place on the level of a threat of the disruption of so-called essential public services; when legal strikes are banned, the stage is set for an uncontrolled wildcat.

Less dramatically, there is an expectation that labour unrest in government will lead to the reduction in the level of commitment and performance by civil servants, opening the door to dissatisfaction with politicians -- another source of pressure.

Internally within ministries this is also the opposite direction that deputy ministers (the bureaucratic bosses) are wanting to go. Governments have to keep the mandarins on their side if there is any hope of implementing their agenda. So that's another factor that comes into play.

quote:

---

Two points:

1. If a worker's off-duty conduct is in conflict with her job through conflict of interest, or causing disruption of production (somehow), or attacking the employer's reputation, etc., it may be cause for discipline or dismissal. That's always the case - doesn't need a Magna deal.

2. It is inconceivable to me that the kinds of examples you gave (lobbying politicians, court battles, etc.) could be the cause of discipline at Magna under this agreement. Discipline requires "just cause", and no arbitrator would interpret a stupid clause about "politicizing the workplace" as restricting off-duty political freedoms of workers - unless, of course, they come under category 1 above.

---

You may very well be right -- but if so, isn't that aspect worth addressing on its own merits?

Personally I would be worried about my job security as a member of an active Magna employee association under the terms of the FFA, but not in an association of government employees.

quote:

---

The more important question, for me, is:

Why would the CAW even agree to a loaded term like "politicizing" the workplace? If they wanted to have a feel-good we're-all-social-partners-now clause, they could have left it at "disruption of production", which of course is disciplinable in any workplace. Did they just let Stronach's people do the drafts?

The CAW should be challenged, directly, on why this is there and what it means, in addition to the other (IMO) major challenges:

- right to strike
- independence of union representation
- the goal(s) of organizing the unorganized.

---

Agreed. Those are more important issues.

Other folks are primarily concerned with the CAW's failure to consult their existing membership body or even the majority of CAW leaders -- much less the Magna workers themselves -- before cooking up this closed-door deal.

As a rank & file labour activist I would also point to the absence of any workable grievance procedure, although I accept that this issue seems to be of less significance to the majority.

So is that it then -- simply to express our concerns?

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

As a rank & file labour activist I would also point to the absence of any workable grievance procedure, although I accept that this issue seems to be of less significance to the majority.

---

I don't think it's of less significance, and I think that is probably general true for others.

How about including as part of:

- independence of union representation

so it becomes

- independence of union representation and grievance process

[Though Im sure there is a better and more general wording than that.]

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

LETTER REGARDING
DEPOLITICIZATION OF THE WORK ENVIRONMENT

CAW
Attention: Hemi Mitic

During negotiations, the parties discussed their mutual commitments to promoting a harmonious, constructive and globally competitive workplace where employees utilize the open door process to share ideas, provide input for continuous improvement and become actively involved in issues impacting their workplace.

The parties also recognize and agree that activities in a division that politicize or polarize the workplace have the potential to disrupt the operations and create a negative work environment. Such activities are inconsistent with the shared interests identified above, and lessen the democratic involvement of employees in workplace issues.

This is much more cut and dried than if the language was directed at potential discipline for individual workers. If that does also exist, then I’ll comment on how I think it will actually be fairly straightforward for the company to successfully win some form of disciplinary decision from an arbitrator.

Could we get a link to the Master Agreement? Or someone with a copy can send me a private message [middle button in the row at top of this post].

quote:

---

During negotiations, the parties discussed their mutual commitments to promoting a harmonious, constructive and globally competitive workplace where employees utilize the open door process to share ideas, provide input for continuous improvement and become actively involved in issues impacting their workplace.

---

“Open door process” = Fairness Committees and the other existing Magna in plant human relations systems. So the CAW commits to using this unreconstructed process. Innocuous if it were on its own

quote:

---

The parties also recognize and agree that activities in a division that politicize or polarize the workplace have the potential to disrupt the operations and create a negative work environment.

---

But of course that first paragraph is not on it’s own, it’s linked to the sledge hammer. ‘Politicizing or polarizing’ is any behaviour that does not fit in with things as they have always been at Magna- obviously directed straight at any attempts the union might make to build autonomous power.

The ‘have the potential to disrupt the operations and create a negative work environment’ words are not limiting on the scope. I guess they are just there to make this all sound like a normal collective bargaining agreement. It is the final paragraph of the letter that trumps: “the parties agree that they shall ensure that no such activities take place in any division covered by the Framework of Fairness Agreement.”

IE, no “politicizing or polarizing the workplace” period … not just a commitment against those activities that demonstrably cause disruptions.

The hammer being Magna’s discretion to deny access to bring new plants into the Agreements… a process slated to take several years. All these items sprinkled in the Agreements mean the Magna lawyers won’t even have to break a sweat to bring down that hammer.

quote:

---

Such activities are inconsistent with the shared interests identified above, and lessen the democratic involvement of employees in workplace issues.

---

Lessen the only kind of ‘democratic involvement’ they are allowed to have- the one through the Magna process, plus the new ancillaries of joint committees. [Just making sure ‘we’re all on the same page’.]

Stunning.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

CAW Economist Jim Stanford was appointed today as one of two vice-chairs of the new Ontario Manufacturing Council. The announcement was made in the provincial legislature by Sandra Pupatello, Ontario's Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The other vice-chair is Jayson Myers, President of the Canadian Manufactures & Exporters.

The Council's mandate is to report to the provincial government with recommendations on investment, innovation, trade, market development, energy and environment, and human resources and regulatory issues that affect the global competitiveness of Ontario's manufacturing sector. The vice-chair positions are voluntary.

"As both an economist and a trade unionist, I believe passionately that manufacturing matters to our future economic and social well-being," said Stanford. "Manufacturing generates unique benefits for our productivity, our incomes, and our trade performance. And our policies must reflect that importance."

---

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2007/04/c7492.html

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

And sort of full circle for me.

I joined this discussion of the Magna deal 2-3 weeks after it started. And in my first post I fulminated then about this Ontario Manufacturing Council just announced now, being what the Magna deal was headed towards. I’m going to leave that to another post- and stick to the immediate and primary concern of the Magna deal itself.

The main reason I went off fulminating about how much we’re all going to hear from Hargrove and McGuinty [with silent partner Stronach], is because I couldn’t see what was really in the deal itself for Magna.

quote:

---

Oddly enough, I can't really see what's in this for Frank Stronach.

What Magna has that union parts manufacturers envy is total control of production- no negotiating with a union over shop floor matters.

The sweetheart deal with Buzz does not change that, and it assures no strikes to make sure nothing changes. But Magna already had all that.

Nor did Magna have to worry about the CAW succeeding at organizing.

---

It took me a while to change my mind that Stronach does indeed still have something to worry about in penetration by the CAW. Counter-intuitively, given the weakened overall bargaining position of the CAW, Magna’s concerns over holding the line may well have actually increased.

What changed my mind was finding out that the CAW had already organized Windsor Closures. Still only a trickle of of organized plants, versus many CAW failed drives.

Note that it isn’t mutually exclusive for the CAW to feel that their Magna organizing process is way too slow in light of the general slide in organized parts plants- and, at the same time, Magna does not feel secure that it will remain union free.

Another 2-3 weeks later:

quote:

---

The case of the Windsor Modules plant gives me a better sense of the concrete advantages for Magna- that it did not already have everything it wanted.

Bargaining was well under way that would have seen the workers with a traditional collective agreement. Those negotiations came to a halt during the Framework for Fairness negotiations, and were then trumped by the latter.

So Frank Stronach already had a handful of plants organized because voluntary recognition was a requirement of outsourcing contracts with Big Three manufacturers. He was looking at another one at Windsor Modules. It is in Magna’s plan to do more outsourcing. Not to mention the granddaddy of Stronach’s dreams: assembly of vehicles in North America.

So at a minimum, Stronach was looking at a path of incremental unionization through requirements of voluntary recognition. Worse, this ‘beachhead’ of what is achieved at organized Magna plants might ultimately infect existing Magna plants that had otherwise sloughed off many organizing attempts.

And it is unlikely Stronach was going to get a deal for assembling cars without voluntary recognition.

So the choice he faced was creeping unionization on the CAW terms- with the potential that a tipping point is reached that leaves all Magna plants vulnerable to unionization.

OR- brain wave from the stars- invite the CAW in for labour relations on Magna’s
terms: totally on Magna’s terms for in-plant labour relations, and with minimal concessions to the CAW on the structure of bargaining over wages and benefits.

---

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

I was looking for this Son of Frankenfairness beast to come crashing when Buzz stepped down as Prez.

But they couldn’t wait. So Jimmy will be the public stand-in while it gets moving, until Buzz can step down and becomes the public face of his new crusade.

Like I said when I brought it up several weeks ago- expect to see Jim Prentice and Stephen Harper tapping into this as well… before Buzz is formally involved… with maybe some tidbits to announce in conjunction with the March federal Budget.

Blow hard Buzz to get the ink drying on that Magna deal! So you can get out of there and on to the next exciting chapter!

Oh Happy Day.

Magna deal to set ticking time bomb in collective bargaining- auto and beyond…
And before the bomb even goes off, the terrorist genius sheds the work clothes and heads off to his shiny new bully pulpit.

(Don't worry about checking the stock room for the inventory of leather jackets. Buzz has graduated.)

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

The Employee Advocates exist already at Magna plants. In fact, its likely they exist even at the few organized Magna plants.

They seem to play essentially a fixer role. Appointed by management, and can only be removed by a majority of employee votes.

I had thought the EA was something added on to establish a [minimal] union institutional presence.

But even the EA is part of the existing Magna system.

Granted, the role substantially changes with the advent of the CAW- and Team Buzz did manage to negotiate that much.

But there will be more in common than just the name.

Interesting sidenote will be what happens with the existing EAs- not really a sidenote as I see where this is going.

Under the FFA the EA is interviewed and short listed by a panel of 4 chosen from the Fairness Committee. Hemi Mitic choose from among those short listed.

The Fairness Committees are there and their membership composed before the CAW arrives. Given that there is going to be good faith attempts on all sides, the selection panel will do their best to include criteria of cooperativeness with the union... to the degree they understand that.

In most cases, the existing EA is going to be one of the candidates nominated. And the CAW cannot make a blanket policy of avoiding selecting them. In fact, Mitic will be obliged to give solid 'cooperatist' / corporatist criteria for each case of NOT selecting the existing EA.

Even when the existing EA doesn't become the 'union EA', it will just be someone else trained and nurtured in the Magna HR universe.

The link is to Chris Lawson's blog where he carves down through the Buzzites' assertion that Magna managers will have "no role whatsoever in the selection of worker representatives", per the CAW's official response to the OFL (on the CAW website).

His analysis: even if the worker representatives on the Fairness Committee are freely chosen by the bargaining unit members -- something he accepts but which others have grave concerns about -- there is still a question of who on the committee gets to select the short list of candidates to be the Employee Advocate (equivalent to what would be the Local President, in a real union shop). So one way or another there may be very slim pickings on that list of candidates that Buzz's assistant gets to choose from. In terms of the final selection, it's noted that CAW national itself is of course not at arms length from the FFA and all the compromises it entails. And once chosen, the EA is then permanently installed in the role unless and until removed from it on a motion by Hemi Mitic.

So -- rigged slate, bought election, and no way or means for members to unseat the annointed one once enshrined. Sound democratic?

Then he goes through an explanation of what the complaint process would actually entail for an aggrieved worker under this Magna scheme, and how the whole process is completely bereft of procedural justice for the worker.

Bottom line:

quote:

---

Some unions sign very lengthy agreements. Some sign away the right to strike. Some agree to joint committees. But I don't think any of them has done all of that at the same time while giving over the very basis of worker representation to "jointness" as CAW has.

---

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

excerpt:

quote:

---

the language in our recently-ratified collective agreement with Magna confirms that company managers play no role whatsoever in the selection of worker representatives (either the secret-ballot election of worker reps from each area and shift of the factory, or the selection and secret-ballot confirmation of full-time “Employee Advocates” who service the whole plant).

---

And you don’t have to unwind threads to dig into it.

I had an exchange with one of the writers and we agreed that it is encouraging folks working separately come to substantially the same conclusions.

I heard they were handing out a condensed version of the Q&A, hopefully that will appear at the same website as the long version, and get linked here.

Where I thought the Q&A was particularly strong was that it illustrates with good examples any union activist will know well what I talked about in general terms here: all the things that people are used to having and depend on that will NOT happen under the FFA institutional framework... and why that means the capability to expand the so-called 'foot in the door' at Magna is just a fantasy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
"Dinner" is one of those words with different regional meeting, so are we talking after lunch, or after supper?

---

When I was a kid, the noon meal at home was dinner, at school it was lunch, and the evening meal was always supper.

Anyone know what's happening?

As I understand, Buzz was expected to speak first today and that would usually go on for a couple of hours, approximately until lunch. Then would come the elections / acclamations and the debate which was expected to continue until after the delegates (some of them anyway) return from supper. Resolutions could come in there too.

Of note, if this is passed at Council, as per CAW culture their members will no longer really be able to question it.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Of note, if this is passed at Council, as per CAW culture their members will no longer really be able to question it.

---

I'd like to hear some explanation, expansion, and exploration of qualification.

I understand the general point- which is not unique to the CAW. [Although the CAW, and running back to the UAW, probably does have and always has had more internal hot issues.]

But given that it is a very complex issue, and IF significant questions are raised at Council which many delegates will have first heard much about them, and if the doubts continue to grow....

There's not point in discussing this until after some reports from Council, but those are the kind of questions I'd like people to include in their 'chewing'.

After all- Buzz and the Exec have the authority to proceed as it is. A majority vote in favour just affirms their 'moral authority'. A huge majority is notmal. So what happens if there is say 20% opposed, and its clear the opposition is not going to shut up?

Remember, this is a one plant at a time affair. If everything goes without a hitch, that's 9-10 years. There will be just a very few in the next year.

That process can in principle be stopped at any time. Like everything else this is a fundamentally different kind of deal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
Of note, if this is passed at Council, as per CAW culture their members will no longer really be able to question it.

---

I find it hard to believe that the CAW culture is that different from my union's or others. Local union members - and elected officials - question whatever they want. They are not bound by any "policy" decisions from on high. Anyway, the CAW Council (as I have pointed out elsewhere) has no decision-making power within the CAW constitution on any issue whatsoever - though it seems to carry a lot of moral weight. The power resides in the National Executive Board between conventions, and the Local Union membership.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

I'd like to hear some explanation, expansion, and exploration of qualification.

---

I was told this by some dissenting delegates.

Maybe arm chair critic can discuss.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

TORONTO, Dec. 7 /CNW/ - Delegates to CAW Council in Toronto today have overwhelmingly endorsed the union's Framework of Fairness Agreement with auto parts maker Magna.

After a lengthy and passionate debate with 32 different speakers coming to the microphones, CAW Council delegates voted overwhelmingly in support of a recommendation endorsing the Magna agreement. Out of more than 800 delegates from across the country, approximately 25 were opposed.

The recommendation encourages Council delegates to welcome Magna workers into the CAW under the recently negotiated Framework of Fairness Agreement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
I expected 'overwhelming support' for the deal.

A detailed look may or may not show that to be most of the story.

---

Not sure I understand your point. Are you saying there may have been more than 25 "no" votes?

quote:

---

Not sure I understand your point. Are you saying there may have been more than 25 "no" votes?

---

I'm not questioning the count.

The question is essentially, what is the nature of those yes votes, particularly of delegates from auto?

If the vast majority seem to understand the basic argument against, and do not agree- then it doesn’t seem likely the opposition to the deal has anywhere to go.

But if a great many seemed to be grappling with things new to them, and they voted yes despite not having resolved/digested what they have heard and learned… that may be another story.

I realize this is not an easy thing to characterise.

=======================

I’d also like to hear if this business of a steward body at Magna was ever addressed by Buzz or someone else from the national leadership. IE, did they promise or intimate that will exist at Magna plants in the future?

On the other hand, if speakers raised the question, no answer was given, AND there didn’t seem to be a general demand on the floor for an answer… then that probably means something.

Either way- it will be interesting to see what happens when as per the FFA, the previously existing collective bargaining agreements expire and the divisions are brought into the FFA. What will happen to the stewards and chairperson? If the stewards are gone, what will the broad CAW membership think of that?

The collective agreement between Local 444 and Intrgram/Innovatech expired last month.

So what transpired, or is transpiring?

One possibility would be that Magna quietly agreed to a new ‘traditional’ collective agreement that does NOT incorporate the terms of the FFA, even though there is a letter of understanding that would have given them the right to have the Division rolled into the FFA terms. This would keep the steward thing from being an internal irritant in the CAW, while Magna would not be accepting a steward body precedent under the FFA.

ETA:

Magna Annual Information Form March, 2005 [report to investors] says that the Intier Seating Mississauga is also organized. That must be a different Local and a different collective agreement. Anyone know about either?

The seats go to Ford Oakville. But the divison does not appear to be part of Local 707- while Integram and Innovetech Seating are in 444, the Windsor Chrysler local.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

Magna Annual Information Form March, 2005 [report to investors] says that the Intier Seating Mississauga is also organized. That must be a different Local and a different collective agreement. Anyone know about either?

The seats go to Ford Oakville. But the divison does not appear to be part of Local 707- while Integram and Innovetech Seating are in 444, the Windsor Chrysler local.

---

I don't know the answer to this question but:

Intier is a wholly-owned Magna subsidiary.

http://www.cbr.ca/CompanyListing.aspx?PageNumber=0&CompanyID=2073

In Intier's 2005 SEC filing it is stated that their three CAW-organized plants were Integram Windsor, Innovatech and the Mississauga Safety Systems Interior Systems plant (there is a link from Forbes.com to SEC Info site -- cached).

Magna states that this facility is in Missisauga.

quote:

---

Labour Relations Employees of our Mississauga Seating division in Mississauga, Ontario, as well as employees of our Integram Windsor and Innovatech seating divisions in Windsor, Ontario, are covered by collectiveagreements with the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW).

---

http://66.46.198.133/magna/en/investors/governance/documents/pdf/AIF2006.pdf

However the CAW identifies the plant in question as Mississauga Seating in Brampton.

http://www.caw.ca/campaigns&issues/ongoingcampaigns/magna/pdf/FAQs.pdf under "What will happen to the CAW's current three agreements at Magna".

They supply complete seating systems for the Ford Windstar plant in Oakville.

http://www.chenuke.com/index.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1417

It appears that a Mississauga Seating facility -- whether this plant or possibly another? -- is or was in L. 1256 in Oakville.

(I can't seem to pull up this item on the CAW site but this is the Google citation)

quote:

---

A tragic car accident claimed the life of CAW Local 1256 member Anne Nguyen, who worked at Mississauga Seating in Ontario....

---

www.caw.ca/news/contactnewsletter/showissue.asp?name=issue&IssueID=638

I can't find a website for 1256.

Of interest, 1256 is the home of Willie Lambert, the rank & file union democracy activist -- and politician -- who had the backing of his Local in a run against Buzz for the presidency last year, until, as alleged, CAW national threatened to shut down this 51-year old amalgamated local and merge it into the Oakville Ford plant local 707.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Lambert

http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/210/48/

[ 08 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

Intier Seating did not show up as expiring in 2007, and their first contract was ratified Dec 2002. So it is safe to assume it will come up again this time next year.

Unless we hear different, indications are that Magna agreed to a new conventional contract for the two Windsor plants- even though the FFA gave them the right to bargain a new collective agreement under the terms of the new FFA agreement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
Of interest, 1256 is the home of Willie Lambert, the rank & file union democracy activist -- and politician -- who had the backing of his Local in a run against Buzz for the presidency last year, until, as alleged, CAW national threatened to shut down this 51-year old amalgamated local and merge it into the Oakville Ford plant local 707.

---

Willy's own local union delegates didn't support his candidacy at the convention, nor could he get any other registered delegate to nominate him - at least that's what he said in his reported comments at the time. He also publicly endorsed Hargrove's bid for re-election.

So, delegates who voted against this recommendation were being set up to vote against welcoming newly union brothers and sisters; needless to say, many of the minions sent to the mikes emphasised this point, going so far as to say that its fine to dissent, but the right to dissent does not include the right to vote against the recommendation. It was also interesting to note that pro and con mikes were not used. Of the thirty-two speakers, only twelve (or so) spoke against the deal. It is interesting to note that one of the speakers, the Chairperson of Integram (an existing Magna unit that is part of Buzz’s Local, 444 out of Windsor), stated that he is in favour of the deal, but not for his plant.

Overall, I think that the delegates who supported this deal can be grouped in four basic categories:

• Those who were fully aware of the more dubious aspects of the deal but put these aside out of conviction that reversing the decline in auto part union density was the greater evil;
• Those who had reservations but were convinced by the highly choreographed “debate” and intimations (including a slick and deceitful slide show by Jim Stanford) by the leadership that all the concessions were just a means to get our foot in the door and that once in, we’d turn the tables on Magna;
• Those who may have had reservations but were intimidated into accepting/ abstaining by the venomous response and heavy-handed approach taken by the National Office towards critics and dissenters; and
• The sheep who see no evil and unquestioningly accept the judgement of their masters.
  

LB

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lev Bronstein:
While the no vote was insignificant (maybe around 20 per cent) as the CAW spin-doctors indicated, it was not close.

---

Did you mean 20 percent, or 20 delegates??

20% of 800 would make about 160 delegates - a huge minority IMO - but the CAW release said 25 delegates, which equates to about 3%.

There's a big disconnect here somewhere, and I'm still interested in knowing where the truth lies.

quote:

---

It is interesting to note that one of the speakers, the Chairperson of Integram (an existing Magna unit that is part of Buzz’s Local, 444 out of Windsor), stated that he is in favour of the deal, but not for his plant.

---

Which is a dotted straight back to the questions I was asking about those 3 plants under existing contracts.

And it implicitly answers another question I had not asked: it seems so wildly unlikely, but is it possible the stewards and activists in those plants have been told and believe that they will remain in place despite what the FFA says?

It would appear from the Chairperson’s comments that they know full well.

And if they have a brand new ‘old style’ collective agreement that Magna did not have to concede… that would go a long way to making them merely concerned about the future as opposed to hopping mad about the FFA.

Nifty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Willy's own local union delegates didn't support his candidacy at the convention, nor could he get any other registered delegate to nominate him - at least that's what he said in his reported comments at the time. He also publicly endorsed Hargrove's bid for re-election.

---

In terms of the actual fallout, I wasn't there but that whole scenario is addressed in the Wiki article I posted, and further explored in the following link consisting of an interview with Willie.

What I find most interesting for the purposes of this dicussion is that this is a local that at one point backed a rank and file member for president on a union democracy platform. So they are obviously familiar with these ideas, and they have demonstrated some openness.

I think that's positive.

[ 08 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

...a comment on my column in today's Windsor Star... will give you some idea of how bitter the split is within the CAW regarding the no-strike deal at Magna.

The tone of the letter is all you need to know about why there is no public debate within the CAW in Windsor about whether or not the deal is good. If you have a job within their plants, these kinds of guys will try to ruin your life if you defy their political agenda by debating them publicly.

... It is worth noting that CAW culture requires that internal debates are kept hidden from the public to protect "solidarity."

---

In my local union, once the debate is over and a decision is made, no rep will oppose that decision publicly. We unite to carry it out, regardless of our personal views. But in every meeting, we can get up and keep reviewing and questioning it. That's not "CAW culture". That's the culture of all unions, indeed of companies and political parties and... and everything.

Also, if 12 out of 32 speakers at the Council (as LB reported above) got up, identified themselves in public, and opposed the deal, that bodes pretty well for an internal climate of debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Did you mean 20 percent, or 20 delegates??

20% of 800 would make about 160 delegates - a huge minority IMO - but the CAW release said 25 delegates, which equates to about 3%.

There's a big disconnect here somewhere, and I'm still interested in knowing where the truth lies.

Also, I'm interested in what you say about Stanford's slideshow. Was it distributed - if not, do you recall any aspects which were false or misleading? The reason I ask is that I would think his credibility in reporting things factually is more important to him than some of the usual demagogues.

---

Nowhere near all the delegates voted. A substantial number sat on their hands while a lesser number scurried from the hall so they didn't have to make a public decision. Of the remaining delegates, I would ballpark the ‘no’ votes at around 20 per cent. To put the National’s claims in perspective, the two dissident locals, 222 and 88, had somewhere in the neighbourhood of forty and ten delegates respectively. I know for a fact that multiple delegates from at least six other locals voted against the deal. Again, the yes side clearly one, but not by Soviet Union-style approval numbers that they claim.

As for Stanford, everything he said was technically right; it was what he left unsaid or implied that was false. For example, Buzz made a repeated claim that all the unions that opposed the Magna Deal were hypocrites because they too used arbitration to settle contracts. Stanford picked up on this point during his slide show, arguing that the Magna Deal -- far from being a break with tradition -- is, in fact, becoming the norm in labour/management relations and that all the "unions that are pissing on us" (to use Buzz's phrase) used binding arbitration before the CAW.

The silent omission in his presentation was that none of those unions gave up the right to strike in perpetuity in exchange for access to workers. The difference -- which I'm sure has been discussed here already -- is that the cases the CAW cites as precedent are either government legislated cases or situations were the union in question agree to arbitration -- without relinquishing the right to strike in the future -- as a temporary or one-off way of avoiding (or ending) strikes/lock-outs. Stanford did not distinguish between the two in any manner.

quote:

---

In my local union, once the debate is over and a decision is made, no rep will oppose that decision publicly. We unite to carry it out, regardless of our personal views. But in every meeting, we can get up and keep reviewing and questioning it.

---

That is also true of my local and to a lesser extent, my union. However I have been told that this is not the practice in the CAW.

It has been explained to me by both CAW leaders and rank and file, that there are members who do keep reopening and criticizing the decisions and directions of the union. However, especially once these motions have already been passed at Council, these members will be considered to be "shitting on the leadership" (as we heard above) and their comments are generally not taken very seriously. There may also be personal consequences for taking an oppositional point of view, particularly for anyone who has ambitions of moving into a staff job.

Just to give you an example of how far this may go -- at times there are even direct instructions issued from CAW National prohibiting discussion of a particular topic ie. at Port Elgin. And those instructions are observed.

I don't think it's my place to go into this any further so I guess you can take this or leave it, but I did want to pass it along that this is a major factor that these folks themselves have identified as circumscribing the range of solutions available to them inside CAW.

quote:

---

Also, if 12 out of 32 speakers at the Council (as LB reported above) got up, identified themselves in public, and opposed the deal, that bodes pretty well for an internal climate of debate.

---

I think that is incredibly encouraging and I am so proud that they were able to do this!

Nevertheless I recognize that this discussion took place before the Council decision was made.

quote:

---

But as for the CAW local unions, I repeat, they are not bound by any Council decision - and certainly the members aren't.

---

We're not talking about a legal barrier I don't think. This is more like a huge taboo, that I'm suggesting should be taken into account (a) for effective communication, and (b) in assessing where the larger labour movement may be able to best contribute.

quote:

---

I can't believe the Magna issue won't continue to be the subject of debate and scrutiny - especially if any other employers try putting similar demands on the table.

---

Agreed -- and evidently there was nothing in Buzz's recommendation about extending the Magna pattern to other employers. So that should still be fair game for discussion.

There may also be other aspects of the deal where legitimate questions can still be raised, working within their solidarity tradition. And there could even be some overlap between talking about limitations on this pattern, and talking about the problems inherent in the deal itself.