What do YOU think about all this?

.

[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Canada Loses Luster For Big 3
by Bryce G. Hoffman/The Detroit News

Weak dollar, UAW concessions raise possibility that Ontario woes could be silver lining for Mich.

A weak U.S. dollar and new, cost-cutting labor contracts with the United Auto Workers have turned Canada from a low-cost alternative for Detroit’s Big Three automakers into the most expensive place in the world to build cars and trucks.

And Ontario’s loss could be Michigan’s gain.

Canada’s national health care system and favorable exchange rates have long made Canada an attractive manufacturing location for American automakers. But with the Canadian dollar, or loonie, now nearly on par with the greenback and the new contracts negotiated this fall with General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, the UAW has more than closed the cost gap with the Canadian Auto Workers.

“Any advantage Canada had has disappeared,” said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. “Overnight, there’s a whole new ballgame.”

With talks on new Canadian labor agreements set to begin next year, Detroit’s automakers are taking a hard look at their manufacturing operations in Ontario. Executives at all three have told The Detroit News they are concerned about the changing cost equation in Canada. And while they are reluctant to discuss their concerns publicly in the run-up to next year’s talks, some of those automakers are rethinking their production plans for Canada.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger also hopes that some products produced in Canada could come back to the United States. That is likely to make next year’s contract talks between the car companies and the CAW even more challenging than this year’s negotiations with the UAW.

Ontario is the largest automobile producer in North America, capable of producing 100,000 more cars and trucks each year than Michigan. The U.S. automakers have major production facilities there, as do the Japanese.

But a forecast released last week by WardsAuto.com projects that Ontario will lose more than 600,000 units of production capacity by 2012, while Michigan is expected to gain more than 100,000.

That would effectively reverse a trend that began in 1965 with the signing of the Auto Pact, which removed tariffs and other barriers to trade between the United States and Canada.

Canada’s edge decades-long

Prior to the signing of that accord, only 7 percent of the automobiles produced in Canada were shipped to the United States. Four years later, that number had soared to 60 percent. The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement and the broader North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, have helped push that figure to about 80 percent today.

Last year, the three automakers manufactured nearly 1.8 million vehicles in Canada.

These treaties opened the door to more automotive trade with Canada, but it was the national health care system and the strength of the U.S. dollar that prompted automakers in this country to push their production north of the border.

As recently as 2002, the exchange rate was more than 1.61 loonies to the U.S. dollar. Since then, Canada’s growing oil wealth has helped bolster its currency, while a growing dependence on overvalued consumer credit and other factors have steadily eroded the strength of the U.S. dollar.

The paths of the two currencies crossed in September when the loonie reached parity with the U.S. dollar for the first time since 1977 and peaked on Nov. 7 at $1.10. Last week, the Canadian central bank responded to mounting concern about the currency situation by cutting interest rates, and at the end of the week the Canadian dollar had slipped back below the greenback.

But the exchange rate has never been more than gravy for U.S. automakers, industry officials say. The real attraction in Canada has always been health care.

Like most other industrialized nations, Canada has a national health care system that provides basic medical care to all of its citizens. Companies contribute to this system for active employees, but once those workers retire they become the responsibility of the government alone.

In the United States, providing health care for retirees is expected to cost GM, Ford and Chrysler $6.4 billion this year. Even taking into account higher taxes, those companies spend about $6 an hour more for each active U.S. worker’s health insurance than they do for Canadian workers.

A decade ago, labor costs for autoworkers in Canada were more than $25 an hour less than hourly labor costs for autoworkers in the United States.

U.S. auto executives say that, instead of preserving Canada’s cost advantage, CAW President Buzz Hargrove has used it as a lever to win even more benefits for his members than the gold-plated package enjoyed by their counterparts in the UAW.

Shorter hours, more time off

Canadian autoworkers receive more vacation time and work fewer minutes each hour than UAW members. They also get guaranteed cost-of-living increases that roll over into their pensions and supplemental health insurance to fill gaps in their government coverage. Moreover, the CAW contract allows for more higher-wage skilled trade positions.

These perks had already inflated the hourly labor cost in Canada to near-U.S. levels before the new agreements were signed with the UAW. The currency situation has pushed them to par. But the new UAW contracts will give the United States a major cost advantage.

Those deals will allow each of the U.S. automakers to permanently transfer responsibility for retiree heath care to a UAW-run trust fund. They also will allow the companies to pay some new hires less than current employees.

“What GM, Ford and Chrysler did with the stroke of a pen is eliminate $25 an hour,” said Dennis DesRosiers, president of DesRosiers Automotive Consultants Inc. in Richmond Hill, Ontario. “Canada is now the most expensive spot anywhere in the world for them to manufacture products. That’s a real problem.”

According to one executive, even if the exchange rate falls back to 75 U.S. cents to the Canadian dollar, the new UAW contract would still make America a more attractive place to produce vehicles.

Wage cuts CAW’s only hope?

The only way to bring Canadian manufacturing costs back in line with U.S. costs is for Hargrove to give up all the gains he negotiated on the basis of health care savings, DesRosiers said. The only way to regain Canada’s advantage is to cut base wages.

Hargrove said he will do neither, nor is he prepared to discuss similar contract terms to those offered by the UAW on wages and retiree benefits.

“If they demand these things, it’s going to be a declaration of war,” he told The News, adding that the real problem facing the American automobile industry remains competition from overseas. “We could work for nothing. We can’t save them from that. We’re going to get smaller and the UAW is going to get smaller no matter what we do.”

Harley Shaiken, a professor of labor studies at the University of California, Berkeley, said it is in neither union’s best interest to compete against each other for jobs.

“Transnational companies will use any reason to leverage better costs,” he said. “Unions want to avoid a race to the bottom.”

While all three U.S. automakers praise the efficiency and productivity of their Canadian work forces, they agree that the currency situation, coupled with the new UAW contracts, have made Canada a less attractive place to produce cars and trucks.

There is less agreement on the question of how much this will impact their production plans in the future.

For its part, GM has locked in most of its North American production plans as part of its deal with the UAW — an agreement that ensured most new products for the domestic market would be built in the United States.

Ford and Chrysler have more flexibility about where they build future products, and are taking a harder look at Canada as a result.

Chrysler, which has the biggest percentage of its North American production in Canada, recently announced plans to eliminate a shift at its plant in Brampton, Ontario, where it builds full-size cars. Its Windsor minivan plant is running three shifts, but it costs more to produce vehicles there than at its factory in St. Louis, which produces the same products and is not running at full capacity.

Ford plans to close its St. Thomas Assembly Plant — one of two Ford assembly sites in Canada.

Sandra Pupatello, Ontario’s Minister of Economic Development and Trade, said the provincial government is doing what it can to keep the U.S. auto companies in Canada, including providing money to Canadian suppliers to help them modernize.

“We decided to plant our flag in the auto industry, and we will do whatever it takes to keep a very strong and viable sector for us,” she said. “We will face more competition. But we’re game.”

---

Detroit News is also confirming that the St. Thomas Ford plant will be closed and that Buzz says there is nothing to done about it.

(posted on http://futureoftheunion.com)

There are many thousands of Magna workers in St. Thomas that will be voting on the FFA.

Also of note, in 2006 the CAW had proposed to build cars in St. Thomas out of a new Magna plant with a two-tier wage structure.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=001503&p=

Anyone know the status of that brainwave?

[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

That idea is dead as a door nail. Even with two tier the Big 3 produce smaller vehicles more profitably offshore or in Mexico.

The FFA will not be successful in workplaces with an existing Union structure and culture. The Integram Magna plant is proof of that. While the leadership was in favour of the FFA for other Magna workers, they prefer to maintain their existing ties to a strong Local Union while maintaing a parallel Steward body in the plant.

[ 11 December 2007: Message edited by: arm chair critic ]

At December 7 CAW Council the Chairperson for the Magna Integram plant in Windsor said that he supported the Framework for Fairness Agreement, but not for his plant.

In other words, the hobbled company union structure of the FFA is good for Magna workers who have no union; but it’s a step backward for Magna workers who have a real collective agreement and a real union in their plant.

When your employer brings copy cat demands to the bargaining table, and your union leadership tells you that this is the ‘new reality’… who are you going to call?

If you want to see these claims debunked, refer to the full Q & A by the CAW Members for Real Fairness at this link:
Magna Q & A

LB

[ 11 December 2007: Message edited by: Lev Bronstein ]

[ 11 December 2007: Message edited by: Lev Bronstein ]

Skates the edge very well- which is easier to do when they have the ice to themselves.

So “union density” allows CAW to “set and protect their own standards and influence the whole sector”. If private sector union density declines to US levels (wooo, scary US / UAW), “we all know what comes next: bankruptcies, closures, concessions”. Um... come again? How does unionization prevent bankruptcies and closures? Isn’t that exactly the opposite of the scare-mongering tactics they usually try to lean on? What part of this Magna deal provides job security for anyone – within Magna or any other CAW units? And as far as concessions go, there’s already ridiculous concessions written into the deal itself for christ’s sake, with the whole agreement expressly designed to lock in that status quo permanently. What about the effect of this piece of bargaining on the whole sector?

Then, “It has been claimed by our critics that management gets to select union reps. This is absolutely false.” Straw man argument. Doesn’t even begin to address the compromises that are already inherent in having that “jointness committee” bunch of management-centric, non-partisan, non-advocate so-called union leaders (if that’s even who it is in every case -- the original documents aren’t clear on this) be the ones to decide on the short list of names for the plant EA, with no input from the membership, no accountability to members, no election campaign, and this person is then appointed basically at the pleasure of CAW national – who of course have their own deep prevailing interest in perpetuating this whole sorry system. Any reasonable management team would be falling over itself to usher in this level of influence on the selection and control of union reps.

“Anyone who says it is impossible to make good progress in bargaining without the right to strike is factually wrong.” Those doors into head office must be locked up pretty tight if that’s the only part of the concerns that they heard. People are saying it’s impossible to make good progress in bargaining when you voluntarily give up the right to strike pretty much in perpetuity; when right out of the gate you have already said that the majority of issues can never be addressed in bargaining; when you explicitly outlaw shop floor advocates and local democracy; when your local spokespeople are by definition in bed with management adjudicating “fairness”; and when at the same time, you have also done away with any kind of just process for addressing grievances.

They’re actually not even pretending anymore that arbitration will play any significant role in grievances. Now they’re all like, we’re above that; we always find other ways to deal with these problems.

That old union saying “obey first, grieve later”? For Magna workers it’s going to be just “obey”.

They go on and on, dodge and deflect. But the best part: “We can find various ways to press the employer to do the right thing.” Um… any specific idea how to do this? Press releases, maybe? Jointly approved of course.

What a snowjob.

Reading between the lines, I get the feeling that a lot of this was an effort to insinuate that there would be tangible benefits in this deal for non-Magna CAW members... without actually providing any data to support this. Anyway, they can’t come out and say that outright because Buzz has his legacy to worry about here – he desperately wants to hold onto the high moral ground and avoid the message “two-tier contract for non-core workers”.

The howls from the CAW membership in those two plants would not have looked good while the national leadership was busy selling the virtues of the FFA.

But there is a third plant in Mississauga with an existing contract that does not expire for another year. Magna won’t be giving those CAW members an exemption from being folded into the FFA, because doing so would create precedents the CAW could exploit. So the CAW members in that plant will be hung to dry [as will the Integram workers 3 years from now].

This would seem a ripe time for Steel or IAM to do an organizing drive at the Mississauga plant. Simple message: if we are certified, first contract will be modeled on what is in the Integram/Innovetech collective agreement, rather than the CAW folding you into the FFA- stripping you of union representation, and ultimately of real bargaining power.

Unfortunately, there is a simple powerful argument against that. All 3 plants make seats. Innovetech was closed with the dropping of the Pacifica it made seats for. So, if the Missisauga workers were to de-certify the CAW, their plant would simply close.

I suppose it would be possible to organize all 3 plants. There would be powerful arguments for the CLC or OFL to support this. [And powerful arguments against such an all out war.]

But to support such an organizing derive the Integram workers would have to risk Magna shutting them down too.

[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

So it is written, so it shall be done.

The part on the “Unique Features” of the FFA system at Magna are at the very least deliberately misleading- but I see some statements that appear to be flat out, uh, incorrect… to put it delicately.

This is made harder because I asked earlier if someone could send me a copy of the Master Agreement- and I still don’t have one. Hint. Hint.

But even without that to check, here are some glaring inconsistencies from the slide show:

quote:

---

The Fairness Committee can establish a panel to consider a grievance, in which case CAW members have a 50% plus one majority on the panel. The Fairness Committees also handle certain types of local decisions. Some local decisions are even handled by referendum votes among the workers. (17)

---

Leaving aside that it’s called ‘concern resolution’ and is categorically different than any grievance process, it’s important to note what is slid over here: the FC literally only ‘considers’ the so-called grievance in the most general sense. If the matter is pursued outide these existing Magna channels it goes to the joint CAW-Magna Employee Relations Review Committee [at the corporate wide level]. This is easiest to see in the organization diagram / flow chart on page 20 of FFA.

The FFA does say that the FC can strike sub-committees to deal with the concerns/grievances. It does not mention their composition- that could be in the Master Agreement. But I wouldn’t take Team Buzz’s word on that.

It is also inconsistent with the clear statement in the FFA that there are no CAW reps on the Fairness Committees, period. It still could be in the Master Agreement as ‘composed of majority FC members who are in the bargaining unit’. But even that possibility is inconsistent with Magna practice. The FC’s already exist, and the 51% membership is of ALL non-management employees, not 51% bargaining unit employees. So where/how would those non-bargaining unit employees fir into the concern/grievance process if the sub-committees are changed to being composed of bargaining unit employees only?

quote:

---

Remember, the CAW reps make up a 50% plus 1 majority of any dispute panels established by the Fairness Committee.

……

A sub-committee of the CAW reps to the Fairness Committee will review all the nominations [for the Employee Advocate], and rank them on a shortlist. (18)

---

In the slide show these “dispute panels” with their [alleged] CAW majority, are made much of in the organizational chart- looming larger than the Fairness Committees themselves. These “dispute panels” being the same thing the FFA says review grievances/concerns, but just calls them sub-committees of the FC, and which already exist in the Magna structure.

-------

And I’d like to see where[if] in the Master Agreement it says that the panel selecting the short list for the Employee Advocate is only for CAW members.

If these claims Stanford made about composition of these bodies do turn out to be true, it does not substantively alter the overall power balance that Team Buzz conveniently avoids. But it would still be good to check the [narrow] factual nature of these claims of representation.

----

ETA:

In the page talking about the EA selection process [19] Stanford tosses out the straw man they seem to like trotting out at every occassion:

quote:

---

CAW members, and CAW members alone, who select the full-time rep. It has been claimed by our critics that Magna gets to select union reps. This claim is utterly false.

.....

Once again, there is no role for Magna managers whatsoever in this selection process, or in selecting or screening candidates for those positions. The process is controlled by CAW members from start to finish. No matter how often that false claim is made by the CAW’s critics, the facts are clear, and spelled out explicitly in the CAW-Magna collective agreement: Magna managers play no role.

---

Only problem is that critics aren't talking about management's direct selection of union reps. And it is a huge stretch from saying they do not to justifying the constant claims that management plays "no role whatsoever".

[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

Maintaining union density is crucial to the CAW's overall bargaining power.

But higher density does not in itself = greater bargaining power.

If the FFA becomes a pattern for bargaining with other employers, that will directly undermine the CAW's overall bargaining leverage. [I outlined this in the previous thread linked at the top.]

The only way that the FFA will not become a pattern for bargaining is if the CAW is able to bargain for substantial changes in the FFA.

Team Buzz makes very vague and general statements that this 'foot in the door' will be 'expanded' in future negotiations.

But there is not a hint of how, nor any discussion at all about the bargaining power balance with Magna, and what can be expected of that.

[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

It's also available as a (low quality) podcast

If you have any comments on it I'd appreciate it if you registered and posted them on the http://linchpin.ca website (as I don't check here much).

Team Buzz makes much of the fact no strike provisions are normal in collective bargaining. But they compare to private sector unions where the provision was traded for benefits and where the union is free to withdraw the provision in the next bargaining round. Likewise, the public sector unions who lose the right to strike in legislation have significant compensating powers not available to the CAW.

What is unique about the Magna deal is that the no strike provision was a non-negotiable demand of the employer, and most tellingly: the CAW does not yet have the capability to put an end to the no strike provision. In fact, the CAW surrendered the tools for that when it entered into this arrangement with the largest auto employer.

Team Buzz never acknowledges that the capability of ever having a credible threat of striking Magna requires the intensive and lengthy education process that always takes place in the years following a first contract. How is this to be done at Magna plants without the 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.

Team Buzz has not acknowledged this fundamental challenge the CAW faces with the Magna deal. Nor have they acknowledged that they have agreed to a unique institutionalized imbalance of power, apparently with the assumption that they can turn the tables in future rounds of bargaining.

Turn the tables and they will have successfully brought Magna into the fold of the unionized auto sector. But if the tables are not decisively turned, then the Magna system is enshrined and becomes the pattern for all auto bargaining. And that would be an absolutely HUGE and wholesale infeebling of union bargaining power.

That’s quite the high stakes. And it says volumes that Team Buzz has not acknowledged the gamble. But for the moment lets set aside the fact of that little omission, and look at the prospects for the CAW turning the tables on Magna under the terms of the Framework for Fairness Agreement.

The closest that Team Buzz comes to addressing this question is in that slide presentation given by Jim Stanford linked above: CAW’s Record & Ability to Do Things Differently (p31).

Much is made of the CAMI example, “building the union inside.” That took several years and was done with the full complement of the in-plant independent union presence which will not exist at the Magna plants.

They even conclude that part of the slide presentation with how well they have done at Magna already:

quote:

---

Perhaps the best example of all is the 3 local unions we have already built at Magna. They all worked within the Magna system. They all accepted parts of that system within their contracts. Yet they all demonstrate the finest principles of independent, democratic trade unionism. And their leaders are top-notch trade unionists. And they all fully support the Framework of Fairness.

---

But this is not what the FFA is about. The workers in those plants have the Magna system and the full complement of the in-plant independent CAW presence. Under the FFA they will lose that, and the new CAW members will never have it.

Even with a lot of charitable allowances given, there is no other way to characterize this spin other than to call it deliberately misleading. And we know about how much those CAW Magna members “fully support the Framework of Fairness”: the Windsor Integram Chairperson got up at Council to say he supports it, but not at his plant.

Nonetheless, we can set aside the deliberate misrepresentation, and the fact that Team Buzz has not presented the case, and look at what the prospects are for building union strength at the new Magna plants as they come in.

In the first place, it’s already a stretch to say you’ve done it before and will do it again- when you don’t have the tools that you had before, as at CAMI. But it’s much worse than that.

Team Buzz agreed to Magna firmly planting in the FFA and the Master Agreement language that clearly hobbles the unions ability to develop alternative forms of independent union power.

The FFA states unequivocally that union members on the Fairness Committees are not union representatives. Then there is the truly extraordinary and Orwellian assurance that the CAW will not encourage or allow activities that ‘polticize the workplace’. [p65, Master Agreement].

So the CAW has committed to not trying to subvert the Fairness Committees. And it has exposed itself to Magna bringing down the hammer on any creative attempts to build new ‘parallel power’ institutions. The power behind that hammer is simple: Magna has to offer incrementally each division for the voluntary recognition process. They have committed to a process that will take 9-10 years- the CAW held hostage the whole time. But if Magna deems that the CAW is ‘polticizing the workplace,’ they can halt that process.

Those aren’t just vague words that the CAW has agreed to- 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.

The most charitable stretch you could possibly give to Team Buzz is to allow that a totally new way will be found to educate Magna workers into the full understanding of what autonomous union power is, how it concretely benefits them, and what it requires from all of them. Some new fangled educational system that does not require an independent union presence in the plants and which slips under the radar of what Magna can call ‘polticiczing the workplace’. Suppose for the sake of discussion that 3 years from now- which would be a phenomenal speed- the way to do this has been found.

Even then- as those new CAW plants gradually come in, it will take a few years to bring those new members into the fold. At any given time in the future the single amalgamated Magna Local is going to have a high proportion of members new to the CAW. Magna knows they will not vote for a strike. The horizon for the CAW even potentially developing the leverage of a credible threat to strike is many years in the future. Long before then the Magna pattern will be spreading through auto.

[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

[ 15 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Unions circling Linamar plants
December 14, 2007
The Guelph Mercury

A controversial agreement between the Canadian Auto Workers union and auto parts giant Magna International has raised an intriguing question: could a similar deal be inked at Guelph's Linamar Corporation?

[snip]

But Linamar threw cold water on any idea this could spread to the Guelph-based auto parts maker. Linamar employs 11,000 workers in 37 locations globally, including 6,500 workers in roughly two dozen Guelph plants, which primarily make engine, transmission and driveline parts and assemblies. "It's not something we're considering," Linamar spokesperson Crystal Roberts said yesterday.

[snip]

Seeking to convince it otherwise is the CAW and a rival union with a rare toehold in Linamar.

Bill Shipman, the representative for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 1788, isn't buying the CAW's new agreement with Magna. "We do not subscribe to that deal at all," he said. The IAM represents 400 workers at Invar Manufacturing Ltd. and is the only union in a Canadian Linamar plant. Linamar inherited the union presence when it bought the Batawa, Ont. plant in 1986.

[snip]

The union intends to organize drives at Linamar plants in Guelph, though Jackson didn't want to tip his hand too much. "It is our plan to expand into those areas. We're always looking for new places," Jackson said, adding it builds on past efforts in the Guelph area. "We've talked to a number of workers down there on a number of occasions."

He was concerned the CAW's deal with Magna will put pressure on his union and others to follow suit with similar deals. "Already we've had employers come to the (bargaining) table and want similar agreements," Jackson said. "It's something the IAM is not going to do."

CAW organizer John Aman, however, is hopeful that Linda Hasenfratz, Linamar Corp's chief executive officer, and other captains of industry will call him to chat about how they could foster good relations through a Magna-type deal. "We would sit down with any employer," Aman said yesterday

---

[ 15 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

Lets take a look also at the details of these processes Stanford’s presentation does not talk about. Full Picture.

Those CAW majority dispute panels don’t loom as large in the overall ‘concern resolution’ process as they do in the slide show organization chart [p18].

* It is one step in the middle of a many step process.

* The CAW members are there to judge the worker, not support her- and required to include company criteria in that judgement.

* If the plant manager doesn’t like the decision, he simply kicks it on to the management and then joint union-management steps.

It’s also important to look at what might appear to be a secondary detail. The CAW members for this hearing panel are randomly selected Fairness Committee members, which ensures they will have the run of the mill perspective of these folks who Magna continuously trains in its system and philosophy.

What a normal independent union representation does- everywhere except Magna plants covered by the FFA- is provide a counterweight to total company power. Independence is required for that counterweight to work. And it does so naturally when the union members recruited into the process are those who have taken to heart and want to apply the perspective of union as counterweight to company power.

By randomly selecting the participating CAW members to this already very isolated and hemmed in majority union panel, Magna has assured that it will keep being composed of Fairness Committee CAW members with the run of the mill Magna trained orientation.

Random selection to a one time panel also ensures that there will not over time be the informal appearance of something resembling a Grievance Committee. The union grievance committee is both a fundamental right to effective democracy and justice, and it is a crucial pillar in the concrete building of union power.

No Grievance Committee. No workers from around the plant to compare notes; and based on that process, decide to push grievances that have the broadest implications.

No: “We’re going to win this one.” Only: insist, and if management does not agree, you go to arbitration. That’s no way to make the incremental progress that the slide presentation boasts of and promises will happen at Magna.

And this is where that “de-politicizing the workplace” commitment comes in. The structure which the CAW has signed onto under the FFA does not allow for a shred of independent union institutions and union power. And the CAW has committed itself to not trying to find a way of getting around that- which flies in the face of assurances by Team Buzz that the ‘foot in the door’ is just a starting point.

“We will find a way as we have before.” Except that in those ‘befores’- such as at CAMI- the CAW didn’t sign away the right to build independent union institutions.

The short list selection of the Employee Advocate is done by a one time panel composed of Fairness Committee CAW members who are again randomly selected. Even here- choosing the one person in the plant who reports to the CAW- Magna gets that assurance of the run of the mill company oriented perspective.

[ 16 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

That should be persuasive for anyone who is actually trying to understand the deal. That would exclude whatever proportion of existing members who just want to take blind refuge in what Buzz says for the sake of what they see as personal self-interest and their team coming out on top.

This should have relevance though for the existing unionized Magna plants' decisions. Will be interesting to see what kind of money or strong-arm tactics Head Office comes up with to get those plants onside.

As for all the other Magna plants, I think a second message that has to go out is "dues grab". These workers are being used for dues dollars to support CAW's first-class members -- those who have (or had) a lot more advantages out of their CAW membership than Magna folks will ever see under this deal. In signing on for this deal Magna workers are also tying their fortunes to the CAW ship, that the union is expecting them to save. Compared to other CAW plants, they will have much less opportunity to jump to another union if CAW continues to sink along with the North American automotive sector.

quote:

---

...insist, and if management does not agree, you go to arbitration.

---

I think it's important to note that access to arbitration in this Magna CAW deal will not come about without that persevering insistence over many levels of management and "jointness", all trying to make the grievor acquiesce. This in a union whose constitution does not contain grievance carriage rights for members. Predicatably the vast majority of grievances, whatever their merit or importance, will never see the light of day in arbitration.

quote:

---

The short list selection of the Employee Advocate is done by a one time panel composed of Fairness Committee CAW members who are again randomly selected.

---

Is that the wording in the initial Master Agreement or was it added for Windsor Modules? If the latter, is that a one-off amendment -- or is it actually possible to alter the Master Agreement through changes negotiated at the plant level (or the expectation of similar conditions being applied across all units)?

[ 16 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

As for all the other Magna plants, I think the message that has to go out is "dues grab". These workers are being used for dues dollars to support CAW's first-class members -- those who have (or had) a lot more advantages out of their CAW membership than Magna folks will ever see under this deal. In signing on for this Magna workers are also tying their fortunes to the CAW ship; compared to other CAW plants, they will have much less opportunity to change bargaining agents if CAW keeps sinking with the North American automotive sector.

---

I think that pushing this message is a very bad idea.

I also happen to think it's not true- but that's not why I think pushing it is a bad idea. But it is relevant as an example: if you can't convince someone like me who thinks this is a devious scam on the part od Team Buzz...

You can't prove this sort of thing, or even come close. And it provides an easy target for what Team Buzz focuses on as what their critics are about.

Stick to the substantive criticisms. They are somewhat tricky to understand as it is, and theres already enough distractions by Team Buzz.

quote:

---

----------------------------
The short list selection of the Employee Advocate is done by a one time panel composed of Fairness Committee CAW members who are again randomly selected.
---------------------------

Is the that wording in the initial Master Agreement or was it added for Windsor Modules? If the latter, is that a one-off amendment -- or is it actually possible to alter the Master Agreement through changes negotiated at the plant level (or the expectation of similar conditions being applied across all units)?

---

That wording is in the Master Agreement. As in other situations, there is plenty of local negotiating. I looked over the Windsor Modules and saw nothing significant.

You can bet your booties that particular item will not be negotiated locally. It's part of a package that Magna insisted on- for reasons that are apparent when you put all the items together.

[ 16 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

your latest post is built on the premise that Fairness Committee reps, although elected by the workers, will automatically be imbued with pro-management mentality because of the training they will receive. That seems a tad on the fatalistic side. But if that is true, then why bother with such a detailed and lengthy deconstruction of everything else?

---

Question occured to me too at some point in this discussion. I wouldn't have phrased it the same: different question, but same basic logic.

The short but inadequate answer is that it's reasonable to expect the FC members will not be so completely one dimensional as to "be imbued with pro-management mentality" only.

Looking at how the FFA will work requires a dynamic and strategic analysis.

First there is how the process starts working when the CAW comes into a plant, after only a brief introduction to the union [and a version of the union as cooperating partner].

I think its reasonable to expect that many if not most of the first Fairness Committe members who are CAW members will generally see the union as a good thing. Magna good thing, CAW good thing.

The question is where and how it is possible to develop an understanding of what the union is capable of doing among enough of the CAW members.

That need for development is not at all unique to plants where the union is new. It took several years to do that at CAMI- and that was in a new plant where the company and union come into the picture at the same time and where the union has all the conventional in-plant institutional structures.

Those normal in plant union institutions are very substantial. They organically recruit people disposed to the union, who educate each other and are actively facilitated and trained by the national union. And with all that, it takes several years before independent action is possible.

In the FFA case Magna will continue to be the one training these CAW Fairness Committee members. Guess what version of the union they will be promoting? Magna trians everyone, while the CAW will only train those who volunteer to come to courses. [And the few decisions to be made will be made by the randomly selected CAW members, not the ones the CAW trains.]

The reason to go into all that 'deconstruction' over the details of how the Magna FFA in-plant institutions work is to see if there is any reason to expect a development of a sense of the union beyond what the CAW gets at the beginning with this 'foot in the door'.

Team Buzz has assured that that there will be this development. I don't see a simple two sentence answer to how the Agreement is structured in a way to make sure things never change.

But I think it's feasible to get to a sufficiently straightforward answer.

Maybe it requires a semi-visual presentation. Starting with two organizational diagrams / flow charts. The FFA one showing how extremely mediated [at best] the structure is, and how it leaves no chance for union members to work together in a sustained fashion.... that one-time random selection thing in the only two cases where union members make a majority, which are themselves isolated in larger non-union processes.

All these effects come to roost on bargaining strength around the possibility the union can ever mount a credible threat to strike. Because when will it ever have sufficient conact with the membership?

And once again- never striking is one thing. But never having the credible threat of strike means that the power imbalance at Magna can never change.

[ 16 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
Predicatably the vast majority of grievances, whatever their merit or importance, will never see the light of day in arbitration.

---

That's true in every unit of every union.

But if the Magna workers' "concerns" (groan) keep getting resolved in management's favour, why would union members not demand arbitration as the only valid recourse?

Or if a fair percentage are resolved in their favour, why would they?

Some of the basic ingredients of the Magna framework are very dangerous (I tried to list them earlier). It's unclear to me what the purpose can be of predictions of doom on such fronts as grievance handling. The hardest way to persuade existing CAW members (or members of other unions) of the dangers of this deal is by predicting a gloomy future. That's called a mug's game in the parlance.

ETA:

quote:

---

This in a union whose constitution does not contain grievance carriage rights for members.

---

You are familiar with a union where individual members have the right to decide that their grievances will go to arbitration? Is that union bankrupt yet?

[ 17 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

I think the most likely possibility is that the majority of 'concerns' will actually get a reasonably fair shake.

Magna has an interest in this process working smoothly. And remember that blending the CAW into the process is only a modification of existing practice. Magna didn't succeed at keeping the union out by lording it over workers. There has to be a sense at Magna plants that in the company labour relations process that you can for example get relief from gratuitous dsicipline by a supervisor that has it out for you. If Magna didn't provide that minimum 'relief valve', union organizing drives would have succeeded long ago.

All that is changing under the FFA is that when union members request the formal Fairness Committee hearing that they have always been entitled to, that the hearing panel judging them will have a majority of other union members.

Getting back to unionists point: it's already not doom and gloom at Magna plants, and there is every reason to expect CAW member input can make the outcomes somewhat better.

"The hardest way to persuade existing CAW members (or members of other unions) of the dangers of this deal is by predicting a gloomy future. That's called a mug's game in the parlance."

There is no question the 'concern resolution' process is not as good as what any autonomous union can do with conventional grievance processes.

But we have to be careful even using that argument. Team Buzz has the easy answer to that: the Magna workers don't have the option for better.

This is why I always focus on two kinds of arguments.

1.] If you are an autoworker you should compare what Magna workers will get to what you have. Because if you let the FFA move forward, you can expect your employer will be demanding something patterned after the FFA. IE, the CAW is going to open the barn door wide. Do you wnat them to do that?

2.] The argument that the CAW is walking into a hobbled bargaining position with Magna, which will then spread.

The weakness of the FFA concern resolution system comes up in both types of arguments.

per 1.]: How would you feel if you were stuck with a grievance system where you had to take all the personal risks of sticking your neck out and insisting that your grievance be started... let alone the daunting prospect of the risks of insisting that it move through the gauntlet run of the many steps until you might get some justice?

But I think the second argument is the strongest one: the contributing effect the weak 'concern resolution' process will have on debilitating the unions leverage and bargaining strength.

Real grievance committees are an important means of making incremental union gains. Team Buzz has acknowedged that it needs to stretch past the FFA with steady incremental gains. Having conceded a real grievance process is another of the tools for achieving those gains that they did not keep.

Giving up one major tool for making gains might be necessary and an acceptable risk to take- but the CAW has given up all of them.

No incremental gains through the grievance process [which are typically consolidated with the next collective agreement]. And none of the institution, education, and solidarity building among union members.

[ 16 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

I'll add that I only get a sense that within the CAW there is this depth of analyis on the margins.

There is plenty of widespread dislike, distrust, sense of betrayal, worry, and even smelling of rats. But Team Buzz can weather that if people cannot take hard headed analysis broadly to the rank and file. Most people can live with and accept suspicions- even deep suspicions.

I'd certainly like to be corrected that there is indeed more widespread 'digging in'- beyond re-voicing suspicions. [Suspicions being just that, no matter how well founded.]

[And there's always the private message option- button at top of post- for people who would feel too exposed even posting anonymously to a board.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You are familiar with a union where individual members have the right to decide that their grievances will go to arbitration? Is that union bankrupt yet?

---

That would be OPSEU, my union. I have my issues with the ways this is implemented (lots of mediation and med-arb, fairly coercive) but we are pretty flush as far as I know.

Re: grievances -- the point is, it's being optimistic even to refer to them by that name under this deal. The Taylorist system in place now at Magna now will continue virtually unaltered under the CAW deal and that system is deliberately set up to smother problems at every level along the way. Not by any means is that true of every unit of every union.

Please also note that "Cassandra" is a sexist, dismissive term in this context.

[ 16 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

I think that pushing this message is a very bad idea.

I also happen to think it's not true- but that's not why I think pushing it is a bad idea. But it is relevant as an example: if you can't convince someone like me who thinks this is a devious scam on the part od Team Buzz...

You can't prove this sort of thing, or even come close. And it provides an easy target for what Team Buzz focuses on as what their critics are about.

---

KenS, but I would have absolutely no expectation that you would ever be persuaded by the "dues grab" line, or any other simple story that doesn't capture the whole picture. It's so important to have a firm grip on the bottom line like that. But the corollary is, what persuades you is going to be incomprehensible for anyone without the same background.

That's the nature of knowledge; you yourself actually know about this subject and you have spent considerable time and effort pondering all the nuances. Naturally you prefer the complete assessment. But that degree of complexity and the shades of grey are not going to be persuasive to the casual observer: they need it in black and white. How much of even what we read in the newspaper do we actually agree with, when we have first-hand experience of the topic? And this isn't reporting -- it's flat-out propaganda, just as Buzz himself is propagating a seriously flawed, incomplete and misleading version of this story. I think ours comes much closer to the truth.

As far as proving anything goes, public opinion is not and never will be based on rational assessment. However it's gold when the facts on close reading lead to the same conclusion as the emotional response and I believe that's the advantage we have here.

quote:

---

Stick to the substantive criticisms. They are somewhat tricky to understand as it is, and theres already enough distractions by Team Buzz.

---

Buzz's line as far as I can tell is simply that his opponents are against him for reasons of party politics. We can argue all we want about that and all the other facts they have wrong, but if we stick to just criticizing what they say, we're still dancing to Buzz's tune and we'll never get anywhere that way in a public campaign.

For control of the discussion what is needed is a story of our own that resonates, as well as the factoids to back it up.

My feeling is -- Buzz was pitching his own people, but this story has to reach the public domain.

[ 17 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
That would be OPSEU, my union. I have my issues with the ways this is implemented (lots of mediation and med-arb, fairly coercive) but we are pretty flush as far as I know.

---

I'm surprised, I didn't realize that existed. I would assume that all individual grievance arbitrations are non-precedential, so that other members and the union are not bound by a bad interpretation? Also, does this apply to all grievances - if I disagree with the union's interpretation on scheduling of work or some other policy issue, can I go to arbitration?

quote:

---

Please also note that "Cassandra" is a sexist, dismissive term in this context.

---

[ 19 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

Magna & the CAW: Great Opportunity, or Delusional Walk Into A Trap

The CAW national leadership has described the Framework for Fairness Agreement as an opportunity the CAW needs, as a foot in the door for ‘building the union inside’ Magna.

The national leadership makes a compelling case that the slide in auto industry union density has to be turned around. And what better way to do that than bring the largest and most non-union employer into the fold?

At least, that is how the national leadership presents it.

But maintaining or increasing union density is not in itself the goal. The goal is to maintain the CAW’s overall bargaining power in auto. What if the FFA is most likely to directly undermine the CAW’s bargaining power?

The Framework for Fairness Agreement is a structure designed by Magna to keep the CAW from ever developing any more bargaining leverage with the company than the little the CAW national leadership admits it has now. Magna already had a labour relations system designed to keep unions out- so it needed to get the CAW to give up the kind of union structures it has in every other company.

The CAW national leadership agreed to this startling demand of Magna’s- including giving up the union representation at the three Magna plants the CAW had so laboriously organized in the last several years. The national leadership even signed onto contract language that keeps the CAW from changing this state of affairs.

Giving up the right to strike is one thing. Also giving up all the workplace union-building structures means giving up the means to ever have a credible threat to strike. Without that, the CAW will never have real bargaining leverage.

Presumably Buzz Hargrove thinks he can later turn the tables on Magna despite all this. Or at least that he has managed to convince the rest of the national leadership that it can and will be done. Who really knows? Because they are doing their best to keep this “challenge” out of view- pretending it does not even exist.

What are they hiding from CAW members?

There is much more riding on this than whether or not the tables can be turned on Magna. If the tables are not turned on Magna, they will instead be turned on a weakened CAW when every employer in auto uses the Magna-CAW framework as a pattern.

[ 19 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

...looking for comments:

That above is my attempt to boil down the whole argument about how the FFA will undermine bargaining power in auto.

If you boil the argument down you can't give all the supporting details- may even have to leave out most of them.

But the main points have to be there, and they have to make sense. [What you definitely do not do is get bogged down by anticipating and dealing with every counter-argument that you figure is going to be out there.]

The ideal way to read this and make comments is to think about someone for whom this is all they necessarily read. [Hopefully they'll go for more info later- whether or not it is right at hand.] What might not be clear? Or what really should have been included even in a really basic argument. Etc.

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

There is an assumption here of focusing on bargaining power.

Bluntly speaking, this is all and only about the business union aspects of being a trade union.

I certainly share in the fundamental principle that there is much more, and have participated in detailed discussions of figuring out how the FFA effects and can be expected to effect the institutions and the rights that make up the more 'qualitative side' of trade unionism.

But a trade union has to be an effective business union. If that cannot be maintained there won't be anything else.

Strip away all the rationalizations and BS from Team Buzz about how the FFA isn't all that different... and even if you cut through all that, the trump card rules.

Their boiled down case is that the CAW needs this deal to maintain bargaining power in auto.
You cannot only answer that, as critics have, with "but look at what is being given up."

You have to deal with that trump card too.

[ 19 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

I'm wondering if the word "institution" might be confusing. Colloquially in some places this word means "queen street mental health centre" or an equivalent facility, or at least a connotation of bricks and mortar. Maybe people have heard the term in reference to marriage but they may have a hard time extrapolating from that. I think this idea needs to be pinned down to specifics right up front, to support an impact more on the level of understanding rather than just maybe responding to the rhetoric. If we don't really understand something we might appreciate it but we can't retain it, much less tell anyone else.

Of course this will bring up all the familiar counter-arguments, and add length.

quote:

---

Also, this might not have come through in the portion of the Guelph Mercury article I posted above but Hemi Mitic is quoted as saying that Linamar is the most non-union employer and that's why they could never make the inroads there as they have with Magna.

---

This raises an interesting question. Change that to who is the most effectively non-union, and I'll bet you anything that is Magna. They have a pretty sophisticated human relations system. And reading between the lines- I'd say they have a lot of managerial professional competence on the detailed nuts and bolts of how it works... and which is why they knew exactly what they needed from the CAW to keep it that way, and got it.

Then we have Linamar. I'd like to know more about them. Only superficial stuff on their 'style' came up on Google. But judging from that one quote from Hasenfratz, they sound anything but sophisticated when it comes to being anti-union.

Linamar looks to be more diversified than Magna. And there are eery similarities with Magna [daughter runs business started by father], but the company and the Hasenfratz fly under the radar in most un-Stronach like fashion.

So quite likely Linamar hasn't tried to pick up any of those out-sourcing nuggets from the Big Three like Magna has [knowing them to be too rich in their implications maybe?], let alone dreaming of assembling millions of cars. (ETA: actually they did pick up one of those out-sourcing nuggets, but it was in Mexico.)

If Magna hadn't walked down that ambitious path, they would not have any unionized plants. Instead they have 3, and apparently thought more to come was a serious possibility.

And possibly, by extension, Linamar by staying away from those rich meals would never see any reason to change from beating back the union in the old fashioned manner.

IE, that even though Magna did a better job of methodically insulating itself from unionizing and probably was better protected on that front, Linamar has stayed 'safe' on that account just by staying away from dangerous territory [even if the avoidance had more to do with other dangers of close tangoing with the Big Three, rather than the particular danger of being forced to accept the CAW].

As for Hemi Mitic, of course he is going to call Linamar the most non- or anti-union employer... in comparison to Magna, where the CAW has recently seen the light as to the degree of virtue Magna always had in their human relations structure.

That said, I'd guess that Linamar is more classically anti-union and that their paternalistic appeals to employees are much cruder than Magna's.

=========

Another subject. Came across this Canadian Dimension article written by a CAW member:

DEMOCRACY, SOLIDARITY AND THE ‘FRAMEWORK OF FAIRNESS’

.
.

[ 19 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

In coming months the buyouts are to focus on more core operations such as powertrain.

Linamar talks about expecting to move into more powertrain production as the Big Three shed workers. Makes sense that this would be a better option for US Big Three after they shed workers: the independent non-union suppliers are still cheaper and blending all those lower wage new hires might be dicey for Big Three core production work.

I have a few questions, seeing if anyone has heard of circulating possibilities.

Are there alternative types of demands that might come from GM in Canadian negotiations later this year if they accept that the CAW will not negotiate two tier deals?

[My understanding is that what they have to pay out with layoffs makes it too expensive to unilaterally shut operations- even if they could replace production of something like powertrains for models still being built.]

[ 20 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

Should be grist for the mill.

Both the UAW and CAW have for a number of years been trading off labour price concessions for layoff protections. Among other things this made it very expensive for the Big Three to permanently or indefinitely close down production lines.

The Big Three committed to those big layoff penalties in the expectation they would regain sufficient market share, and normal attrition would then take care of any further needs to cut back employment levels. That plan didn't work.

This is the major reason for the seemingly self-destructive cash incentives to the buyers of Big Three vehicles. The layoffs required to keep up with their market share losses are so expensive, they are better off making and selling the vehicles for a fraction of the per vehicle profit Asian manufacturers realize, even when they make the vehicles and source the parts mostly in North America.

The Big Three are coming to the end of the rope of those buyer incentives as stop gap measure. They have to lower their per vehicle cost structure.

The two tier contracts with the UAW see expensive one time buyouts of high priced workers, and replacement of them with low wage and benefit new hires. For GM the one time costs are palatable because their shareholders are looking for survival- near term profits were not on the horizon anyway. Different dynamic, but same outcome for what the owners of Chrysler are looking for. Cerebrus is looking to vastly boost the value of their bargain basement Chrysler investment, and they neither expected or needed short term profits.

So for GM and Chrysler at least, a one time write down followed by lower costs of production, is just what the doctor ordered. It is for those companies a necessary condition of survival, whether or not it will be a sufficient start on the road to recovery.

Most observers seem to view this in the rather obvious way: the Big Three will have recruited an army of lower cost workers, and the remaining higher priced workers will be replaced.

Magna and Linamar are as we speak gearing up to pick up outsourcing opportunities as the Big Three continue to shed workers- high or low tiered- and focus on vehicle assembly. If this is true, then it indicates the Big Three are going to use the UAW concessions in a two or three step fashion…. with no intention to for long have a category of workers it isn’t realistic you can keep at a radically lower rates than what the ‘old’ workers get.

Step 1. Bring in the mass of low wage new hires. But this is just a transition to:

Step 2. First wave of moving out production such as powertrain, that autoworkers have so far performed. The remaining laid off ‘full priced’ workers that cannot be bought out relatively cheaply, are moved elsewhere in the plant. The low priced new hires are the ‘float’ / cushion that makes the shifting possible.

Step 3. Within a fairly short time frame, the numbers of ‘full priced’ workers are vastly reduced through retirement and continuous offers of low cost buyouts which they accept before their wage and benefit premium is ended by resentful “new hires” with several years experience.

The desired outcome of this process is not at all as simple as severely beating down per hour labour costs. The Big Three will know that the depth of the cost cut they get from the “new hires” will be transitory. Those particularly deep discount new hires are the means of transition to a production cost structure emulating the Asian owned transplants: fewer direct employees, more focused on assembly, and the essential corporate flexibility to lay them off when and as required.

I already proposed a plausible CAW concession strategy that does not involve the two tier wage system- at least not a direct two tier system.

In this scenario the CAW would replace the US ‘shock troop’ temporary low cost new hire role with a more direct company movement to the end goal: the CAW moderates the cost of permanent layoffs, with outsourced production going to independent suppliers who voluntarily recognize the union. IE, Magna or any other supplier willing to sign an agreement patterned on the FFA: lucrative new supply contracts and a stripped down union as a very palatable cost of business.

If this were to come to pass it wouldn’t leave the CAW national leadership looking good. BUT, the concessions on the layoff buyout front would not necessarily have to be huge, and most workers would be keeping their jobs.

The CAW concessions on the layoff buyout front required in this scenario could probably be kept relatively moderate because the certainty and smoothness of the transition would save money for the Big Three. It would also considerably raise the attractiveness of the outsourcing to the Magnas of the industry, which in turn translates into them being willing to bid in at lower supply cost levels.

[ 20 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

I actually didn't have some kind of 'suggested conclusion / implication' in mind when I wrote it.

It was and is meant to be tossing out for consideration what looks to me as the likely next step for Team Buzz.

IE, from the statements Buzz has made, it's pretty clear he has no intention of following the UAW's two tier example. In fact, he's using a portrayal of the UAW-as-poodle to put his alternative in a better light- that alternative being the Magna deal.

But the FFA is only part of the story. Coming right up is the big time: the Big Three negotiations. The UAW has added pressure, and Buzz is clearly open to concessions.

To be fair, its unrealistic to expect any national leadership to eschew all concessions- it's a question of crafting them in a manner that maximizes advantages and leverage for the CAW and its members.

Buzz is clearly getting inventive- almost anything is possible. So you have to be wary about the 'no two tier system' line in the sand. OK, but what else could it be?

So that's the spirit of my post. The first half of my post- up until the paragraph introducing the '3 step process'- is stuff that I think is common knowledge.

That 3 step process I suggest is about how the Big Three can be expected to use the UAW concessions, where it's not as simple as beating down wages with those second tier new hires cut rate wages and benefits.

At that point I'm no longer just repeating common knowledge, but I doubt I'm the first person to suggest this. It's there between the lines. Here in bold is that part:

quote:

---

Magna and Linamar are as we speak gearing up to pick up outsourcing opportunities as the Big Three continue to shed workers- high or low tiered- and focus on vehicle assembly. If this is true, then it indicates the Big Three are going to use the UAW concessions in a two or three step fashion…. with no intention to for long have a category of workers it isn’t realistic you can keep at a radically lower rates than what the ‘old’ workers get.

Step 1. Bring in the mass of low wage new hires. But this is just a transition to:

Step 2. First wave of moving out production such as powertrain, that autoworkers have so far performed. The remaining laid off ‘full priced’ workers that cannot be bought out relatively cheaply, are moved elsewhere in the plant. The low priced new hires are the ‘float’ / cushion that makes the shifting possible.

Step 3. Within a fairly short time frame, the numbers of ‘full priced’ workers are vastly reduced through retirement and continuous offers of low cost buyouts which they accept before their wage and benefit premium is ended by resentful “new hires” with several years experience.

---

The point here is that having those low priced new hires is not itself the goal.

The parallel would be the importance of union density to the CAW. But union density isn't the goal. Maintaining bargaining power is the goal, and union density plays a role in that.

Same for the Big Three. For them the goal is moving to having a 'flexible labour force' such as the Asian transplants have here. 'Flexible' being that you have as few direct employees as possible [stick to assembly]; and while you treat them well, you insist on the capability to shift them around or even lay them off without severe costs if it comes to that. [It strongly tends NOT to come to that, but they still don't concede the capability to easily lay people off.]

So that flexible labour force is the goal, and the 'two tier system' in the US is the means the UAW conceded for getting there.

Because it is so classically capitalist, we tend to seize on the severe drive down of wages as what must be the goal. But its actually something of a distraction.

And if you want to anticipate where Team Buzz might be planning to go next you have to understand what the two tier wages are for. They are a temporary means with which the Big Three in the US are supposed to shift to the flexible labour force.

Thta's the 'lifeline' the UAW is tossing to the Big Three.

Buzz says the linefine stinks. He says it so clearly that I accept it won't be happening here. But then the little wary Spidey sense starts tingling- and so it should.

We've got way more evidence than we need to know that what Buzz really means is not THAT lifeline.

And the logical follow up is to anticipate what Team Buzz is likely to have in mind. And that means, what is Buzz going to offer as the CAW's path for the Big Three to achieve new labour flexibility.

The UAW concession negotiations were crude. The companies knew how much they'd have to offer to buy older workers out of their entitlements to compensation for layoffs. That comes to a big whack of cash. Most of it would be written off, but the companies wanted those [temporary] super low cost workers as their 'personnel float' for making the transition to the new stable flexible labour force [and to some degree the cheapness of those workers being a subsidy to the company- temporary again].

The UAW negotiations were all about how low those wages would have to be- the size of the cash buyouts being a market driven given of what it takes to get enough people out.

I am suggesting that what I see Team Buzz doing is something more straightforward- moderate concessions of the penalties the companies pay to effect layoffs, so that they can shed themselves more easily of production to be outsourced.

The idea being that with the FFA model in their pocket, it is safer for the CAW to accept volunary recognition guarantees for the production outsourced to independent suppliers.

Nobody knew how well those earlier guarantees were going to work [and turned out anything but flawless for the CAW]. Having the FFA for Magna picking up those outsource contracts, and as the collective agreement model for Magna's competitors, means that the CAW can offer up concessions on cost penalties for outsourcing driven layoffs, with confidence the CAW membership will not be going down.

Union density again. With all the flaws and dangers of elevating union density to the be all and end all.

Leaving aside the question of those flaws- I don't think my suggestion is inherently speculative. It is highly consistent with the strategy Team Buzz has been pursuing.

Strategic and bargaining power questions aside again for now, this would not go down easily in the CAW. UAW workers volunteer to be bought out, and they get more than would CAW workers if the suggested cost concessions are offered to the Big Three.

But I think that's a pill Buzz is capable of easing / forcing down with the good cop / bad cop routine. "It's important we not let in two tier" being the rationalization that covers guilt that CAW memebrs would have in supporting a limited number of other members being the ones to pay the price.

So if you're still reading and more or less following this , I'd suggest going back and reading what follows the quote above [in the original post: the 3 Steps and after].

quote:

---

So one of the things I'm getting from that post is that you think an FFA-type deal at Magna and any other outsourcing suppliers is actually good, or even necessary, as long as the assembly plants don't go to two-tier.

---

Actually, I'm not suggesting anything at this point about what might be acceptable, questions like that. And I honestly had nothing in mind when I started working out what to anticipate from Team Buzz. That was and is the focus of the post: first, to know what you are dealing with.

That said, as to what you suggested:

- I haven't changed my opinion about the FFA. [Getting ahead: if anything this implies more resaons to get it scuttled.]

- I don't have an opinion about whether this suggested Team Buzz strategy for the Big Three negotiations would be, in itself, a good or bad idea. [And the bottom line is that it cannot be looked at by itself- most of all because it would be linked at the hip to the FFA.]

- As to whether layoffs and outsourcing would be "good, or even necessary, as long as the assembly plants don't go to two-tier."... you've hit on the nail what Buzz would be saying: "we can't go two tier".... with the 'in the assembly plants' being spelled out only when necessary.

I've gone on WAY too long already. I have since writing the above thought through what responses would be implied by the suggestion in the earlier post. [Surprise.] But that's only what I think now and without benefit of hearing other input.

Before going into that I'd like to hear some other opinions, and/or settle what people don't understand I'm suggesting.

Phew. Looking forward to the hearing the roof blow off the Saddledome tonight.

[ 22 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

But this is where I don't quite follow you:

quote:

---

I already proposed a plausible CAW concession strategy that does not involve the two tier wage system- at least not a direct two tier system.

In this scenario the CAW would replace the US ‘shock troop’ temporary low cost new hire role with a more direct company movement to the end goal: the CAW moderates the cost of permanent layoffs, with outsourced production going to independent suppliers who voluntarily recognize the union. IE, Magna or any other supplier willing to sign an agreement patterned on the FFA: lucrative new supply contracts and a stripped down union as a very palatable cost of business.

---

But when you say you "proposed this strategy", you don't actually intend to endorse this tactic of FFA-type labour relations for the parts plants along with conceding job protection in the core facilities?

I think it would be an exercise in futlity to resist this. The Big Three plants will move in this direction or there will be no work at them.

But I don't think that implies surrender, or aimless concessions. It means you maximize for company concessions that build your leverage.

What Buzz is doing with the FFA is unbeleivably abjct surender: "whatever you 'need,' we'll sign it."

Although I think the UAW concessions are a bad idea and a needless abdication of initiative. And the UAW has no strategy for dealing with the decline in union density, with the two tier being a way station to further decreases in union membership.

quote:

---

But when you say you "proposed this strategy", you don't actually intend to endorse this tactic of FFA-type labour relations for the parts plants along with conceding job protection in the core facilities?

I don't recall CAW ever mentioning the second piece.

---

Well, no they wouldn't. I am talking about anticipating what the CAW national leadership is going to suggest. It WILL be some type of concession- people should not be lulled just because it won't be an [overt] 2 tier like the UAW.

I'm not proposing using any strategy, I'm suggesting what we're likely to see coming from the CAW national leadership.

You're entitled to your suspicions that 'union density' is a euphamism for 'dues grab'... and at least some skepticism is warranted. But I don't think most of us don't find it as inherently loaded as you do.

[ 21 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
And can I just point out that whenever people use this term "union density" my mind actually translates that to "dues base".

---

From my limited sources among CAW rank-and-file (none of them unfortunately in auto or parts - rather in the transportation sectory here in Montréal), the one attack on the Magna deal that draws no blood whatsoever is the "dues grab". Au contraire, it's seen as a classic anti-union argument. Buzz heaped scorn on it to help consolidate support.

That is true of many union officers, staff and it is also the case for many union members, particularly those who have been propagandized by their union. Therefore it would be inconceivable to mount an objection on that basis internally within any big business union. However, the point is that these Magna workers who have yet to decide whether or not to become involved with this deal, are not yet unionized. They hold the power to stop the FFA and I think they will be receptive to this message -- in the specific context of this FFA deal that's being shoved down their throats. In fact I can't see any way of stopping this FFA train in its tracks without speaking truth to power on this key central issue.

quote:

---

I'm not proposing using any strategy, I'm suggesting what we're likely to see coming from the CAW national leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
However, the point is that these Magna workers who have yet to decide whether or not to become involved with this deal, are not yet unionized. They hold the power to stop the FFA and I think they will be receptive to this message -- in the specific context of this FFA deal that's being shoved down their throats.

---

I'm having a hard time with this. Tell me if this is what you're saying (and pardon the plain talk):

1. The FFA is a dues grab.
2. We should get the message to the Magna workers that it's a dues grab.
3. The Magna workers aren't unionized yet, so they'll be receptive to this message.
4. They will then vote not to accept the FFA and by extension to remain non-unionized.

If that's what you're saying, I really have to disagree. Every employer staving off unionization tells workers that all the union really wants is their money. And while the FFA is the wrong model for labour, does that mean we should campaign for Magna workers to stay out of the CAW? I've got a problem with that approach too.

QUESTION ONE Do people think it is a given that the CAW will be working towards some kind of concession package to propose to the Big Three? Bearing in mind the state of the industry, and the precedent set by the UAW? And bearing in mind that 'concession package' doesn't necessarily mean sweeping concessions or that the UAW will even be indirectly 'matched'. [The follow-up question, being how sweeping/comprehensive or not.]

QUESTION TWO How plausible do people consider what I have suggested to anticipate from the CAW national leadership? Criticising my anticipated scenario doesn't require posing an alternative; but any alternatives to suggest? [Rejection of any concessions would come under question ONE.] My suggested scenario outlined above being some reduction of company layoff costs to set the stage for more outsourcing, followed by voluntary recognition from the independent suppliers getting the outsourced production [a process the CAW can safely assume will now unfold more smoothly than it has].

QUESTION THREE To the degree any scenarios are seen to have some or a lot of plausability, what are the implications?

The only thing I'm going to toss in right now is to point out why to consider this.

The fact no scenarios have been suggested or indicated by the national leadership means nothing. When it comes to concessions, they aren't going to acknowledge frame of discussions / negotiations until at least they are well under way. Not until it is virtually a done deal if they can swing it that way.

Anticipating what general course of action the national leadership is going to take at least leaves open the possibility of posing alternative approaches.

I'll also add that it's pretty clear that my suggested scenario would lead to a de facto two tier wage system- it's just that the low cost 'new hires' will be in parts plants, rather than working next to full wage and benefit workers as will be the case in UAW assembly plants. Venting against that and other things is fine, but more than venting would be nice.

.

[ 22 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I'm having a hard time with this. Tell me if this is what you're saying (and pardon the plain talk):

1. The FFA is a dues grab.
2. We should get the message to the Magna workers that it's a dues grab.
3. The Magna workers aren't unionized yet, so they'll be receptive to this message.
4. They will then vote not to accept the FFA and by extension to remain non-unionized.

If that's what you're saying, I really have to disagree. Every employer staving off unionization tells workers that all the union really wants is their money. And while the FFA is the wrong model for labour, does that mean we should campaign for Magna workers to stay out of the CAW? I've got a problem with that approach too.

If it's not what you're saying, I apologize and welcome any clarification.

---

I have to agree with these reservations. In my mind, the only way that the workers of Magna would vote against this deal is if the were organised (which they are clearly not) or if there was a outside group that had numerous contacts with the shop-floor workers of Magna. Without either of these, no one is in a position to offer an alternate viewpoint to what the workers are being told by officials from both the CAW and Magna. Don't forget, CAW reps now have direct access to workers – presumably during working hours – as a result of the signing of the FFA ; outside groups do not and would have to do all the hard work traditional organising requires outside the shop during non-working hours. I just don’t see that unorganised workers will have the time, inclination or experience to take on this challenge.

If the CAW were to moderate the cost penalties of the Big Three implementing layoffs that lead to outsourcing, they would get in return essentially ironclad assurances that the supplier of outsourced production had to have a voluntary recognition agreement with the CAW. Period.

With the increased opportunities this would offer to independent suppliers- much of it in product lines little available to them now- the CAW is going to have no problem keeping the production in question under CAW contracts.

In other words, if this shift took place, who needs the Framework for Fairness and all the Trojan Horse dangers it poses to bargaining in all of auto?

This would pose two immediate big questions. I suggested the CAW is likely to take this direction of concessions to the Big Three because I thought things pointed that direction. I only secondly came to the idea, and actually had to change my opinion/inclination, that maybe such an initiative from the CAW could actually be a good thing, all things considered.

There are two crucial background assessments to that. The first is that to a large degree the CAW is going to have to concede to the Big Three more room to outsource production- that they will wither too much otherwise. If this is indeed inevitable, use the bargaining leverage to get something in return while that leverage still exists.

I think talking to the Magna workers will also keep us honest about what kind of schemes we as labour can really buy into for supporting the Canadian auto sector.

You are the only one who has indicated that it is desirable, or feasible. Or whatever to see the Magna workers reject the FFA.

For myself, I've explicitlty said that the FFA looks to be an improvement for Magna workers [and easily so]. The problem with the FFA is its impact on the CAW in auto- and the labour movement in general.

And the same position is implicit in what others have said.

quote:

---

...Stopping it in its tracks due to a popular revolt would be nice. But widespread rank and file dissatisfaction plus having a practical alternative is more likely to win.

---

So then, let me back up.

There is not, either, agreement on this board or in labour about whether Magna workers are better off under this deal than without it.

Secondly, I don't understand why it would be necessary to choose between communicating with CAW activists or Magna workers, or for that matter, restricting the discussion to only those two categories. But if it came down to it, the one group that I couldn't possibly imagine leaving out of the discussion would be the Magna workers themselves. They are the ones who will be directly affected by this deal, for better or worse. They are the ones who may be putting their jobs in jeapardy if they choose not to fall in line with the FFA. On all accounts these workers don't have ready access to other points of view, and the same also goes for making their own opinions heard. And they are the ones who, in my view, will hereafter be paying union dues and paying lip service to unions for the privilege of enforcing their own subservience.

In order to talk to and hear from these workers I think it is necessary to make specific overtures. Those could be more or less radical (and correspondingly, more or less effective) depending on overall strategy.

Lev, your opinion is greatly valued, and I think to some degree there are ways around the difficulties you mentioned. Ken, it concerns me that you believe CAW activist members may be offended by such an approach. That was not my intention but you could be right.

But the starting point for me is that I want to be talking to Magna.

[ 24 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

[Magna workers] are the ones who will be directly affected by this deal, for better or worse. They are the ones who may be putting their jobs in jeapardy if they choose not to fall in line with the FFA. On all accounts these workers don't have ready access to other points of view, and the same also goes for making their own opinions heard. And they are the ones who, in my view, will hereafter be paying union dues and paying lip service to unions for the privilege of enforcing their own subservience.

---

I don't agree with any of that- seperately or as a whole.

Obviously people having more information would be a good thing. But since I don't agree with you that the Magna workers have anything to lose, it's not something that I feel motivated to roll boulders uphill to get done.

quote:

---

Principled trade unionsists need to denounce this deal and call it for what it is - corporatist class collaboration which denies the foundations of industrial, let alone, social unionism.

Fuck Buzz, fuck Stronach.

As the saying from the Spanish Civil War goes, better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

---

Tommy_Paine:

quote:

---

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

---

But those quotes only say the deal sucks, they don't say that non-union Magna workers would be better off rejecting the deal.

ETA:

Whether or not the FFA is a good idea for the CAW to get into is a concern regardless of whether or not the FFA is a bad idea for Magna workers it is intended for.

The FFA would clearly be a step backward if it were to come to autoworkers who are already organized- and I have argued it's existence will undermine everyone's bargaining position if the FFA goes forward.

You obviously agree with that, but you are aguing- seem almost to be insisting- that on top of that the FFA would be bad for non-union Magna workers and that case should be made to them.

They are very different things.

[ 24 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

I do believe Magna workers will be worse off, but primarily I think they should be given access to a range of viewpoints in order to make their own decision -- since they are not bargaining this deal but only (maybe) have the ability to accept or reject it. That to me is just an absolutely basic, fundamental social justice paradigm and I don't honestly see why it is causing such consternation.

We seem to be coming at this from two completely different directions.

Just to throw this out there -- and I hope this is not inflammatory and it is certainly not intended to be -- it seems to me that you are focussed on how CAW members, and ultimately, other organized workers outside of auto, may be able to mitigate the serious contractual damage that will result from this FFA precedent. In my opinion there is a lot of merit in your analysis and predictions for the business end of this deal.

However, I suppose I am talking more from the point of view of the enduring damage that will be done to our values by condoning this kind of arrangement.

Would it be fair to suggest that this is what underlies our respective ideas about who is primarily affected?

I do admit I am somewhat at sea on this and if I'm not understanding you correctly I apologize.

[ 25 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

I do believe Magna workers will be worse off, but primarily I think they should be given access to a range of viewpoints in order to make their own decision -- since they are not bargaining this deal but only (maybe) have the ability to accept or reject it. That to me is just an absolutely basic, fundamental social justice paradigm and I don't honestly see why it is causing such consternation.

---

As stated here, this is impossible to disagree with. But there is much more to it.

First the practical. I’m going to propose something, and have been doing it at least implicitly which is very ambitious in the message it wants workers to consider. Ambitious, but at least geared to an existing audience in a structure the brings them together: CAW members and trade union members in general. On the other hand, you want to take to unorganized workers who have been at best unreceptive in union appeals to them, a message that is more complex and challenging than what they have already rejected. You more or less dismiss these earlier attempts as fatally flawed and limited. Take away the dismissal part, and that assessment would be largely shared on this discussion board. But what is NOT shared, is that many if not most of us know just how hard it is to do a better job.

But that’s by no means the only knock against what you propose. While talking of principle you are unintentionally running out over thin ice. I don’t care how sincerely you mean bringing all the information to Magna workers- there is a strong practical ethical tension in what you propose. You are so convinced that this deal is morally wrong, that you appear to have a cavalier approach to evidence.

The dues grab thing is a case in point. It’s a piece of cake for the CAW to get higher wages and benefits for Magna workers than they would have otherwise- even with a tame de facto company union structure tailored by and for Magna. The CAW can easily financially recoup to it’s new members the union dues they will pay.

No one is expected to take that statement at face value. In principle at least, a case can be made that it is not true. But you don’t make that case or draw on anyone who has. You continually state as if it was fact that the Magna workers will get nothing they would not get anyway, except the dues checkoff.

The sham that outrages you- and probably most others on this board- is that the CAW is trying to sell to it’s members [and the labour movement in general] that it is going to be a real union for the Magna workers.

Its not doing that con job to Magna workers. It is not pretending to Magna workers that it will be a real union. Its offering them something else.

The practical ethical tension you are skating over is that your indignation about the violation of general trade union values is what fuels you. It is an easy enough to make the case that the FFA violates those basic principles. But that is not what the CAW is promising to Magna workers. The CAW is promising something far more modest to Magna workers, and it is much more difficult to make the critical case they cannot deliver that.

quote:

---

it seems to me that you are focused on how CAW members, and ultimately, other organized workers outside of auto, may be able to mitigate the serious contractual damage that will result from this FFA precedent….I suppose I am talking more from the point of view of the enduring damage that will be done to our values by condoning this kind of arrangement.

---

I pointed out earlier that I started out in this discussion focusing on how the FFA swept away democratic union structures, when most critics were talking only about the right to strike. And I focused first on how this would impact people in their workplaces. For a long time I have been focusing on how this undermining of democratic union structures will also forestall the development of union bargaining power with Magna- and then quickly undermine that power throughout auto when the FFA inevitably becomes a pattern.

Focusing on the ‘business unionism side’ because it is on that dimension that the national leadership is selling the FFA, and because in this discussion we are evidence that it is not easy even for critics to understand how the FFA will erode bargaining power.

Which brings us back to the quote above. It is not a case of arguing pragmatic business unionism instead of talking [higher] guiding principles or values. It’s not even a case of priorizing the former. The practical reason for focusing on the business union side is because it had not been attended to. While attending to it I have always talked about how the two dimensions of unionism practically effect each other in this case.

It’s no coincidence that the FFA’s sweeping demolition of union democracy is also the Trojan Horse for a serious and lasting erosion of business unionism bargaining power in auto.

And it’s no surprise the architects of this would be the heedless apostles of extreme business unionism…. who would not understand how fundamentally business unionism depends on an engaged membership.

They would of course protest that they do understand this; but the extremist apostles of business unionism- in this case the CAW national leadership and staff- get so enamored with what they can do in negotiations, that they lose touch. They come to think there is a negotiating fix to every problem.

The Framework for Fairness is the outcome of that delusional cleverness from the extremist apostles of business unionism: where the democratic structures that build and then sustain the power of business unionism are negotiated away in the blind faith that “we’ll find something else.”

And you better believe that when those apostles say “we” they mean themselves, not the CAW membership. In the case of the FFA, they’ve gone off the deep end of delusional faith in their powers.

Saving business unionism from itself is an ambitious agenda.

More precisely, it is a possible agenda that will be very ambitious if people take it up.

quote:

---

I am trying my best not to lapse into personal accusations here, and that courtesy is not being reciprocated. The last time I had someone publicly pointing the finger at me like this it was our police chief in the newspaper. That one did shut me up (for one thing, I could understand what I was being denigrated for) but I wouldn't count on it in this case.

Your last post is interesting. I really wish I understood it better.

---

Two different things. What is understood or not first. Because there are two posts- one critical of you. While the last post is about the Magna deal overall. If you don't really understand that, then you can bet you aren't the only one. And I'd appreciate some folks trying to express what in particular they don't understand.

Its what comes out in this discussion board- and probably even more the things I disagree with most, or don't understand- that get me thinking.

As to the criticism of things you have said that touch on the FFA offering non-union workers nothing, and it being a dues grab... I worked hard to make it as substantive and un-personal as possible. You don't make it easy.

I didn't want to go there, and I don't want to do more of it. Its up to you to make or find the substantive case to support what you have said. When and if you do, we'll all have something to talk about. For example, what basis do you have for arguing that Magna workers will get nothing under the FFA that they do not already have or would not get anyway?

quote:

---

I worked hard to make it as substantive and un-personal as possible.

---

[ 30 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

Excerpts particularly relevant to discussion not far back:

quote:

---

“I'm sending a message to them through the media both here and in the United States … If they want to have a fight with us and they table those issues, there will be a fight,” he says. “We're not agreeing to a second-class group of workers at our plants that come in at half-pay and never get to top pay. That just isn't going to happen.”

Analysts and others caution Mr. Hargrove may have to change that position or find other ways to help the firms reduce costs in Canada if he's going to win the investments at Canadian plants that he has made a centrepiece of his bargaining strategy.

“It's hard for me to see him not buying into [two-tiered wages] but somehow trying to find a different name for it,” Mr. McAlinden says.

Mr. Hargrove counters that he's not going to “bargain down” to U.S. wages and benefits, pointing out that when Canadian costs were substantially lower in the 1990s – helped by the low Canadian dollar – the UAW didn't agree to reduce its costs to the levels prevailing in this country.

---

quote:

---

In effect, this sordid episode not only reinforced the CAW’s increasing support of labour – management cooperation policies. It also reinforced the leadership’s willingness to resort to intimidation at the expense of the severely limited degree of internal democracy there is in the CAW at the national level. This was another immediate and notable consequence of the Magna agreement.

Volumes could be written concerning what these things mean in terms of the kind of labour movement we will have in Canada in the wake of the Magna agreement and the CAW Council vote sanctioning it. A lot will depend upon whether the notoriously non-unionized corporations Buzz Hargrove has offered a Magna type agreement to will accept the offer. If they accept it the Canadian labour movement will both get bigger and be even more closely wedded to Capital than it already is. Unions will further resemble service organizations.

The timid façade of a labour movement we presently have will look radical by comparison. This is largely because traditional collective agreements still afford workers an opportunity to organize collectively and to exercise their collective power as workers.

However if these corporations reject the offer we cannot just expect more of the same as we have seen recently. We will almost certainly see generally weaker union contracts negatively affected by the willingness of the Canada ’s largest private sector union to indefinitely give up the right to strike in exchange for voluntary recognition agreements.

Nonetheless, both of these outcomes can be avoided if we work for the emergence of a new left within the pan-Canadian labour movement. This left would not expect to transform the existing structures and would necessarily embody solidarity unionism rooted at the labour movement’s base. It would have the task of forging a revived labour movement from the bottom up. This left would be determined to truly fight for changes vital to both rebuilding union power anew and to confronting Capital and its agenda.

---

Tragic, as we watch what was once a proud worker movement dismantled and turned into little more than a place where old white guys can make really good money and find new friends at the country club.

I hate to be so cynical, but it is shameful to see what is happening. Yes union density is dropping, but wouldn't it be better to look at it through workers eyes rather than how to make it more appealing to the owner/employer?

[ 02 January 2008: Message edited by: Bill Pearson ]

Also mainly of historical interest, Magna Int'l was origiginally organized in Ontario in 1981 by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers or UE, a left-wing democratic union that had been kicked out of the CLC on suspicions of communism, later amalgamated with CAW in 1993. The UE are still around as a primarily trade-based union in the States and not affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

Its like a lot of the other cutsey's: word play, not clever word play. There was nothing to go over your head.

Interesting that there are virtually no auto related jobs in the CAW in the whole region.

[Victor made a comment something to the effect of organising Magna workers- but that's a long time ago at least. I think that was on his part more a case of him giving the conflict he feels a direct 'sound.]

I've always guessed that Buzz gets the most compliance among non-auto locals who have nothing direct at stake.

[Anyone care to make a comment on that?]

Here is at least one case where that is not true.

I really don't think Victor Tomiczek would be retiring now if he had not got really fed up with Buzz and company.

Regional Director is a pretty high profile position to stay in when you have minimal respect for what the leadership is doing.

Grumbling is one thing, alienation another.

[ 12 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

Regional Director is a pretty high profile position to stay in when you have minimal respect for what the leadership is doing.

---

The article says he has been "regional director" for 22 years, but the CAW website says it hasn't been that long:

quote:

---

Victor Tomiczek has been appointed Atlantic Area Director, working out of the CAW’s Halifax office, effective April 1, 2007. Tomiczek is replacing Larry Wark, who is retiring.

---

quote:

---

Had Victor been publicly opposing the Magna deal,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

But I can't imagine it would reach the public space until and unless Victor resigned.

---

Why not? Remember this:

quote:

---

A top official of the Canadian Auto Workers has become the first senior national representative to publicly oppose the union's support for a controversial deal with Magna International Inc. that takes away the right to strike.

Mike Shields, a former CAW national director of organizing who currently serves more than two dozen bargaining units, confirmed yesterday he is against the union's "Framework of Fairness" agreement with Magna.

Shields, a former president of giant Local 222 at General Motors in Oshawa, said the agreement violates union principles, gives the company clout in selection of key worker-advocates and hurts members at other auto-parts makers.

---

I watched for repercussions after that happened (early November), but haven't seen anything yet.

But if anything it may have been easier for Victor Tomiczek to break ranks. I really don't have much idea how things work in practice in the CAW. But from what I did hear I never got the sense there was any regional organization. My understanding of what Victor actually did, is that it was similar to what Mike Shield does.

Maybe there is a lot of comparability- because the CAW in Nova Scotia has always seemed to do its own thing and quietly gone its own way, just as 222 in Oshawa always has [albeit, less quietly].

My first sense was that it would be difficult for him to be openly critical even within the union here. But that doesn't seem likely on reflection. It's not like they were going to, or could, fire his ass, he wouldn't be looking for any kind of advancement, and there's no apparent resource allocation things he could lose out on.

My hunch as soon as I read the story was that it is more or less as stated: Victor didn't like being associated with all of it- makes it not worth it any more. And if it is true that he had sufficient autonomy or shielding to pretty much say what he pleased, then having to keep quiet would not be a reason for him to want to resign, and it would appear to be even more a case of: just didn't want to be associated any more.

One thing I had not thought of is that if Magna does have any production units anywhere in the region- which I don't know- then Victor would have been the one to handle the CAW's end of that voluntary voting on the union, and then to service them once they were recognized.

But even if there are Magna units in the region- it could have been years before that process rolled in.

And who knows what the regional directors might be expected to do that relates somehow to the Magna deal.

quote:

---

He also said he had planned to retire this spring anyway, but left the position a little early because of “philosophical differences between myself and the president of our union, Buzz Hargrove.”

---

quote:

---

Tomiczek said ...he has personally tried to organize employees at the Atlantic Castings and Magna plants in the Northside Industrial Park, and couldn’t bring himself to continue pitching a deal that he didn’t think was right for workers.

“I felt there’s certain things you can compromise on . . . but when it comes to the basic principles of trade unionism, no,” he said.

---

Magna company names:

Atoma
Cam-slide
Conix
Cosma Structural Systems
Decoma
Dortec
Integram
Intier
Magna
Master Precision
Mega-Plas
New Process Gear
Presstran
Pullmatic
Reflectar
Tesma
Tycos
Vernomatic

Any others?

[ 16 January 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Apparently Victor Tomiczek was disciplined just prior to the early December National Council meeting. [And I take it he was not present?] Do not know the nature of the discipline.

And also from the grapevine- Mike Shields will be working for the CLC in Ottawa.

---

Tantalizing but incomplete.

What was Victor disciplined for, and why didn't he mention that when he bared his soul to the media (following his retirement)?

Indeed.

Barring info to the contrary I'd bet that Shields quit, as did Victor.

I have to admitt its surprising that the leadership would want to do that. Explanations?

That could easily lead into comments about the CLC itself. If anyone wants to make extensive comments on that, you should start a new thread.

Part of such a discussion might be referring back to goings on the CAW.

quote:

---

Union pursuing last-ditch efforts to save plant

January 17, 2008
GUELPH MERCURY

...employees [got] the bad news Tuesday morning that automotive parts maker Collins & Aikman was permanently closing its doors.

[snip]

The union representing 518 workers at Collins & Aikman is hopeful it won't come to that.

"This plant should continue to operate. That's our goal," Canadian Auto Workers national representative Jim Robinson said yesterday, citing last-ditch efforts by his union to find another buyer or convince management to keep it open.

He stressed it's a viable plant unconnected to financial troubles that landed the American-based international auto parts giant into bankruptcy protection proceedings in the U.S. and Canada.

"We're hoping to keep the plant operating. We haven't accepted the inevitability of this (threatened plant closure)," Robinson said. "We have a good plant."

He conceded Chrysler Canada, which effectively keeps running the Guelph operation that supplies it with interior car parts, doesn't appear interested in buying the plant.

[snip]

If the plant closes, Saenz said with all the auto parts makers out there, Chrysler shouldn't have trouble sourcing the parts the Guelph plant produces.

[snip]

Perhaps there will be opportunities at parts makers like Guelph's Linamar Corporation, which is already a Chrysler supplier, he added.

Linamar spokesperson Crystal Roberts said the availability of Collins & Aikman employees was a bonus for the region.

---

There is also a plant in Port Hope, USW organized. That closed too? [Makes same products.]

I see a few other plants in Ontario, not sure what size any of them, all making roughly the same product.

They also have what appears to be a non-automotive plastics operation in Scarborough with 900 employees. Occupied by workers last year.

The US parent went into Chapter 11 in 2005. Allegations of investor fraud, etc. Think it gave up the ghost end of 2006 ?

Colourful outfit. Not that I see any relevancy in this spew of info.

ETA: I started looking into the company because the name rang a bell that said "Nova Scotia". Which puzzled me- we have precious little auto related here.

The connection is that the parent company made carpets also. That operation was spun off to a big US carpet company [being successful- presumably for the cash to use in the survival struggles].

The C&A name was kept by the carpet conglomerate, and I probably saw the name when the same oufit bought a successful and 100% recycled production NS operation.

The wonders of capitalism.

[ 18 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
There is also a plant in Port Hope, USW organized. That closed too? [Makes same products.]

---

This Port Hope plant is a feeder plant for the auto industry, making dashboards and other thermoplastic polyurethanes. I see the Germans are moving into the business.

Bayer is just 'moving up the value chain' from raw material supplier to include upstream production processes before product reaches the thankless auto part suppier businesses.

"Making it work" would be taking over some of the North American production. And no one will want to be doing that- the production assets will be picked over and those sold at all, at fire sale prices.

From what I can tell the Port Hope and Guelph plants made the same product- how they got to that end notwithstanding. Same product, but presumably different customer [Oshawa GM].

The prospects for that plant, unless they have some unusual advantage, would be below average even for that sorry industry.

The only certain buyer for the plant is a classic 'vulture capitalist': a firm happy to buy plants at the end of their rope to milk the contracts as long as possible, and with the 'expertise' of getting the most possible from the inevitable closure and break-up fire sale of whatever assets will sell.

I don't know what Port Hope industrial real estate is going for these days. But even a company paying a fairly high price- that real estate value has to discounted from their imputed intentions.

The new buyer will of course say glowing things, but that's just on the chance a lucky break drops an unexpected new production opportunity on them.

If the break-up assets are easily enough disposed of, holding the company on the chance of an unexpected production opportunty could even attract what would appear to be a buyer with better intentions. But even there, the expectation and plan would be barring such a concrete opprtunity appearing within the not distant future: do the vulture capitalist thing [it ain't rocket science].

[ 18 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=6176963

Buzz Hargrove has provided funding for a "rogue" union, the Canadian Construction Workers' Union, which SEIU National Director Sharlene Stewart says interfered with an SEIU organizing drive and entered into a sweetheart contract with the employer.

CAW funding for CCWU is listed below:

The Magna-style contract is below:

Essentially, Stewart's argument is described in her press release:
"Rogue organizations funded by CLC affiliated unions like the CAW are now using its transaction with Magna as a calling card to employers. When these 'company unions' trade on these sorts of regressive deals to block workers from lifting themselves out of poverty by joining a legitimate union, workers across the board suffer. This deal with Hallmark represents the spread of 'company unions' and has to be stopped." said Sharleen Stewart."

See interview for further details:
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=6176963

Is company unionism the way of the future?

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: Brendan Stone ]

quote:

---

The CAW-Magna Agreement: Not the Way Forward
Editorial

Canadian Dimension magazine, January/February 2008

Collective bargaining is a complex process. It requires assessments of relative power and strategic considerations that are usually only fully appreciated by the people directly involved. As such, we are reluctant to comment on the decision of the Canadian Autoworkers Union to agree to the Framework of Fairness Agreement (FAA) with Magna International Inc. The high public profile of the agreement, however, and the statements of CAW representatives that this agreement could be extended to other employers compel us to comment.
(snip)

If all goes according to plan during the next nine years, over 18,000 workers would join the CAW and be entitled to participate in the union and its education programs. This would be an extremely positive development for the Magna workers, the CAW and the labour movement.

However, we believe that the problems associated with this agreement outweigh the benefits.

(snip)
The CAW will not be able to change this restrictive system of representation without the permission of Magna.

The agreement also contains an open-ended no-strike, no-lockout clause. Any worker participating in a strike or in an activity that impedes the operation of the business shall be subject to immediate dismissal. If the parties cannot agree on the terms of a new, three-year agreement, the issues are referred to an arbitrator under a process of final-offer selection. Wage increases will be tied to a formula linked to average annual manufacturing-wage increases in Canada.

Such an open-ended commitment in private-sector manufacturing is exceptional and dangerous. Unions exist to challenge market forces, not to mirror them. Our gains have resulted from strikes and struggles, not decisions of third parties bound by a process of final-offer selection.

Ultimately, it will be up to the CAW to decide on if, and when, it will attempt to free itself from Magna’s influence over its internal union structures and to obtain the right to strike for the workers.

We hope that there will be an open and respectful discussion within the CAW concerning this agreement and the union’s future organizing strategies. We would strongly urge other unions to reject such compromises

---

Benefits reps don't usually go out trying to drum up business and certainly not from non-members.

Now that's an organizing drive.

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

Other news:

Pact With Magna Not Priority: UAW

quote:

---

Ron Gettelfinger, president of the bigger United Auto Workers, says talks on a similar agreement with his U.S. union are not a priority.

"Right now, it's not on the front burner," Mr. Gettelfinger said in an interview on Monday with Automotive News and made public on the Internet. "We really haven't had any discussions with Frank on that since ... maybe August of 2006."

He said there are still many issues to work through, including differences in laws between Canada and the United States.

Years of rancour between Magna and the CAW ended officially last month when union members voted in favour of a deal that gives union organizers unfettered access to Magna's factory workers without management interference.

Under the deal's so-called "framework of fairness," workers would have no right to strike and raises would be partially tied to performance of individual plants.

Some Magna investors have expressed concern about the deal, questioning why the company needs to be unionized, given its success.

Don Walker, Magna's cochief executive, said on Nov.6 that the agreement's value lies in its spirit of co-operation, rather than continuing a "knock-down, drag-em-out fight" with labour. He said union presence may help win business from unionized car companies if the choice is between giving work to a unionized or non-unionized supplier.

Magna aims to strike a similar deal with the UAW, calling the CAW deal the template for "a new, innovative, flexible and efficient model" of labour relations. Mr. Stronach has said the gap between business and workers is the greatest handicap of the North American auto industry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Actually, I don't think it's all that unusual- it's just that this sort of thing tends to slip under the radar unless one has a persoanl connection... as was true sof you in this case.

---

My job actually requires me to know the union status of my clients, and this is unprecedented in my experience. On the other hand I do hear all the time from current union members, CAW included, that their union will not help them with their compensation claim. When a CAW plant closes, those prior members who were being assisted by the union have their files returned to them.

But they aren't really related phenomena.

The above is going to happen lots- no matter what. It's stamped into the nature of organizations and people who are members of them.

But I can only imagine how I would feel as a union member who is being denied active assistance in a claim, only to find out that these services are apparently being directed to non-members instead.

I should clarify that this is a Tribunal appeal I am talking about.