babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Stelco blames union for loss of GM contract

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Stelco blames union for loss of GM contract
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 November 2004 10:13 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There were better quotes from the union rep on the radio than in this article.

quote:
After Stelco and the Steelworkers missed the GM-imposed deadline for a no-strike agreement, the union and the steel makers traded shots at each other.

"We have been prepared to meet right to the last minute in this matter," Courtney Pratt, Stelco's president and chief executive officer, said.

"But as recently as last evening, the union made clear that it wanted to tie a large number of unrelated issues to the simple provision of security of supply General Motors required by this morning," Pratt said.

A union official said the company did not show up to a meeting slated for Sunday night.

"This is truly incredible" said Steelworkers national director Ken Neumann. "We throw Stelco a lifesaver and they throw it back."



From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 23 November 2004 01:55 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is a troubling turn of events.
With the Chinese ready to buy Canadian mining companies with their poor human rights and labour abuses, and our own 'Western' corporations squeezing from the other direction the working people of North America seem to be between a rock and a hard place.
The importance of strong unions has never seemed more relevant.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 23 November 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anyone know more? This reeks of maneuvering on either or both sides, but the article really doesn't get to any facts.

For instance--management could have been trying to use a no-strike agreement as carte blanche to do whatever they felt like on working conditions, contracting out etc. etc. and the union may have been basically trying for and failing to get assurances that this contract wouldn't be used to screw them over royally.

Or, the union could have been deliberately trying to sabotage the contract, hoping that its loss would make Deutschebank back off and put management on notice that yes, they do have to pay attention to what the union wants.

Or both.

Or management could be feeling quite comfortable making profits under bankruptcy protection, and don't want any successes dramatic enough to pull them out just yet.

Or . . . ?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Klingon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4625

posted 23 November 2004 05:20 PM      Profile for Klingon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
With the Chinese ready to buy Canadian mining companies with their poor human rights and labour abuses, and our own 'Western' corporations squeezing from the other direction the working people of North America seem to be between a rock and a hard place.
The importance of strong unions has never seemed more relevant.

MajQa faith! The strength of the labour movement is the main factor in determining the outcome of these types of stand-offs in most cases. I think the labour movement in this country has grown too weak, and that's why we are losing so much of our economic freedom and security, as well as our standard of living.

I also think it goes further than just needing to organize stronger unions. It's that we need to be more innovative and socialistic about our economic rights--especially demanding greater democracy in our economy--meaning that workers and community members having a much greater say in the running and conduct of businesses and industries.

This is where the labour movement has yet to venture in a major way. For example, if the workers at Stelco had a binding say in the investment decisions of the company, and representation of the board of directors, the union could have pushed for the lucrative GM contract while securing the assurances they felt they needed.

There would be no way that manager could have just rejected the workers' concerns and not shown up at a meeting.

It just makes plain common sense. We need to challenge this sacred "employers rights over employees" and "investors over workers" crap (especially since the biggest investors that drive the economy are workers--not capitalists and rich cliques) that's been nothing but a big barrier to social and economic progress.


From: Kronos, but in BC Observing Political Tretchery | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 25 November 2004 07:11 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sure the company would blame the union for global warming, alien abductions and tooth decay too
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 26 November 2004 01:55 AM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The idea of workers having any responsibility fpr Stelco's financial problems is totally outlandish. Workers' pensions for example cost $40-50 million a year, a whopping 1.5 percent of Stelco's total costs, according to Jim Stanford. And there's no real lack of productivity to among Canadian steelworkers. GDP per worker is ONLY $135,000.

Stanford also points out that less than 1 percent of revenues were spent on R&D in 2003. And the Chretien-Martin Liberals have taken the neoliberal rhetoric literally (unlike the US, under either party). Steel is an essential industry, not some backward, old economy, "rust belt" one as some claim. And yet the Liberals seem to have no problem with Canada having no steel industry. Of course, this is not an endorsement of corporate welfare!

Local 1005 is waging a heroic struggle. Unionized steelworkers in the States have taken concessions have seen their pensions cut from 10 to 70 percent. This of course is what Stelco's management sees as an example to follow. The fight against concessions is crucial. This is how Rolf Gerstenberger, who is very militant and openly radical, has called for other workers to fight concessions in their own communities is what is most needed to act in solidarity, and said the CAW should have refused to accept concessions in the fight for Air Canada workers.

Of course, I'm probably just preaching to the choir here...


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 26 November 2004 08:38 AM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Workers' pensions for example cost $40-50 million a year

Can you explain that statement? I'm not blaming the workers but the pension fund is roughly $1 Billion with a "B" underfunded right now.


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca