quote:

---

The United Steelworkers union and steel giant ArcelorMittal have signed a deal that could lead to the union representing workers at the company's Dofasco division, the one-time Canadian steel maker that took pride in a co-operative, non-union relationship with its employees.

The deal permits the union to talk to Dofasco employees about the benefits a union might bring without ArcelorMittal offering opposing arguments, the USW said in a statement on Wednesday.

If employees support the idea, they will have a chance to elect a bargaining committee and negotiate with management, the union said.

"We're confident that can result in a tentative contract," the union's Ontario/Atlantic director Wayne Fraser said in a statement.

---

Greg Keenan, "United Steelworkers gain toehold at Dofasco," Globe and Mail, March 19, 2008.

See also USW Press Release: ArcelorMittal and Steelworkers Relationship Offers New Opportunites at Dofasco

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

The battle for the hearts and minds of Dofasco workers begins today.

The United Steelworkers and ArcelorMittal Dofasco have struck a deal that allows the union to talk to 3,500 workers on company turf without interference.

The move could see a union at the Hamilton steelmaker for the first time in its 96-year history.

Modelled after a similar agreement by the Steelworkers and ArcelorMittal's U.S. plants, the deal gives the USW a foot in the door.

But a unionized Dofasco is far from a fait accompli.

However, as one of the few non-union facilities in ArcelorMittal, Dofasco has been "strongly encouraged to consider," the prospect, Dofasco vice-president Andy Harshaw wrote in a letter to workers yesterday. That encouragement comes from both ArcelorMittal and the Steelworkers, the company said.

The Steelworkers are confident a tentative contract will come out of the process, which has been characterized as unprecedented in Canadian labour history, said Wayne Fraser, the union's director for Ontario and Atlantic Canada.

Union representatives will be escorted by company officials into various areas of the plant to meet with workers. If the Steelworkers believe there is enough support for a union, workers will elect representatives to negotiate a contract with the company.

If a majority of the firm's hourly workers vote in favour of the contract, the USW will become their bargaining agent. The union would have its own local and also maintain its right to strike.

---

Robert Howard, "U-word shock from Dofasco," Hamilton Spectator, March 20, 2008.

quote:

---

Dofasco. Union.

They are not two words often said in the same breath. In this historically industrial union city, Dofasco has been the exception -- the one big employer that wasn't unionized.

It was part of the city fabric: Stelco and Local 1005, or Dofasco and -- it would always come up in a discussion -- its profit-sharing plan.

For a century and more, Hamilton's steelworker families aligned, by tradition and conviction, with one company or the other. Generations of fathers, sons, uncles and nephews (it was all men for a long time) would work for Stelco and be union men, or for Dofasco and not be.

Every few years, Local 1005 would bargain down to the wire -- and sometimes go past it with a strike -- and win more pay or benefits, or better working conditions from Stelco. Dofasco would quietly match it, and every now and then there would be an attempt to "certify" or unionize Dofasco, and it wouldn't go anywhere.

That's the way it was in Hamilton.

So the shock was almost on a seismic level when word came out yesterday that the "new" Dofasco -- ArcelorMittal Dofasco -- has forged an agreement that allows United Steelworkers (USW) representatives to meet with the company's hourly rated employees to discuss whether there's a significant desire for union representation. If there is, a contract will negotiated and if it is accepted, USW will be recognized by the company as their workers' bargaining agent.

When Dofasco (and Stelco) ownership went to multinational corporations, it was expected there would be change. Dofasco's "family" style of employer-employee relations (critics called it paternalistic) was almost certain to be lost in an overseas head office. But this fast, co-operative route to possible unionization still comes as a surprise.

It's by no means a sure thing. There's a lot still to be asked, let alone answered, about the arrangement worked out between Arcelor- Mittal and the United Steelworkers. Getting the majority of workers to agree to a first contract is not going to be a slam dunk for the union.

This is not the union town it once was. Fifty years ago, virtually every Hamiltonian had a family member or at least a neighbour who carried a union card. Today it is more the exception than the rule.

At the same time, though, unionism is not what it once was. It is increasingly sophisticated and looking for partnership over confrontation. During Stelco's recent bankruptcy-protection crisis, for example, several USW locals played strong and constructive roles, offering thoughtful and long-sighted contributions to the discussion.

Over a fairly lengthy period, Dofasco workers will have to decide, as a bottom line, whether they will be better off as members of a USW local. There will be lots of discussion and conversation, in every setting and by every means. We expect -- we plan for -- some of that discussion to find its way onto these Opinion pages and our website, thespec.com.

It's going to be an interesting ride. Stay tuned; we will.

---

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

It's also interesting, as unionist notes, is that the pressure for this does seem to have come in part from the corporate owners. Arcelor-Mittal has had a neutrality agreement with the Steelworkers in the U.S. for several years now.

A third important point, as the Spectator noted:

quote:

---

The union would have its own local and also maintain its right to strike.

---

It's understandable that the new owners may have made a business decision that in the long run fighting unions is too draining- even when you have the permanent upper hand in keeping them out.

I said in the Magna thread that in my opinion Stronach came to a similar point... albeit, that the tipping point in his case was his ambitions of picking up major outsourcing and even assembly from the Big 3... and that bringing in the union through the backdoor, the 'conatgion' could easily spread.

The parallel with the new owners of Dofasco would be that having decided that they were willing to have a union- in some form- they then brought that carrot to the USW and bargained hard for limits on what kind of union that would be.

I'm certainly not so naive as to think that Lakshmi Mittal woke up one day and decided he loved unions. There is a delicate two-step executed here. On the one hand, for these sort of arrangements to work there really does have to be a genuine commitment from both sides to try to work together in a more cooperative fashion than we are traditionally used to in industrial relations. On the other hand, there is clearly some hard bargaining that must go on either publicly, or behind the scenes. Both sides make sacrifices.

I'm certainly not privy to any of the "inside scoop" here. But I would note that, according to the articles above, most of Arcelor Mittal's US operations are unionized. AM is new on the scene in Hamilton. But I am sure the larger relationship between the union and the company played a big role in this. Also, the USW was one of the staunchest critics of the Magna deal within the Canadian labour movement. I feel confident that they would have aproached this deal very carefully.

Anil Verma, a U of T industrial relations prof, had some insightful comments comparing and contrasting the two deals in this Toronto Star article.

quote:

---

Verma said the change in the company's position reflects a new way of thinking in labour relations under the European owners, in contrast to generations of Dofasco managers who were more paternalistic in their treatment of employees.

However, Verma noted that it's not certain the Steelworkers can gain bargaining rights because the work environment and employee demographics have changed so much since the struggles and hard labour of decades ago.

"Younger people enter the plants these days with a lot more knowledge and skills," he said. "They're more likely to be working in a control room than a dirty shop floor. The union will have to find a way to get some traction."

Furthermore, Dofasco has always offered workers equal or more compensation than their counterparts at Stelco, without union dues.

"I think Dofasco would be comfortable with either outcome," Verma said.

In meetings, the union will have to present itself in less of an adversarial role and emphasize its ability to get fair treatment for workers and provisions such as seniority rights, Verma noted.

Fraser said the union and ArcelorMittal have already developed a good labour relationship because of mutual respect and their experiences in collective bargaining elsewhere, which is helping the company cope with industry changes.

The Dofasco situation is different from the controversial agreement between the Canadian Auto Workers and Magna International. The CAW can gain access to freely organize individual plants, but must sign up more than 50 per cent of workers who must ratify a first contract before the union gains recognition.

The CAW also gave up the right to strike. Steelworkers spokesperson Pat Van Horne said the union will maintain its strike right at Dofasco.

Verma said the new approaches at Magna and Dofasco signal that employers and unions are now looking at mutually beneficial labour relations.

---

I won't be doing cartwheels over this until I see an actual, signed, ratified CBA. But for now, my reaction is generally still pretty happy.

[ 11 April 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Anil Verma, a U of T industrial relations prof, had some insightful comments comparing and contrasting the two deals in this Toronto Star article.

---

That said, it isn't very reassuring in itself that the union isn't giving up the right to strike. What if they are open to accepting an internal labour relations structure anything like the Magna deal? And giving up the right to strike may come later. It's very plausible after double pressure from the company and the workers, whom the company knows go into this seeing strikes as the big problem of unions.

But that cold shower said, I think the nature of the neutrality deal has promise and is substantially different than how the Magna deal transpired.

Compared to this, the Magna deal was always a backroom affair. The CAW walked eyes open into an arrangement where Stronach held all the cards on access to workers and insisted on keeping it that way permanently.

In this neutrality deal the USW gets to go in and talk to the workers first. They can take as long as they feel it needs to dialogue with them. They get to develop with Dofasco workers positions for taking to the company that the latter will support.

The USW gets to 'stretch the envelope' a lot before they bargain with the company what will be the basic power balance between company and union.

The CAW walked into a situation where Stronach controlled the taps, took the conciousness of the workers as it is with all the limitations they know that brings, and accepted Stronach's terms that institutionalized a hobbling power imbalance.

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
To be fair, there is no agreement at Dofasco, so it's hard to make anything more than very general and very speculative comparisons. ...

Compared to this, the Magna deal was always a backroom affair.

---

We discussed how dangerous the Magna deal was at length on this board - but we had the text in front of us so we could separate the sizzle from the steak.

Until we see the USW agreement, I'm not sure how you can draw the very conclusions you wisely warn against in your opening paragraph.

USW Canada announces the deal on its website, but doesn't seem to provide the text. Why not? And will the workers get to see the text during the coming weeks of discussions?

quote:

---

Fraser said the USW will ensure traditional democratic labour rights exist in any eventual collective agreement with ArcelorMittal Dofasco.

---

To my mind, given that everybody has the Magna deal on mind and Steel was prominent among the critics, this is a reference to what the Magna deal stripped out.

Check it out:

quote:

---

Talking about forming a labour union at Dofasco used to be a firing offence. Now the company is throwing open its doors to give the United Steelworkers union the chance it has been seeking since the 1930s.

In an unprecedented moved Dofasco’s European owners announced they’ve “reached an understanding on a unique process that will allow ArcelorMittal Dofasco employees the opportunity to test the suitability of a union to its unique working culture ...”

The deal allows union organizers into the plant to talk to workers about the potential benefits of organizing. If enough workers agree, a bargaining committee would be set up to negotiate a contract with the company. If that deal is ratified, the ArcelorMittal Dofasco would recognize the United Steelworkers as the bargaining agent for the hourly workers.

Back in the “good old days” of the “Dofasco Way” workers may have been justified in feeling they didn’t need an organization to speak for them. But the days of founders Clifton and Frank Sherman -- when workers could go straight to them with issues -- are long gone. Today, the owners are in Europe.

Maybe it’s time for Dofasco workers to consolidate into a union the way the their employer is consolidating into a global industry.

---

Steve Arnold, "Is it Time?", Hamilton Spectator 3/20/08.

Here's a sample of one of the responses:

quote:

---

To establish the my mind set, let me say the the mascot of the union movement should be a dinosaur. The symbolism goes deeper than the optics. Dinosaur are large unwieldy, clumsy, unresponsive beasts who's time has past. Their upkeep requires enormous amounts of cash called dues to keep them fed. They sustain their existence by infecting an organization and bleeding it dry, forcing companies to seek cheaper labour in other countries. Would Hamilton still have Firestone, Westinghouse, International Harvester or Stelco without unions? The answer is probably yes. With today's laws and labour regulations, what can a union add the lives of current Dofasco workers.

---

Comment by "Joseph White." If that's the typical mindset, it looks like USW organizers are going to have a tough wall to break through.

Read the rest: Dofasco's Choice

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

The Hamilton Spectator
The United Steelworkers union is abandoning its in-house campaign at ArcelorMittal Dofasco, citing a lack of support from workers at the famously anti-union plant.

The USW's decampment comes just one week after Dofasco made the unusual move of allowing union representatives to take their organizing drive onto the shop floor.

"There's just not enough support at this time to move forward," said Wayne Fraser, the union's Ontario-Atlantic director.

"You're dealing with 100 years of non-union environment you've got to respect that. We respect that."

Workers are to be notified of the decision this morning.

Fraser said the union's campaign at the steelmaker will continue - but from outside the plant gates.

"We're gonna just stand back for a while and see how things unfold."

---

Steel abandons going inside Dofasco one week into the process because there is so much strong opposition to the union?

What is there to be surprised about?

Surely, with any planning at all they would expect a great deal of this at the outset.

Is there some plausible explanation out there?

quote:

---

But after speaking to about 2,000 employees in the plant, it became "very clear," that there was not enough support to move into contract talks, Fraser said.

---

...not enough support to move into contract talks? Well, big surprise. So we we get your blessing right now to go straight into contract talks, or we leave?

What about the option of saying something like "we understand there is something different here, and clearly there is no desire to have the union negotiating on your behalf, but we'd like to continue discussing with you the role the union might play.

From a Dofasco worker.

quote:

---

"A lot of people felt that if we need a union it’s up to us to choose one,” Urquhart said. “But you know there’s still a lot of unrest at the plant, because the company hasn’t clearly told us what they’re going to do with our wages and benefits."

---

Obviously, the workers at this point do not feel the union would play a positive role in working out the company's intentions with the plant. But that is something the union could have worked on over a matter of weeks and months.

- Manufacturing in Ontario is in crisis;
- There is new ownership;
- There appears to be great uncertainty as to what the future holds;
- Industrial workers (unionized or not) don't generally see the boss as their best buddy;
- Suddenly, with the owners' blessing, for the first time in a century, some dudes waltz in saying they're going to negotiate a "contract" for me and I'll be paying dues at some point.

Irrespective of what the secret agreement says (and I'll bet that the USW didn't disclose its terms to the 2,000 workers they spoke to, or we would have known them by now) - what led the USW to think that a few minutes of quality time with each worker, sponsored by the boss, would change everything?

More particularly, if I were a worker in this situation of uncertainty, I'd be wondering: "Why all of a sudden does the boss want the USW here?"

quote:

---

what led the USW to think that a few minutes of quality time with each worker, sponsored by the boss, would change everything?

---

I'm not sure the speculation does us much good, but I'm almost certain the union never expected to sway them as fast as Fraser's statement would indicate.

Everyone knows this would not be easy.

It may be as simple as they did not expect to be AS hard as the initial talk made it appear. You don't put it that way in a release, you say "we respect...."

and there is a lot of sense to continuing to talk to workers outside the plant. They've never had a chance to talk to everyone. Maybe they went into this saying lets give it one try and then decide. And then decided, not unexpected for them, that it was too wild trying to talk to groups of workers that don't do at least some self-selecting as to their willingness to hear what the union has to say. And they might even get more of those people come forward for having made the effort to talk to everyone and be willing to answer hostile questions.

What remains to be seen is whether they will actively follow this up. I think that is more material than poking around to see what the plan was.

There is nothing unusual about being closed mouthed about aspects of an organizing strategy. The fact we don't hear about a plan doesn't mean there is not one that is reasonably sound and democratic given the circumstances.

That said, something more should be put out in some kind of public circulation.

When IAM cancelled the Toyota vote they said they were still outside the gates signing people up. Steel doesn't have anything that concrete to point to, but they can achieve the same public purpose by putting some kind of flesh on their plans to continue, if they have any.

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

There is nothing unusual about being closed mouthed about aspects of an organizing strategy. The fact we don't hear about a plan doesn't mean there is not one that is reasonably sound and democratic given the circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
The CAW revealed squat about what it was working out with Magna before it had a complete and binding agreement.

---

Look, my point isn't a big one, but you are seriously missing it. When the CAW goes to talk to the Magna workers, everyone already knows what the CAW-Magna framework deal says. That wasn't the case with the USW.

I never said the public was in on the CAW-Magna discussions leading to the framework, nor do I fault the USW for reaching a deal privately. But once it's reached, it has to be made public. How can a union have an agreement with the employer that the employer knows about but not its members??

ETA: Re "binding agreement" - the CAW-Magna framework wasn't binding on Magna employees except after they sign a collective agreement, plant by plant.

All I'm saying is we know the Magna deal, we don't know the USW deal, and don't you think that may have played a role, however tiny, in Dofasco workers' reluctance to sign on to something new?

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I wasn't talking about their private organizing strategy. I was talking about whatever agreement they signed with ArcelorMittal that they didn't disclose to the workers nor to the public. No matter how bad the CAW's Framework agreement was at Magna, it was public.

---

- neutrality on ArcelorMittal's side
- bargaining would be synchronized with other USW units on the union side
- USW would strike a committee to negotiate a tentantive agreement and then hold a vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
I'd assumed that the agreement didn't amount to much beyond:

- neutrality on ArcelorMittal's side
- bargaining would be synchronized with other USW units on the union side
- USW would strike a committee to negotiate a tentantive agreement and then hold a vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
As to the resistance, it could have something to do with a "deal" or, my bet, the long-established mythology that Dofasco succeeded by being union-free while perenially fucked-up Stelco was hampered by their union.

---

Yep -- I agree, that is the defining outlook for probably most people. I don't think it's necessarily fatal in the long term though.

Currently Steel is swimming in dirty water stirred up by the CAW Magna drive, which is seen as a corrupt, behind-closed-doors, self-serving, abandoment of principles piece of done-deal bargaining that has confirmed detractors' worst allegations about the union movement.

Two non-interference agreements; two big, staunchly non-union, heavy industrial workplaces; same general area of the province; the two main industrial union competitors... tweedledum and tweedledee?

That backlash should hopefully settle down at some point, optimistically.

Plus, the Machinists' Toyota drive in Cambridge also went down in flames, for the interim anyway, just within the past couple of weeks, with a lot of non-union people questioning why those workers with their famous high wages would want to sign a union contract. (Not my opinion -- as far as I know that was going to be a real contract, unlike the Magna nonsense.)

quote:

---

So why would ArcelorMittal seek such an agreement?

---

Above I said that they might be looking for something similar to Magna: a business decision that it is better to have a permanently tamed union than no union with the wild card that the union may get in some day- on their terms as far as the basic institutional power balance goes.

That might be operative.

But there are other options. ArcelorMittal doesn't have a non-union corporate culture. There are a lot of reasons a company might think it better to have a union to work with- and a traditional union at that.

In other words, they might see it in their business interest to simply say to USW: give it a crack, no questions asked.

There are so many possible permutations of that it's hard to speculate which they might be.

But it might have a lot to do with management's perception that in a restructuring situation it's better to have a union- that its better that workers have formal representation, versus the company having to deal with the effects of rumour and fears run rampant.

It's not like they could just opt for the old Dofasco status quo viz the workers. They disturbed that permanently by being the new owners. "What are they going to do?"

Seeing what ArcelorMittal has done with the USW around restructuring would be instructive.

Remember that ArcelorMittal also wants to take it easy with workers. There can be all sorts of good faith and respectful of everyone's interests items that would be in that neutrality aggrement which both partners could legitimately see as easy to be misinterpreted and hard to correct in an environment where workers are so worried.

But I also think it is likely that it's only a simple neutrality agreement- that the text hasn't been released because everyone knows what they are. Are they usually released? Should the USW know/expect that there will be suspicions if they aren't?

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

Plus, the Machinists' Toyota drive in Cambridge also went down in flames, ... -- as far as I know that was going to be a real contract, unlike the Magna nonsense.)

---

Just curious: how could anyone possibly know what the contract "was going to be" when the workers weren't yet unionized, hadn't yet met to formulate their demands, and the union hadn't yet had a single discussion with Toyota?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
And I don't think you should assume without evidence that not being able to see the agreement played ANY role in how workers reacted.

---

I "assumed" nothing. I asked whether that may have played a role, "however tiny" (were my words). My actual thesis, to which you haven't responded, was this:

quote:

---

- Manufacturing in Ontario is in crisis;
- There is new ownership;
- There appears to be great uncertainty as to what the future holds;
- Industrial workers (unionized or not) don't generally see the boss as their best buddy;
- Suddenly, with the owners' blessing, for the first time in a century, some dudes waltz in saying they're going to negotiate a "contract" for me and I'll be paying dues at some point.

---

quote:

---

There are a lot of reasons a company might think it better to have a union to work with- and a traditional union at that.

---

I have never - ever - heard of an employer "wanting" a union, let alone a "traditional" one, unless it either got something significant in exchange, such as warding off an organizing drive by the same (or another) union where it would lose its ability to get a quid pro quo. It is inconceivable that a non-unionized employer, which can legally act unilaterally on every single issue, would voluntarily tie its hands without some overriding consideration.

quote:

---

But I also think it is likely that it's only a simple neutrality agreement- that the text hasn't been released because everyone knows what they are. Are they usually released? Should the USW know/expect that there will be suspicions if they aren't?

---

Is that a serious question? An employer signs a deal to welcome the union in after 100 years of successfully keeping it out - in the wake of the Magna deal. Should the USW expect that people will be skeptical, curious, suspicious?

Naw.

"Are they usually released"? What conceivable reason can there be to withhold a deal like this from the prospective membership? Have you ever worked in a unionized shop? Do you think unions sign deals with the employer that the members don't know about?? Are you justifying that??

quote:

---

Is that a serious question? An employer signs a deal to welcome the union in after 100 years of successfully keeping it out - in the wake of the Magna deal.

---

Read what I said. The status quo is gone for managament. The workers do not view the new owners as the same. There is both a rational basis to that, and the mythology factor about Dofasco. Doesn't matter which or how much. People are more worried now. It may be a minority view, but there is a stream of corporate and HR thinking that would view the turmoil around re-structuring is worse than what you get from a union. Not everyone in the corporate world thinks having their workers with their backs to the wall is the most advantageous position to be in.

quote:

---

Should the USW expect that people will be skeptical, curious, suspicious?

---

Some of us, yes. But I've never noticed a union that is sensitive to what the malcontents of the labour movement are or might say about them.

It is inconceivable that a union will sign a strategic agreement with a company without its members knowing about it. How could that ever be justified?

Having said that, you still haven't responded to my speculative musings about why workers may have been hesitant about joining a union:

quote:

---

- Manufacturing in Ontario is in crisis;
- There is new ownership;
- There appears to be great uncertainty as to what the future holds;
- Industrial workers (unionized or not) don't generally see the boss as their best buddy;
- Suddenly, with the owners' blessing, for the first time in a century, some dudes waltz in saying they're going to negotiate a "contract" for me and I'll be paying dues at some point.

---

quote:

---

It is inconceivable that a union will sign a strategic agreement with a company without its members knowing about it.

---

I haven't heard yet anything about what the members- and most of all those in Hamilton and nearby in the industry- may know about the agreement. They may know lots.

I think I said that I'd be suprised if the Dofasco workers did NOT start out strongly rejectionist. Given that, is why I was surprised Steel would walk away so quickly.

As to why to expect strong rejection... the first 3 items on your list added to the biggest one: most of them have long held opinions that range from outright hostile to at best indifferent to the union.

While they may not have seen the Dofasco managemet as their buddy, they had a certain confidence in them, given the alternatives [the standard working class caluculation].

Restructuring worried everyone, and having a traditional local based paternalistic ownership was at least some counter to that.

Now, all bets are off.

the union stepping in to say it can help in this situation isn't going to initially fill people will confidence just because the comforting degree of confidence they had in management has been kicked out from under them.

I would, as a rank and filer, be highly suspicious of such organizers getting this kind of blessing from management. Normal unionization campaigns are secret, for as long as possible, for very good and established reasons.

As to your suspicion, I have no idea whether this is the case, but suspicions are well warranted. I'm repeating myself, but no employer feels they can be better served with a union than with no union. We know why Frank Stronach did his Magna deal - no more hostile organizing campaigns (some of which had succeeded), no more labour uncertainty for years to come. And guess what, Stronach's salary just doubled!!

I have, however, worked in a plant where a wildcat strike took place over two guys getting suspended for smoking pot on their break. But that was rural Vancouver Island, almost 30 years ago now, and contract talks were proceeding (we were unionized) at the same time. Management used to speed up the veneer chain and, um, things just used to break down when they did that. It was a lot of back and forth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Just curious: how could anyone possibly know what the contract "was going to be" when the workers weren't yet unionized, hadn't yet met to formulate their demands, and the union hadn't yet had a single discussion with Toyota?

---

I didn't say that I knew what it would be. I said I was assuming that it would be a real contract. I make that assumption about all union drives, absent any reason to believe otherwise.

At Toyota, the Machinists did not enter into a neutrality agreement. The company opposed the union. That's why the certification didn't succeed (this time). So already I'm happier about whether or not this was going to be (will be?) a real union.

Is there something I don't know suggesting that the IAM is actually compromised here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Have you ever heard of a plant where workers are so angry they risk dismissal and criminal charges to commit sabotage - but won't take the more simple and effective route of joining a union?

---

Definitely. Happens all the time in poorly managed facilities. Happened at my husband's plant for over 20 years while the majority resisted a union over three unsuccessful drives, due to buying into negative stereotypes. It's spontaneous, not coordinated, and it targets co-workers as often as the company. Same result, for the company; not so great for the co-workers.

Same dynamic can also happen in union shops if members don't have adequate recourse through the union.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
I said I was assuming that it would be a real contract. I make that assumption about all union drives, absent any reason to believe otherwise.

---

You said, "as far as I know that was going to be a real contract". After the horrendous contracts signed in the auto industry by the UAW, how is it possible to predict what an unknown contract by anyone will look like? Are you prepared to predict what the CAW contracts will look like later this year? I'm not! That's all I meant - I thought your comment was a bit too optimistic without having any evidence to go on yet.

quote:

---

Or are we getting into a broad-based suspicion about the legitimacy of all organizing efforts in auto at this point?

---

Not at all. I was thrilled to see the IAM's effort at Toyota. I just have some difficulty with predictions without evidence.

That's why (in the case of this thread) I'd like to know what how the USW's deal with AcelorMittal was bargained and what it provided. I have no problem with neutrality agreements, but they are generally won in bargaining and sometimes as part of a package. This was from 2003:

quote:

---

BARGAIN TO ORGANIZE

To break the logjam in some areas, we can use the power where we've got it. Too often, union representatives find themselves trying to build a respectful relationship with an employer in one workplace, while facing aggressive anti-union tactics when trying to organize another workplace owned by the same company -- or a workplace at its subsidiary, or its suppliers, or other members of the company's broader "corporate family."

But we do have some power to change this. We can start using the strength we've got within one hotel chain, retail chain, or manufacturing company, to negotiate "neutrality agreements." With a neutrality agreement, an employer agrees to be truly neutral in an organizing drive, meaning the company won't force one-on-one meetings with the workers, won't issue anti-union statements or make veiled threats, and won't hire union-busting consultants. These agreements typically provide the workers with access to union representatives, and certification is based upon signing up a majority of the workers. Ensuring real neutrality on the part of employers gives workers a true democratic choice, and is entirely possible within existing laws.

Successful examples of this approach are mounting, many coming from the United States. Using neutrality agreements, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees union (HERE) has organized extensively among hotel chains, including the Holiday Inn, Hyatt, Ramada, and Four Seasons. The United Auto Workers (UAW) has done the same in auto parts (ZF Industries, Johnson Controls), as have the Steelworkers in glass manufacturing (LOF Glass), and the Communication Workers of America (CWA) in telecommunications (Bell Atlantic, Verizon). And here at home, the CAW has successfully made use of a neutrality agreement at the Freightliner truck plant.

---

quote:

---

Unions rarely hit the front page. Sure, tough strikes sometimes get lots of coverage. But great contracts, path-breaking settlements and victories in court defending members' rights happen regularly and receive too little attention in the news media.

Last month, the United Steelworkers made big news in Hamilton. The union used its bargaining leverage and a mature relationship with ArcelorMittal to be able to talk face-to-face with thousands of Dofasco workers. Dofasco, the storied bastion of nonunionism, the once-Canadian-run steel success story, now had union activists inside the plant. No wonder it made the front page.

Most employers traditionally display a primitive hostility to workers who are pondering union membership. As a result, unions are limited to handing out leaflets at the plant gate and having furtive meetings with supportive employees in coffee shops and houses around town. However, ArcelorMittal Dofasco agreed to take a different approach, to step back and allow its employees to engage directly with the union.

Fourteen United Steelworkers (USW) activists, many of them from USW-represented steel plants across North America, walked straight through the doors and into what almost everyone still calls Dofasco. For a week of often 12-hour days in the plant, we listened, we talked to workers, we answered questions and we debated.

Discussion centred on contracts, about how they were built, about what a union like the USW can do and what it cannot do. We discussed how bargaining issues have expanded beyond the traditional focus on wages, benefits and health and safety to new spheres such as corporate decision-making and governance.

For example, USW contracts with ArcelorMittal prevent the company from bringing low-cost steel from overseas into USW-represented mills if any union members are idled. Further, the company cannot sell any of its USW-represented operations without the approval of the union.

Dofasco workers were presented with an innovative opening -- the chance to make the choice about whether to join the union only after they had seen what the Steelworkers, with their support, could do at the bargaining table. It was unique. It was also challenging, both for Dofasco workers and for the union.

It is true that many ArcelorMittal Dofasco workers oppose the very idea of union membership, no matter what it might offer. But hundreds were open to learning about the process and open to thinking about what bargaining might bring. A number of workers wanted to get the process started right away.

But the pledge to Dofasco workers was that we would move forward only if there was enough support to move into bargaining with a democratically elected bargaining committee. That necessary level of interest was not there. We made good on our pledge, and we ended the in-plant access portion of our campaign.

Some may question what actually was achieved. After all of the discussions, the excitement and the headlines, after the sometimes hyperventilating anti-union blog postings on the Internet, some things have changed.

After the period of uncertainty over changes in ownership and global consolidation in the steel industry, workers at Dofasco have had a chance to talk directly with unionized steelworkers about their hopes and doubts for the future. They learned more about the collective bargaining process and about the USW relationship with ArcelorMittal. They got a chance to ask some good and tough questions.

As for the USW, we learned more about Dofasco workers' pride in their history. We learned many Dofasco workers are well aware that their good wages and benefits package can be traced in large part to our union's gains in bargaining at Stelco and elsewhere. And while some may not appreciate every bit of the union's history in Hamilton, many know that they have benefited from it.

ArcelorMittal Dofasco workers are a lot like USW members -- hard-working, hopeful for the future of Hamilton, needing to protect what they have gained at work and deserving of the right to bargain for improvements.

In the next few months, the USW heads into major bargaining with ArcelorMittal in the United States. At the same time, the union is defending the rights of ArcelorMittal workers across Canada and the United States as the company makes changes to its product mix, selling some operations, ending others and opening new ones.

In the end, the basic questions remain. Will the consolidation of the global steel sector continue? As the terrain of collective bargaining shifts, what will be the issues of contention and co-operation between the union and the major steel companies in the future?

Members of the USW insist that those questions demand a real place for workers' voices in the corporate decisions that affect them.

Some ArcelorMittal Dofasco workers believe that Dofasco's successful past will guarantee success into the future, or that a charmed mixture of good steel production, hard work and fervent hope are all that is needed to protect what they have.

Perhaps, but it must be said that members of the USW have the added democracy and security delivered by their collective agreements.

The campaign to engage with ArcelorMittal Dofasco continues in more traditional ways, although still without the usual grim opposition shown by some companies in the past. Our time on the shop floor has given us food for thought, and will help make the USW a better union.

No one can predict the future, but Steelworkers remain hopeful that ArcelorMittal Dofasco workers will choose to join with us in the future.

Workers, their families, the community and the Canadian steel industry would be better off for it.

We will be there for any ArcelorMittal Dofasco workers who want the opportunity.

---

quote:

---

there are no short-cuts. If a situation looks too good to be true, it probably is. Which raises questions about the deal with Arcelor-Mittal, the 'neutrality agreement' itself. Bosses are almost always the enemies of unionization and nowadays they adopt ever-more-sophisticated methods of scaring workers, undermining union support and driving campaigns into the ditch. To defuse, prevent or offset this kind of hostility is a definite bonus for union organizers. So-called “neutrality agreements” – whereby a company is persuaded to stand back during a certification attempt and "let the workers decide", not intervene to dissuade them – are a pleasant relief for organizers, freeing them from torrents of bullshit. However, our target, our battle, our primary task remains to win over the hearts and minds of the workers, our potential members, not of management. A 'neutrality' deal can only be a sidebar to, not the centrepiece of, a certification drive. The hard slog of leafleting outside the gates, going house to house, arranging small-group worker-to-worker meetings in homes, coffee-shops, taverns or mosques, is still required. Inside committees need to be formed, cards released carefully and confidentially, contacts built up department by department. Such a process builds legitimacy, provides feedback, develops leaders, and ensures that the pivotal local issues are understood. It also makes it clear that solidarity vis à vis the employer is the key to future progress.

A company – even when used to compliance, and endowed with employee goodwill – cannot deliver its workers cold into the arms of a designated bargaining agent, unless it’s a done deal with a yellow in-house union or a bogus pre-emptive arrangement with the likes of the Christian Labour Association of Canada. Even if a legitimate union “succeeds” in such a manner, the result of short-circuiting the democratic involvement of the workers will almost certainly be apathy and lack of involvement, a union in name only. There are certainly campaigns like ‘Justice for Janitors,’ where organizing cannot realistically be done on a workplace-by-workplace and worker-by-worker basis. Unions like SEIU then stage major community mobilizations and publicity campaigns – perhaps citywide or nationwide – to force large-scale employers to grant voluntary recognition or at least “neutrality” for all their employees. This has proven an effective way to achieve collective representation under such circumstances. But by-passing member involvement at the sign-up stage still creates future difficulties in getting workers truly involved and engaged.

A second lesson is that campaigns should be steady, under-the-radar, low-key. They shouldn’t be proclaimed ahead of time from the rooftop of union headquarters – especially with the company logo on the letterhead. As my granny used to say, don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched, or you end up with egg on your face. Competitiveness between individual unions must not be allowed to distort campaign strategies.

Arcelor-Mittal’s operations in Hamilton may well become unionized before too long, as conditions continue to evolve within and without. And the Steelworkers are the obvious union to do it. Their aborted Do-fiasco this March has undoubtedly set things back for a year or two, and serious lessons have to be absorbed before a new attempt is made. The next campaign will have to be done the hard way, patiently, modestly, from below. And in conjunction with the other Steelworkers, community allies, and the rest of the labour movement in Hamilton and beyond.

If the company can be persuaded that it’s in its own broader interest not to resist this, so much the better. But our focus has to be on the workers themselves, their fears, their pride, their hopes, their needs. Not on the boardroom, not on the headlines.

John Humphrey is a former president of Steelworkers Local 5338.

---