quote:

---

Magna International Inc., which grew into the world's third-largest auto parts maker as a non-union enterprise, is discussing a "framework of fairness" with major unions, chairman Frank Stronach said yesterday.

"Unions fulfil a very important role," Stronach told Magna's annual meeting, saying they balance the naked profit motive of corporations and promote social justice, fairness and the environment... Stronach, who built Magna on an "entrepreneurial" culture based on competitive pay, profit-sharing and an employee charter guaranteeing safety and fairness, said a deal could be in place within months, although Walker added it might take years.

"We've got to work closer together," to save North American auto jobs and create new ones, Stronach said... The company "would embrace the union," collect dues and deal with formal employee representatives, he said, but "rates would have to be a little less," and there would have to be no-strike guarantees

---

Buzz?

quote:

---

"I had lunch with Frank last week ... and we talked about a number of things," Hargrove said in an interview.

"We told him we'd be more than willing to sit down. This would be like a greenfield site for us. There's no past practice. You'd start from a clean slate."

---

Where I come from when the CEO of a company and a "union leader" sit down at a steak house and sign a contract that takes away the right to strike that's a sweethart deal. And a yellow dog union. Am I missing something?

this is yellow dog unionism. Am I missing smoething?

[ 13 May 2006: Message edited by: TCD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TCD:

this is yellow dog unionism. Am I missing smoething?

---

quote:

---

unionist: You've certainly got the conclusion down pat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by slimpikins:

I am no fan of Hargrove, don't get me wrong. However, in every jurisdiction in Canada that I am aware of, labour laws prohibit a strike or lockout if there is a collective agreement in force anyhow. It isn't fair to lambaste Buzz for that particular issue.

---

Furthermore, in every jurisdiction, it is illegal for non-unionized workers (such as those employees of Magna who are not yet unionized) to strike at any time whatsoever - and they can be fired summarily for such an act.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenehan:
unionist, you're such a hardass on Layton everytime he doesn't provide a treatise on his positions but when Buzz Hargrove sits down for dinner with a union busting scum bucket like Stronach for the express purpose of crafting a contract with no strike provisions you say we need more details.

---

I criticize Layton when he calls for being tougher on crime; when he supports the Clarity Act; when he confuses the child care issue by calling also for child tax credits; when he inexplicably defends certain private clinics as having been around since Tommy Douglas' time; when he favours income tax cuts over GST cuts; when he jumps on the "Liberals are crooks" superficial bandwagon without also warning of the dangers of the Conservatives; when he refuses to speak out against Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan and Haiti; and when he leads the party further and further down the path of electoralism while leaving an increasingly vague (or sometimes, all-too-clear) vision of what the aim of electoral victory would be; and for many many other reasons.

Hargrove and the CAW are not an oppositional political party. I could criticize them for never having taken a stand (to my knowledge) against Canadian involvement in Afghanistan; for over-stating the benefits of the last minority government; for re-defining "concessions" as being only cuts in wages, benefits and pensions (but not necessarily other worker rights and gains); for questionable strategies in dealing with the crisis facing the auto industry; and many many other reasons.

But Hargrove and the CAW are a union and its leader. They are not, and make no pretence of being, the political voice of all progressive minded Canadians. And with all their sins, they are still light years more militant and progressive and socially involved and in the thick of the movements than the vast majority of other business-oriented unions in this country. And, to the left of today's NDP on virtually every political issue.

So when I see people attacking Hargrove as they do on this board, I observe that most do so because of his lack of unquestioning loyalty to the NDP. Well, that's a fault I share with Hargrove. I believe unions and political parties must be loyal to their members as a starting point -- not the other way around -- and then they can earn some loyalty of their own. But never blind obedience.

1) Kenehan misstated things a little. Every union has "no strike" provisions in their contracts. However, what Stronach refers to is a "no strike guarantee" which, I'm guessing, is along the lines of what the CAW has already signed at some Magna plants - namely they surrender the right to strike for a first contract. That is, in my books, very very bad. Now, Stronach may be referring to traditional "no strike" provisions that are in every collective agreement. Or he may have already been told be by Buzz this is a non-starter. But the article gives no such indication.

2) unionist, it's kind of silly to debate your record. But... on this thread you berate Jack for not specifically laying out the exact NDP position on Afghanistan but on this thread you strenuously argue that Hargrove is innocent until proven guilty. Buzz is having dinner with a union-busting scumbag who openly admits he wants a yellow-dog contract so he can pimp the union for more public subsidies. Buzz does not rule out any of this. But you claim, unless and until, Buzz has actually signed a deal and made it public we should assume the best of him. Why?

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: TCD ]

quote:

---

TCD: However, what Stronach refers to is a "no strike guarantee" which, I'm guessing ...

---

Guessing. Uh huh. Here are some facts to add to your "guess" from the link you provided:

1. "If they reach an impasse, each side could invoke binding arbitration. After three years, the two sides would repeat the process."

In other words, in the example provided, there is a method of resolving disputes that is far from "our (management) way or the highway"; lots of so-called "essential" service and government workers can do no better than this, given the relcalcitrant and autocratic governments they have to deal with.

2. "But this is a unique situation. Workers voted 317 to 285 in favour of the union in October, 1999, after a high-profile organizing drive. The victory followed three unsuccessful drives in the previous decade. Mitic said the support of 53 per cent of workers who voted is not strong enough to risk a strike and the union's survival during the next few years."

Sounds like the union is making the best of a bad situation. Good on them. Or maybe you think it would be more "heroic" or something if there were not 3, but 4 unsuccessful organizing drives? Sounds like boss talk to me.

quote:

---

That is, in my books, very very bad.

---

But, Betlov, if you think signing away the right to strike for a first contract is a way to build a strong union I can only assume that you've never actually been in a union - much less through negotiations.

To quote an expert, "Nobody wants to strike, but for working people the right to withdraw their own labour has been the most fundamental democratic right they’ve had. It’s been the primary tool for getting arrogant employers to take us seriously, the ticket to a measure of workplace justice for working people... Recently, the Ontario government moved to "temporarily" remove that right from public sector workers and teachers... Had the Harris government gotten away with this, there’s no doubt that they would have been encouraged to move on to take away other basic rights from all workers in this province. But the public sector unions and the teachers mobilized their members and made it clear that they would fight....The significance of this isn’t just in the importance of the issue involved but in the confirmation that fighting back matters. When you fight back, you may not win, but you’re likely to at least limit the damage if not get a partial victory. When you fight back, you’re participating in the slow process of changing public opinion and what’s possible."

These words of widsom are from Buzz Hargrove. Who, as always, seems unwilling to apply the rules he wants everyone else to follow to his own union.

[ 16 May 2006: Message edited by: Kenehan ]

quote:

---

Kenehan:Beltov, if you think signing away the right to strike for a first contract is a way to build a strong union I can only assume that you've never actually been in a union - much less through negotiations.

---

Born in 1973, eh? Well this union man has been on strike, more than once, before you were 5 years old. I've acted on behalf of members at the Labour Board without the assistance of a lawyer and won, been a steward and a local President. Oh yea, I've also been in negotiations more than once. My generalizations come from my experience and from watching others with more experience.

The right to strike is, of course, worth defending once you've got it, but you can't legally strike until there exists a collective agreement, as has been pointed out in this thread more than once. So the question of a first contract isn't irrelevant at all. And sometimes it's pretty damn difficult to get it - so much so that many times there has to be a strike just to get a first contract. From what has been written here, after the two 3 year "terms" the members can negotiate a new agreement or go on strike. The right to strike hasn't been lost forever, but a period of time without a strike (just as with any collective agreement) can be used to build up the membership and prepare them for future battles. The union gets all that time to build solidarity among the rank and file. And it looks like this workplace could use the time and the help.

Once a Union is certified, employers can stall, delay, commit numerous unfair labour practices, fire supporters, etc. Although these issues get worked out in time, for the present they drain support from the Union and make it very hard to win a strike, due to the climate of fear that the company creates. It doesn't matter much if 6 months to a year down the road all the fired supporters get reinstated and paid for lost time, as the damage has already been done to the morale of the workers. I saw this firsthand at Lakeside, and it was followed by a bitter strike that saw two deaths (from a car accident while on the way home from the picket line, could have happened while on the way home from work just as easily), the president of the Union run off the road sustaining serious injury, numerous criminal charges, friendships shattered, a huge hit to a vital industry, and a lot of damage to the reputation of the City of Brooks.

First contract arbitration effectively negates these tactics and situations, and allows the Union to show the workers what can be done in a unionized workplace for the length of the collective agreement, and when the time comes for a renewal, the gloves are all the way off and the two parties can slug it out without interference.

That's why, in every jurisdiction I know that has implemented first-contract arbitration (or, as Manitoba did not very successfully for a while, final offer selection), it is uniformly the union movement which lobbies for this measure. It is an insignificant "compromise" of principles in order to gain a tactical advantage at a time which could be life or death for the new bargaining unit.

I have applied for first-contract arbitration just once. The tactic worked, and we ended up using the arbitrator as a mediator and getting a freely bargained deal.

By the same token, binding arbitration for "mature" collective bargaining relationships is anathema when it can be imposed at will.

[ 08 June 2007: Message edited by: pink ]

I would take that deal in a heartbeat, especially with 50-odd percent support for the Union.

quote:

---

pink: the right to strike comes after certification of the union, and BEFORE the collective agreement is in place - as anyone who as ever been involved in a first contract strike will tell you.

---

It seems to me that the workers at Magna whose union it will be should have a say as to whether they'll strike for a first contract and the workers at Magna whose union it will be should have the right to set their dues.

Stop trying to make this out to be a CLAC style sell out deal. It just plain isn't.