quote:

---

Magna International Inc. chairman Frank Stronach is set to announce a tectonic shift in the way the Canadian auto parts giant conducts its business by unveiling a deal that opens up the company's plants to organizing drives by the Canadian Auto Workers union.

The agreement is scheduled to be revealed on Monday at the company's headquarters in Aurora, Ont., by Mr. Stronach, who has kept the union out of all but a handful of the company's plants for five decades. He will be accompanied by CAW president Buzz Hargrove, whose staff members have been knocking on the doors of Magna plants for years in mostly unsuccessful attempts to organize workers.

One of the key pillars of the deal is that Magna's management will be neutral during organizing drives by the CAW at the company's 61 manufacturing facilities Canada, according to sources familiar with the matter. Mr. Stronach could not be reached Friday, while Mr. Hargrove would not comment.

Magna has a little less than 21,000 employees in Canada, but that number includes at least 2,000 head office, management and salaried personnel who would not be eligible for union status.

Such a move would represent another revolutionary event in the space of less than six months at Magna, one of Canada's largest and most successful companies. Its annual revenue of $24.2-billion (U.S.) ranks it among the top five global auto parts companies by size and it is among the most diversified players in the industry, manufacturing almost every part that goes into a vehicle, including assembling complete vehicles under contract from some auto makers.

---

[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

I've heard from family members who were OPSEU members that the "glory days" of OPSEU were back when OPSEU didn't have the right to strike, when every labour dispute was settled by binding arbitration.

I haven't been a union member long enough to really know the arguments for and against such an arrangement, but it doesn't seem like the end of the world to me, if your union is strong and fights hard during negotiations for what's fair. Although I could probably be swayed quite easily from that position. And I guess it would also depend on who you get as an arbitrator.

I'll be watching this discussion with interest if it gets off the ground.

[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

And, employers love this. Because it costs them nothing to delay, and when they offer a nickle an hour raise, retroactively, members jump at it because that retroactive lump sum looks like a lot, when in fact it's a pittance.

When the OPS was in a strictly arbitration bargaining regime, most members weren't even aware there was a union or that it had anything to do with their pay raises. Months and months after our contract expired, we'd get a "retro cheque". So yes, it always took forever and members attributed out gains to the employer's generosity.

That's interesting, about the retroactive pay raises, etc. I can see why the people I've talked to (who aren't really what you'd call labour activists) would be more inclined to like the occasional retroactive pay windfall that takes months to negotiate than settling things through a strike where their income is disrupted for potentially months on end.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
My OPSEU friends tell me they will never make back the money they lost during a strike that lasted March to May.

---

They won't perhaps make the money back on the life of that contract, but they will over the course of their careers.

In the last round of bargaining, settled without a strike, the OPS did fairly well. But we only did so well because our employer knew that we would take strike action if necessary.

quote:

---

They won't perhaps make the money back on the life of that contract, but they will over the course of their careers.

---

One close friend suffered attacks of high blood pressure so severe, she couldn't picket, so she lost out even on the pittance that is strike pay in the OPSEU strike of 2002.

And there's also the psychological impact of a strike. The above-mentioned strike was so nasty, some of us took months to recover.

I would march in the streets to support the right to strike. But having been through a bad one, I don't think a knee-jerk "Yay for strikes" is the way to go.

Edited to add: whoops, we cross-posted.

quote:

---

In the last round of bargaining, settled without a strike, the OPS did fairly well. But we only did so well because our employer knew that we would take strike action if necessary.

---

[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: Sineed ]

And then there's just trying to make ends meet during a stoppage.

Yeah, they can be a bit stressful.

This said, I think the CAW did exactly the right thing. Being in a union and collective bargaining is much more important then the process. The CAW will get an agreement; it will not be a sell-out; it will be enforced. The workers will have the experience and benefit of being in a union. They will also have the opportunity to decide if the deal is good enough.

In B.C., voluntary agreement means that an employer and the Christian Labour Association have struck a total inferior deal. Likely workers had no say and were allowed no debate. No worker even participated.

There is a huge difference. That's because the CAW is a union.

[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
What do you mean by day labour outfits?

---

Having said that, Tommy is absolutely right about the importance of the strike threat. It can have a remarkable effect on both employer and union in achieving an agreement. And without the legal right to strike, workers would always be at the mercy of the wealthy and powerful. Binding arbitration can be an occasional useful tool when all else fails and when both sides agree. When the process is imposed, and workers cannot protest the outcome, then being forced to show up for work anyway constitutes a polite form of slavery.

In the case of CAW and Magna, I'd like to see the actual terms of the deal. As far as I know, there is no such thing as giving up your legal right to strike beyond the term of a particular collective agreement - and there is no such thing as a "lifetime" agreement; every contract must have an expiry date.

However, some unions do now sign long-term collective agreements (5 or 6 or even more years long), and the law does not allow strikes or lockouts during the duration of any contract. Is that what CAW proposes to do, with some "mechanism" for revisiting wages etc. at various times before the expiry? And is a long-term agreement a proper tradeoff for getting a foot in the door, as has been suggested above?

quote:

---

Established in 1946 by Supreme Court Justice Ivan Rand following a 100-day strike at the Ford Motor Company, the Rand Formula recognizes that all employees in a workplace enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining and therefore have an obligation to contribute financially to the collective good by paying union dues.

No one is forced to join a union against their will but neither are they entitled to get a free ride on the backs of union members. At the same time, the Rand Formula imposes responsibilities on employees and unions.

The Rand Formula has stood the test of time. By treating workers fairly and maintaining a fair balance with employers, the Rand Formula has played a critical role in every improvement in wages, benefits, pensions and other rights that workers have won for more than half a century.

---

No freeloaders! Get the picture?

OTOH, maybe you are a Young Liberal from Quebec and are actually hostile to the Rand Formula.

Young Liberals hostile to Rand formula

But in that case, why not just come out and say what you mean?

[ 15 October 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Canadian Auto Workers leader Buzz Hargrove says he's at least partly to blame for it taking so long to unionize the workers at Magna International.

"It's probably more my fault than it is Frank Stronach's," Hargrove said Monday at a signing ceremony with Stronach, Magna's founder, at the auto parts manufacturer's headquarters in Aurora, Ont.

---

quote:

---

Will Magna workers have the right to strike?

Unresolved disagreements encountered in the renegotiation of the National Agreement will be referred to binding final-offer arbitration by a mutually-selected third party. There will be no strikes or lockouts under this system. Even unofficial work stoppages are strictly prohibited.

With no strikes, how will CAW members at Magna make progress on their issues?

Local and national union representatives will have many avenues to identify the concerns of CAW members at Magna; marshal and present evidence to support their case; and convince the company of the merits of the union’s position. Almost all CAW contracts are settled without work stoppages in conventional practice. Indeed, there are other CAW locals which do not have the right to strike, but which have made tremendous progress for their members. We are certain that we will be able to make significant progress for Magna workers and CAW members without strikes.

---

Sounds like desperation to me. This is bad news for other CAW locals going into bargaining. The employer can just open by handing out these materials from the CAW website.

quote:

---

Will Magna workers have the right to strike?

Unresolved disagreements encountered in the renegotiation of the National Agreement will be referred to binding final-offer arbitration by a mutually-selected third party. There will be no strikes or lockouts under this system. Even unofficial work stoppages are strictly prohibited.

---

quote:

---

However, a non-union employer could get a similar arrangement, he said. "Invite us in."

---

CAW shelves right to strike

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
Is this some sort of "company union"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
Is this some sort of "company union"?

---

That's what it sounds a lot like like.

And if you're a boss who wants a compliant employee union, Buzz will deal!

quote:

---

"Hargrove is creating CAW-employer associations," added Wayne Fraser, Ontario-Atlantic director of the United Steelworkers. "What's to stop other employers, especially Magna competitors, from rightfully asking the CAW for the same no-strike right."

Hargrove said it wouldn't be possible for other auto-parts companies with a union to demand the same provision. However, a non-union employer could get a similar arrangement, he said. "Invite us in."

---

quote:

---

The two sides have also agreed to change the traditional grievance procedure with a "concern resolution process"

---

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/267140

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Doug ]

This is astounding. If I were the Canadian Manufacturing Association, or any other industry lobby group, I would be on the phone tomorrow to MPs and MPPs saying, "look, the CAW acknowledges they don't need a right to strike to negotiate a collective agreement! We don't need a "no scab" law, we need a "no strike" law!"

quote:

---

The problem with not having the right to strike is that negotiations drag on and on and on. I've seen it where, at the conclusion of one set of negotiations, the next started almost at once, it dragged out that long.

---

If all labour disputes went to binding arbitration, it would be reasonable to assume an arbitrator would never have given postal workers maternity benefits.

Similarly, arbitrators would be very reluctant to roll back wages and benefits where concessions are demanded by employer in difficult financial circumstances and facing an instransigent union.

As well, because arbitrators are unlikely to make more than cursory changes to a collective agreement, for the most part, it means longstanding irritants that can have the effect of poisoning the relationship can remain unresolved for a long, long time.

This, in my view, is a serious strategic error on the part of the CAW.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

He raises some terrifying points:

quote:

---

- The right to strike is fully erased; it is gone forever. As the CAW press kit puts it: 'There will be no strikes or lockouts under this system' (emphasis added). When the agreement ends, if the members reject the new offer, it goes to arbitration. Period. (The kit goes on to suggest that the strike weapon is, in any case, not really that important.)
- Shop stewards do not exist. The CAW has accepted this. Stewards are replaced by a 'fairness committee' staffed by equal numbers of labour and management reps (who are part of the 'concern resolution process'). The key union rep under this structure is the 'Employee Advocate', a carryover from Magna's traditional practice who seems to be the formal equivalent of a plant chairperson. According to the Toronto Star (October 16, 2007), the Employee Advocate is not elected from the membership at large but screened by a committee which included both labour representatives and management(!). To date it is not public information how the final selection is made. This system is reminiscent in some ways to the 'controlled democracy' in communist Europe a while back, where managers – in that case as union members – prepared lists from which the leaders could be chosen.
- The Magna units will be part of one Canada-wide – effectively Ontario-wide – amalgamated local. (This in itself may tend to isolate each unit form interaction with other units in the community). The above Employee Advocates will make up the executive of that local and constitute, along with representatives from the national union, the bargaining committee. The local officers – for example, the President and Secretary-Treasurer – will be chosen by this executive rather than, as in current CAW practice, via a vote of the membership.
- As for ideology, the CAW president has proudly declared his enthusiasm for a 'non-adversarial' relationship, repeating (without embarrassment) all the mushy clichés about 'teamwork' and 'being in this together' that he not so long ago scorned for their rank hypocrisy. This, it is important to emphasize, is not just about rhetoric. The attitude to labour-management relations is one of the criteria that will be used in evaluating acceptability for being the Employee Advocate. Trouble-makers – those who challenge the system, 'stir up trouble' and have always been the backbone of independent unionism – need not apply.

---

quote:

---

"This is a travesty. It makes me sick to my stomach. Real union democracy suffers."
GERRY MICHAUD, retired CAW national executive board member

"Giving up the right to strike is one of the forbidden things for a union."
BOB NICKERSON, retired CAW national secretary-treasurer

"This is the first time in my life on an emotional level that I felt ashamed of my union ...This is a real tragedy."
GORD WILSON, retired CAW education director

"The CAW has embraced the Magna model and thus given up what workers have historically fought for."
SAM GINDIN, retired assistant to Hargrove

"It's a betrayal of the reason why we established ourselves as an independent union away from the UAW more than 20 years ago."
BRUCE ALLEN, vice-president of Local 199 at GM in St. Catharines

"We used to say the NDP had lost its way but we (the CAW) must be on another planet with this (Magna deal),"
Keith Osborne, chairperson for Local 222 at GM in Oshawa.

---

Wow. I suppose everything has a price. Then again, it isn't necessarily a voluntary recognition agreement, the MAGNA employees still have to decide whether or not to join the CAW. That being said, if Stronach pays the wages, benefits and the like, what true benefit is there to a MAGNA employee belonging to the CAW if in fact they don't have the "hammer" to enforce their demands at the negotiating table, should they ever need it? But to freely hand over the power of job action, is something akin to defanging a cobra.

This is just the latest example of what is wrong with the CAW at the upper echelons of the union. Growth at any expense, be it external through raiding, or internal by selling out your power, all in the hunt for dues money.

"An earlier Magna-CAW deal at a Windsor plant allowed workers the right to strike after six years, but a union insider said yesterday that under the new agreement, the loss of the right would be indefinite."

Bottom line -- CAW is hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs and they can’t take care of their existing membership. In this Magna deal they stand to gain up to 18,000 new members, many of them high wage earners, with mandatory check-off of full dues amounting to two hours and twenty minutes worth of wages per month, per member.

All this, with no costs to organize, nor even to service these members because everything will be taken care of in-house by the employer association – I mean “union”. No drain on the strike fund either, obviously.

So, what's $20 - $60 a month times 18,000?

Really, the only thing that’s truly surprising to me here is that this kind of agreement could possibly be legally binding on those workers. IMHO I don’t accept that it is. But with the huge amalgamated locals they’re proposing, that may be moot, because the likelihood of all five plants in a local rising up in revolt at the same time must be pretty much nil.

[ 22 October 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Has Frank Stronach snookered Buzz Hargrove? It looks that way, judging from the details of the historic agreement last week by Stronach's Magna International Inc. to allow Hargrove's Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) to represent workers at any Magna plant in Canada where a majority of workers sign a union card – potentially 18,000 employees. (The CAW already represents Magna workers at two plants.) Only if Hargrove's motive is to gain new auto-sector members at any cost does the CAW's bizarre deal with Magna make any sense for the CAW.

---

I will predict that the workers at Magna will see no advantage to joining the union, but only disadvantage at being dinged about $50.00 a month for nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
So, what's $20 - $60 a month times 18,000?

---

I happily pay about $50 in union dues. I wouldn't be happy to pay it for a deal like that, though.

Trying to play the Buzz's advocate here, and anyone else who has tried his or her hand at organizing, one of the great obstacles is the fear of the first contract. Probably some of the worst strikes are under those conditions. I would like to believe it's Buzz's attempt to deal with that traditional problem by removing it.

Sometimes it is necessary, grasshopper, to cut off a finger to save a hand. But this seems like trying to save the finger by cutting off the hand, to me.

Sort of like being pissed with the NDP, and expressing that by supporting the Liberals.

Lord help me, I always suspected Buzz was just bought off. I wish he was that smart.

I'm new at this but I'll try to post a link to an IWW newsletter from April outlining Stern's various unprincipled, undemocratic, anti-labour, shading to outright corrupt, business unionism practices.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
At break today I talked to a friend who is still active at the local. He tells me that the leadership is justifying the Magna no strike deal by saying that the CAW already represents Hospital workers who don't have the right to strike, and it's no big deal.

---

This was a pretty pointed question, wasn't it?

quote:

---

So why, other than the new dues it will collect, did the CAW move in this direction?

---

It would be pretty sad to see such a fantastic, militant union like the CAW turn into a mere dues-collecting agency, wouldn't it?

His final question is good too:

quote:

---

The question is, where are the militants in the CAW – the activists, staff and leaders who know full well what the Magna model means for the labour movement? Where is their outrage?

---

Maybe it's time for you to get more involved again, Tommy.

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Of all the people I met, listened to and read in the CAW, Sam Gindin is the person I most respected for being most often correct in his assessments, and for knowing the best direction to take into the future. And I think his communication skills are second to none.

I would take issue though, with his closing statment.

quote:

---

The question is, where are the militants in the CAW – the activists, staff and leaders who know full well what the Magna model means for the labour movement? Where is their outrage?

---

As Gindin fully knows-- having benefited from it-- Hargrove is where he is, and is able to do what he has done because of a powerful caucus system within the CAW.

Feminist leadership who might have opportunity to sit down and break bread with Buzz might contemplate the political structure of the CAW before they say "fight the patriarchy" in his presence. The CAW is so partriarchal, paterfamilias would be an apt description.

The caucus system has it's definite advantages. When the person in charge is for the workers and not off his rocker. But as Victor Ruether warned us here in Canada-- when Gindin and Bob White were still at the helm and in a position to do something about it-- the caucus system is a perfect vehicle for hijacking the union.

It was just such a hijacking in the UAW, after all, that lead Gindin and White to move the Canadian locals away into the CAW.

So, as much as I like Gindin, and admire Gindin, and as reluctant as I am to take a swipe at someone who is correct in what they say, I have to turn it around and say:

I would have run for delegate to the Constitutional convention last time, however, a like minded person announced his candidacy, and I supported him.

And he voted against Buzz.

I'm willing to bet an opposition caucus has formed, and I might join it, too. However, it's hard to blame caucus politics for all this, and then oppose it by joining a caucus.

But it may be a political necessity.

But, I am a revolutionary at heart. Not a "grab your pitchfork and shotgun and meet on Parliament Hill" kind of romantic revolutionary that wants to martyr himself and others for a cause to be forgotten in a few years, but a revolutionary none the less.

My activism in the labor movement and in the NDP has faded because there is no revolutionary vision anymore, if there ever was one.

Even under White and Gindin, the CAW was, at base, very much in preserving the status quo where workers go hat in hand to their corporate master for a raise, or hat in hand to the government for crumbs falling off the edge of the table.

Not that I ever thought this would change in my life time. But the lack of vision, the lack of hope for something better is, and remains, quite a damper.

No one in left leadership wants to assume complete adulthood, and self determination for themselves or anyone.

[ 27 October 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

I just remembered you saying here and there that you stopped being active in the union for various reasons, and I'm just thinking that it sounds like now's the time when the CAW needs their hard-nosed activists the most to organize against such a direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "caucus system" but I do know that you have the communication and leadership skills to be a pretty strong voice for change. Of course, I know you've got lots of other stuff going on too, so I wasn't nagging or anything.

Heaven forbid I should nag!

I think she's looking forward to it, do you?

Anyway, you'd think I should be above criticism, but I'm not. (side long glance emoticon)

This stuff does happen when good people remain silent, and I'm a major proponent of that philosophy. So, I guess if blame should be portioned out, some is rightfully due to land in my lap.

The caucus system is just as the name implies. You meet as a group, discuss the issues, take a vote on it. Then you emerge united behind that decision, even if you argued against it in caucus.

My experience with the Administration Caucus under White was such that ordinary members like myself, who were able to join, didn't necessarily have the right to dissent, even in caucus. There were, you see, little private caucuses before the caucus, where a National Rep. could put the caucus to you, so to speak.

And Bob White didn't care about the issue, or if you argued it from an honorable point of view, or if your idea had merit. If it was against his, he'd never forget, and you'd pay a political price. Seen it happen.

[ 27 October 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

But the thing is, the next president will have the Buzz seal of approval, and come from the trained seals he has around him now.

quote:

---

In fact, the scheme worked out by Hargrove and Magna head Frank Stronach – in which union and company bosses co-operate to keep worker discontent at a minimum and ensure the company's profitability – is not new at all.

Indeed, it is a venerable Canadian model, pioneered by the equally venerable Canadian Liberal politician (later prime minister) William Lyon Mackenzie King and emulated around the globe, in countries as various as John D. Rockefeller's United States and Adolf Hitler's Germany.

---

Thomas Walkom in the Toronto Star.

Edited to add: Thanks Mercy for the letter from 222.

It is hard to think this is the union we shut the TTC down with.

[ 28 October 2007: Message edited by: blake 3:17 ]

The article notes that Buckley had been supportive but changed his view due to pressure from shop floor leaders and the rank-and-file. Interesting quote from Buzz:

quote:

---

"I'm more troubled than disappointed. In all my years as head of the CAW, this has never happened to me where a major leader in the union has done this."

---

quote:

---

I'm shocked by the Magna-CAW framework agreement; it goes against union fundamentals and everything our union stands for. We have to do everything we can to make sure it isn't approved.

Paul Pugh
President
CAW Local 1075

Dear Brother Gindin

I wholeheartedly support your analysis of the CAW Magna deal. Is it a deal? Or is it a merger between two organizations. I have just read the Framework for Fairness Agreement and it is worse than what I had anticipated. This deal is already being broken by managers in Magna workplaces who are openly lobbying against it. It may provide Buzz and Hemi a convenient way out of the most odious undertaking our Union has ever participated in. And I thought giving 5 million to a corrupt Liberal bagman was bad. This is worse...

In Solidarity
Jim Reid, 1st Vice President
Local 27 CAW Canada

---

quote:

---

Hargrove also pointed out many American workers opposed the agreement because it establishes lower wages for some non-core, non-assembly workers...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
I'll highlight the good and note that Hargrove also has supporters (like Bob White) who you can hear from by following the link:

---

Read it for yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
He seems to be saying Hargrove has betrayed the struggle of the students in Tienanmen Square.

---

When Magna and the CAW announced their deal, they heralded it as an 'historic' achievement.

I take Ed's piece as a necessary reminder of the true historical context in which this deal takes place, and that context has a global dimension.

[ 30 October 2007: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I never could stand Ed Broadbent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:

I take Ed's piece as a necessary reminder of the true historical context in which this deal takes place, and that context has a global dimension.

---

As a trade unionist involved in these matters every day, I criticize and question anyone who denigrates the right to strike, the rights of workers and unions in general, democracy in the workplace - and that gives me the right to criticize Buzz Hargrove and others when they turn their backs on our gains and needs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:

I was never a fan of Broadbent either, but how far back in history do you have to go to find a politician that you like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
Fair enough. If he had been chosen leader we would have had empirical evidence whether 'winning from the left' was a viable strategy.

---

You never know until you try.

Anyway, they don't come much worse than Broadbent. He invented the strategy of "let's replace the Liberals" - took that to an extreme in the 1988 campaign - and 17 years later led off the last campaign by going to the media and saying how wrong it was to "demonize" Harper. The man is a political opportunist, pure and simple, always has been. I think it was cracking the 40 seat barrier that went to his head. These characters always forget that if they abandon their principles in the quest for votes and seats, some intelligent voters will figure out that they have become redundant.

Second hand info, mind you.

CAW members here who have an opinion on the Magna deal might want to take the time to visit the CAW site, and e-mail Buzz telling him what you think. I recommend being short, to the point, and polite.

I read both Bob White's and Ed Broadbent's take on the deal. I agree with Unionist that the Tiananmen square comparison a tad sloppy. But it does serve to show how authority dislikes the idea of independent trade unions.

If, as White seems to hint, that the strike weapon is outdated and does not serve our ends so well, then why would Magna, and any other employer treasure it's removal so?

As workers we have an expectation that a strike, or a protest should have immediate results, with easily definable "victories". But life and politics, particularly for us on the left, are rarely so clearly defined.

But somehow, we have managed to make progress. And one of the major tools we have used is the actual, or threat, of withdrawing our labour.

Opening this door is a massive strategic blunder.

[ 30 October 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
But somehow, we have managed to make progress. And one of the major tools we have used is the actual, or threat, of withdrawing our labour.

Opening this door is a massive strategic blunder.

---

I'm thinking of nurses, primarily.

The National Executive, it seems, has supported the deal. That doesn't surprise me.

And confirming Tommy Paine's rumours local 27 (at least the President) seems to think this is a great deal. This is my favorite line of all time (though I note this is not a direct quote):

quote:

---

Carrie refuted claims Magna workers would not have a grievance procedure, saying there is an internal one now that will be retained.

---

Jesus.

The Financial Post reports that the vote went 16-1 which (if true) means that only local 222 opposed it.

Sad.

The National Executive Board list is here.

[ 31 October 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

Whitey MacDonald is staff.

Julie Herron is staff.

[ 31 October 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

Can someone more up-to-speed on internal CAW members explain why the National Executive Board has so many CAW staff on it?

---

It's all part of the caucus politics I talked about earlier.

I think Local 88, Cami, is against this too, but I'm not sure.

The political strategy employed by Local 27 is a curious one. By publicly criticizing the deal, they earn the undying grudge from Buzz, notwithstanding the reversal. And they also managed to alienate those on the other side of the issue by reversing themselves.

I just came to this thread and read through everything. Been talking to people about the issue and had previously read most of the stuff linked here. Was thinking of starting a thread on it when I remembered that Babble does exist outside Canadian politics.

A comment on Ed Broadbent. I'm not going to quibble with unionists larger objections about Ed, but I will defend Ed's sincerity on this. It's not about Buzz and the NDP. Ed is really passionate about democratic institutions, trade unions being one of those. If I remember his letter correctly he drew particular attention to the stripping of shop stewards in the agreement. Which is also what caught my eye, that everyone is looking at the more obvious no-strike provisions. I think the no strike is just the icing on the cake to make sure this sweetheart deal of total control on the shop floor never changes.

Oddly enough, I can't really see what's in this for Frank Stronach. Sam Gindin sort of says the same thing, but I'll go out on more of a limb with it.

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

The sweetheart deal with Buzz does not change that, and it assures no strikes to make sure nothing changes. But Magna already had all that. Nor did Magna have to worry about the CAW succeeding at organizing.

I suppose people will say that this allows Stronach to immortalize what he has. But really, that's pretty nebulous. And even having the union as a co-opted partner does not guarantee things into the distant future any more
than the status quo.

So what is in this for Stronach?

Perhaps it was two Liberals sitting down over a lot of fine meals and glasses of port and putting together their vision for the future of the Canadian auto industry? ... And that we will be hearing lots about the "Framework of Fairness" as the centre piece when Buzz retires as CAW prez and Dalton names him to head a blue ribbon 'inquiry' into the future of manufacturing in Ontario?

And while Dalton MacGuinty will provide him with the bully pulpit, it is very likely to become a cheerful chorus of Buzz, Dalton, Jim Prentice and Stephen Harper.... possibly with some early scenes ready to be previewed in the Spring Budget.

Oh Happy Day.

[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

- He will, forever, keep out a real union.

- He'll save a ton of money because he won't have to fight CAW drives anymore and he gives up virtually nothing.

- He will have Buzz at his side demanding government subsidies for his shareholders. Politicians have a hard time giving out public money to save corporations and CEOs but saving decent union jobs with government assistance plays much better.

- He could, potentially, tip the balance of labour relations in this country. If Canada's largest private sector union is now willing to give up the right to strike, the right to shop stewards, and the right to grieve (and Buzz has said he'll cut the same deal with other employers) then we have a potential watershed moment in Canadian Labour history. Other unions will have to follow suit or struggle to compete with the CAW organizers who are collaborating with management. It's a huge win for capital.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

So what is in this for Stronach?

---

But there are good reasons that didn't happen, and I don't think conditions have changed. [IE, the initial deal gets in somewhat as a surprise, opposition stops more of them, there is dissension within the coopted union that at least keeps the process from progressing, etc.]

But I agree that the precedent is alarming, even if few or no full copycat sweetheart deals are signed with more non-union employers. Unionized employers know what to be demanding now- first in auto parts, the rest of the auto industry, and throughout Canadian manufacturing.

And we'll have Buzz giving it broad political support from whatever bully pulpit Dalton gives him. Without batting an eye Buzz will be for trade unions what he has tried to do to the NDP.

quote:

---

This isn't the first sweetheart deal using a real union to set up a company union. And the potential has existed before that other unions could be competing with organizing drives from the coopted union.

But there are good reasons that didn't happen...

---

It occurs to me that there may be people who can make practical use of this tidbit, so here's two earlier cases of real unions doing the company union thing and it not spreading. People can mention others.

Probably the most famous was the Teamsters replacing the Farm Workers after the years long struggle to organize grape pickers. Not only did this not become a pattern, but Chavez and the Farm Workers came back.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
There was a company union Local of the old IWA in BC. It was formed in the Seventies when no construction of any size was non-union. And the very militant IWA [deja vu] formed a construction local so comapnies could bypass the construction unions. At the time there was talk that this could spread outside the sawmill and pulp mill construction sites. Didn't happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
So what is in this for Stronach?

---

From what I understand, Magna has been moving upstream in the value chain and has more ambition than just making parts. They want to assemble vehicles (and may have the capability to do so already). However, not being an union shop would likely prevent Magna from assembling vehicles for Big Three. I read this somewhere but can't remember where.

quote:

---

Whereas the proposed agreement between CAW and Magna keeps the existing anti-union framework of the Magna labour relations system without significant modifications;

Whereas, the agreement does not allow the members a union structure that is independent of the employer and denies them independent workplace union representation and the right to strike;

Whereas, the Framework for Fairness agreement commits the CAW to support Magna’s system of employer control for 9 years, making it impossible to build a real union inside the company;

And, whereas, the proposed structure undermines the basic principles of trade unionism that the CAW is based on,

Therefore be it resolved that the CAW Council rejects the proposed Framework for Fairness

and, be it further resolved, that the CAW organize a genuine, sustained unionization drive at Magna, showing Magna workers that strong, independent unionism is the best guarantee of workers’ rights.

---

quote:

---

When you and I joined the UAW, we did so because the union provided the vehicle within which we could fully challenge corporate power when needed. When the boss said no, we could walk to back up our demands. The Magna deal circumvents and sets aside this most basic of workers rights – the right to withdraw their labour. It is not the frequency of a strike that is at issue – it is the ability to do so when workers in a democratic manner, weighing possible gains against consequences, decide to exercise their right to strike.

The entire Canadian sector of the UAW, and later CAW, supported your leadership in the fight against concessions within our union and the CLC. I and many others remember your remark that became a rally cry for workers fighting the employers. You said "workers don’t need unions to walk backwards." Where is the forward progress in the Magna deal? There is no similarity between Magna and Cami. Cami workers can exercise their right to strike and the workers there elect their in-plant representatives and local union executive. Not so at Magna. Indeed, Cami workers are on record as opposing the Magna deal...

Not one aspect of the Magna deal reflects our union’s gains. It is not a split to preserve the rights of autonomy. It is not a joint venture that maintains fundamental worker freedoms. It is an agreement that is detrimental to other parts workers and establishes a precedent which both Public and Private Sector Employers will advance in the future. Like moths on a hot August night, employers will flock to the porch light illuminated by the CAW/MAGNA undertaking...

Notwithstanding my respect for your past leadership, I draw enormous comfort in the realization of the growing numbers of workers and their local union leadership that share my view that the CAW/MAGNA deal is simply a reflection of a newly applied concept of Paternalistic Liberalism and a major step backward in time for CAW workers, and for the Canadian Labour Movement.

---

[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Stronach's gain is a solid partnership with the influential CAW, with its pragmatic bargaining expertise, its first-class economic and labour-market analytical capabilities and its successful track record in soliciting support from provincial and federal governments... Will the Hargrove/Stronach deal lead other companies to seek relief from the strike right? Perhaps. But my sense is that few companies are prepared to grant their unions the elements of workplace codetermination that the Magna deal contains. And even if they are, why shouldn't the workers be given the opportunity to vote freely on their dispute-resolution preferences?

---

It's full of claptrap about co-determination. As in the quote above: as if Stronach was giving something up to Magna workers to get the deal. "... few companies are prepared to grant their unions the elements of workplace codetermination that the Magna deal contains." Like hell, they'll be lining up at the door.

Leaving aside the volumes of scorn Buzz has heaped on co-determination in the past: whatever value it may have had in Europe, it cannot be the same thing in North America.

When codetermination was the rage industry wide bargaining was the rule in Europe. In the context of North American enterprise based collective bargaining co-determination is a fast track to being a company union.

And here we have the proof in the pudding: so-called 'co-determination' brought in by a company union.

==========

As to Stronach's ambition to assemble more whole cars- he doesn't need a relationship with a union to do that.

I think people agree that this has a great deal to do with the bigger ambitions of Stronach and Hargrove.

In a lot of ways Armstrong's article is an early dose of the pretty words version of what I predicted we'll be seeing from ringmaster Hargrove.

====

ETA: I'm not calling the CAW a company union. To be precise, I'd say that the CAW has given birth to and will oversee what amounts to a company union.

[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

Cerberus swings the axe at Chrysler

Thats 12,000 jobs on top of the 13,000 before Cerebrus bought Chrysler. Looks like nearly 2,000 in Canada. [Plus a lot of parts jobs gone with the slashed production.]

Step 2: Cerebrus demands what Magna got from the CAW.

If Buzz is still around he'll tout it as a victory when there is no two tier wage system and wage concessions are minimal. "And no one will miss the shop stewards and the old grievance process when they see how wonderful the new system is."

===

ETA:

As part of the cheerleading after the Magna deal Buzz said there will be no two tiered wage system here as the UAW has accepted.

Considerably lower wages for new hire mechanics became the norm in the US airline industry 20 years ago. With even a very tentative recovery in the industry the IAM simply ended that concession in bargaining.

As a suppossed improvement over two tier wage concessions Buzz institutionalizes the gutting of the shop steward and grievance system. Reversing that in the future will be far harder- if possible at all- than simply ending new entry wage concessions.

But then, Buzz is going to be selling the 'brave new world' at Magna as progress... getting with the program.

[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
I hardly know where to start with Armstrongs article. But it's a script for Hargrove's post-CAW "save Canadian manufacturing campaign".

It's full of claptrap about co-determination.
[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

---

What do you call it when shop stewards are done away with and replaced by 'employee representatives' chosen by management and union together? Let alone that the shop stewards are elected directly, the union reps who 'co-choose' the 'employee reps' will themselves be a product of a co-opted recruitment and selection.

And what do you call it when the grievance system is replaced by a 'dispute resolution' system? It's a fetish to look at the two as being similar because they both have autonomous juridical processes. The grievance system is backed up by a balance of power the union can muster. The 'dispute resolution system' is the same severely limnited 'we'll see what happens' product of paternalism Magna workers with a beef already have.

It's not just over the top boosterism for Armstrong to talk about it in terms of codetermination in the article linked above. Not at all. This is what he and his ilk have been waiting for.

BTW, I've been away from this world for a number of years, but a look at a couple of things on Google that came up for Armstrong, he sounds like the return of John Crispo if anyone remembers him.

ETA: here's some more co-determination content besides the lovely homily quoted above where Magna workers will be "given the opportunity to vote freely on their dispute-resolution preferences." ?!

quote:

---

And then there are the provisions for significant employee involvement at the workplace. Under the Framework Agreement, the CAW and the workers are given unprecedented access to information concerning Magna's operations. To quote from the agreement, they have the right to review the company's "key operational metrics and measurements," and the right to work with management on initiatives to increase job satisfaction and employment security.

---

Big whoopee. This does absolutely nothing except give the co-opted union reps delusions that they are being consulted.

quote:

---

Employee participation can make firms more productive and innovative. Irving Bluestone, a retired vice-president of the United Auto Workers, was Walter Reuther's top aide during the 1960s. In Negotiating the Future: A Labour Perspective on American Business, he makes a compelling case for an "enterprise compact," similar to the Magna/ CAW pact, where employee participation, developed jointly between union and management, gives employees a meaningful role in workplace organization.

---

Co-determination wishes in North America have always been about this stuff rather than the European focus of bums on Boards.

For what it's worth I don't see Buzz or whoever is talking up the brave new world for Canadian manufacturing to be using the co-determination label. It will be branded different.

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

Bob White's item (previously cited) mentions the CAW-CAMI agreement as a previous example of the union being innovative and questionning trade union orthodoxy.

And it was -- here's CAW in a plant based on the kaizen manufacturing process - teams, team leaders, continuous improvement etc etc - where previously it was a union which thrived on classic shop floor dividing lines between job classifications and between union and management.