quote:

---

More than 1,000 employees at an Olymel slaughterhouse in Quebec's Beauce region rejected a concession package Tuesday that could have saved their jobs.

Some 1,100 workers at the Olymel pork processing plant in Vallée-Jonction voted 97 per cent against the concessions that included a $50 pay cut per week and reduced benefits.

Union president Jean Lortie said concessions on the table would have cost each worker about $12,000 a year. [...]

The chief negotiator for Olymel, former Parti Québécois premier Lucien Bouchard, had hoped workers would weigh their options carefully.

"It would be a real shame if 1,100 jobs, and a factory with this kind of potential and importance for the region be forced to close because of a $50 pay cut."

The plant could now close as early as July 2007.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Using that $12,000 figure, that equates to $180 per week What on earth could the plant be asking the workers to give up in benefits that would be worth $180 per week?

---

Not sure of the details, but this article quotes the employer's own figures as saying they're seeking a reduction in average hourly labour cost (which combines both wages and all forms of benefits) from $28.43 to $22.28. Besides a wage cut, the employer was proposing to pull out of the pension plan entirely as well as slash health insurance benefits:

quote:

---

Olymel exigeait de ses 1100 employés des réductions de rémunération de 28,43 $ l'heure à 22,28$ l'heure, incluant les avantages sociaux, selon les chiffres de l'entreprise.

La direction affirme avoir tout fait pour minimiser l'impact sur le chèque de paie des travailleurs, abolissant plutôt sa participation à la caisse de retraite et sabrant dans le régime d'assurance.

---

Wage cut, no more pension, and health insurance cuts - I can see that adding up to a value of $6.00 per hour... Anyway, that's the employer's own estimate. Only 26 out of 868 ballots cast favoured Lucien's generous "offer".

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Anyway, that's the employer's own estimate.

---

Ah. Gotcha. Thanks for pointing that out. That is a substantial cut, even for a high-wage position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Oh, and did I mention - the plant closure has now been announced for May 25.

---

It’s a real dilemma for the workers: Take a substantial cut in compensation or lose your job. The Northwest Airlines mechanics union was in a similar position. They voted against wage concessions and, because there were so many mechanics eager to take those jobs, the existing union mechanics basically all lost their jobs.

If a plant (or any other business) is losing money with the status quo, it may make sense to close the plant and stop the bleeding rather than continue with the operation if costs cannot be cut to alter the status quo. It’s a fact of life that some businesses will simply not be successful and will close if costs cannot be reduced (and those cuts will often involve labor costs).

If you are in a union, and you want to have a pension, the pension funds will (or should) be invested in companies that are financially successful, no? Would you want your pension fund to invest in companies that are losing money, like Northwest Airlines (or, if not losing money, giving the shareholders a paltry return on their investment)? Probably not, at least not if you want a pension that is worth something.

[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

The only guarantee about accepting concessions is that the employer is emboldened and comes back for more every year after.

Those of us involved in the union movement have seen far too many examples of accepting cuts only to find out afterward that it was all a smoke screen and they merely paid for a massive increase in the CEO's salary and benefits (including pension).

As far as Libertarian's comment goes, the company's profitability has nothing to do with the process. in the past week alone there have been over 20,000 job cuts in the pharamceutical companies even though they continue to post record profits. So the old myth about a profitable company equalling better job security is completely broken.

I find most intersting the role Lucien Bouchard is taking in this process as it speaks volumes about his further descent to his neo-con roots. Many members of my in-laws belong to the PQ. All are extremely disillusioned with the PQ and for the first time a few are actually speaking about switching to the QS. With actions like this, who can blame them?

Please keep us updated and let's hope Quebec workers continue to maintain their leadership in expressing solidarity against mangement's neo-lib agenda.

ETA: I believe this plant received millions in government assistance for the BSE scare. The CSN is definitely a force to be reckoned with in Quebec (my brother-in-law is an officer with them), I hope they plan on going after all MNA's who supported the bailout to put pressure on the company to honour its commitments to this aid.

Quebeckers really don't like seeing their bailout money used to pay the moving costs of their jobs to Alberta. Definitely a political issue to pursue in this election year.

[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Often, this sort of story ends up looking as though the workers had over-played their hand: concessions are asked, the workers refuse, and the place closes down. Conclusion: the union blew it.

---

All too often we find out afterwards the "losses" given as a reason for the action was caused by the moving costs. CEO bonuses and buyouts needed to facillitate these moves.

Something else that really bothers me is the employer's ability to re-open the contract whenever their finances change (with the full backing of the government and media) but the moment the workers demand the same consideration when an employer makes stellar profits, this is called an illegal job action and the government states collective agreements are never allowed to be re-opened for this purpose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Any examples come to mind, Stephen?

---

I certainly remember seeing stories of this sort, but the details do not spring to mind. I'm sure you're better placed than I to come up with concrete examples of labour disputes that follow either the workers-refuse-concessions-then-jobs-lost or the employers-refuse-demands-then-jobs-lost scripts. If there were any cases in which workers ended up being worse off, then I think it's fair to say that they over-estimated their bargaining power.

What I'm saying is that this may not be the case here. Olympel workers are no doubt aware that the job mrket is pretty good these days, so they don't see the need to give concessions. The key source of workers' bargaining power isn't the strength of the union's resolve in the face of a demand for concessions: it's whether or not workers have credible alternatives if they refuse.

The same thing for employers, of course. If the threat to shut down isn't credible, then the workers' bargaining power is higher.

"Employers are always right. The rights of capital, of ownership, always supersede the rights of the people who produce the wealth. These are sacred, non-negotiable values. Soceity would come to an end if ..." etc.

... would come across as too biased, eh?

quote:

---

Stephen Gordon: The key source of workers' bargaining power isn't the strength of the union's resolve in the face of a demand for concessions: it's whether or not workers have credible alternatives if they refuse.

The same thing for employers, of course. If the threat to shut down isn't credible, then the workers' bargaining power is higher.

---

You've somehow entirely missed the collective and democratic aspects of a successful union. I'm not surprised. However, some might wish to know that an effective union is one that builds unity among the membership to achieve their democratically determined goals. This straw man of "union resolve" is premised on a divide between the wishes of the membership and the leadership. Such a divide would make any job action much less likely to succeed.

The other side of this, of course, is how much effort employers put into getting workers to fight among themselves, to adopt competitive attitudes towards each other, using all sorts of privileges and gradations of wages and working conditions, etc., to weaken the collective resolve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

I certainly remember seeing stories of this sort, but the details do not spring to mind. I'm sure you're better placed than I to come up with concrete examples of labour disputes that follow either the workers-refuse-concessions-then-jobs-lost or the employers-refuse-demands-then-jobs-lost scripts.

---

Stephen, you said this happened "often". You're right, I'm probably better placed than you to come up with examples of where workers overplayed their hand and then the plant closed. My problem is I can't think of any offhand.

Instead, I think of all the sad examples of:

1. Workers giving concessions, but the company goes belly-up anyway (because the problem never was labour costs, but rather cut-throat competition, de-regulation, etc. etc.). Example: Union wage concessions at Canadian Airlines in 1996.

2. Workers giving concessions after the company pleads poverty and looming bankruptcy - and company goes on to make mega-profits, laughing all the way to the bank. Example: Union concessions at Air Canada in 2003.

The rest of your post is boilerplate. Real bargaining power is the ability to walk away.

[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Stephen, I'm not looking for details. Just give me the name of a company which closed after workers refused concessions, where it can be truthfully said that the workers "overplayed their hand".

---

I don't doubt that there are lots of cases - probably the majority - where job losses were inevitable. But has there really never been a case where workers called what they thought to be an employers' bluff and then regretted it afterwards?

I'm very bad at names, but the SAQ dispute two years ago would seem to fit this framework. (eta: the SAQ didn't close, of course, so this doesn't exactly count...)

[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

I'm very bad at names, but the SAQ dispute two years ago would seem to fit this framework. (eta: the SAQ didn't close, of course, so this doesn't exactly count...)

---

1. The SAQ did not close.

2. The SAQ never threatened to close.

3. The strike was not about concessions, because the SAQ was not asking for concessions.

4. The strike was about perceived contracting-out of work which was normally done by unionized liquor board employees, about possibilities of part-time workers to get sufficient hours, and about full-timers' work schedules - as well as the fact that they had been about 2 years without a collective agreement.

I think at the time the union overestimated its ability to get a quick deal by striking over the 2004-2005 Christmas holiday season - they underestimated that alcohol is liquid and it flows across provincial borders.

Other than that, that particular dispute didn't illustrate your point at all.

You can either provide one (just one!) example, or reconsider your "often" statement.

And to answer your other question, not only can I not think of examples, I honestly don't believe plant closures have much to do with labour costs. Labour costs may inhibit setting up an operation in one place rather than another, but they don't suddenly cause (or even significantly contribute to) a bottom-line crisis which leads to closure of a hitherto going concern.

ETA: Here, I found this brief Radio-Canada account of the SAQ strike, which seems fairly objective to me. For non-francophone babblers, I should have mentioned that SAQ is Société des alcools du Québec, or the Québec Liquor Board.

[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

BMO to lay off 1,000 staff

quote:

---

Bank of Montreal (TSX: BMO) said it will slash 1,000 jobs as part of restructuring measures that will cost the bank $135-million in the first quarter of 2007.

The bank said the job cuts will come mostly in support functions and non-customer areas and will result in severance costs of $117-million.

The cuts, announced after the markets closed, will reduce the number of staff at BMO by about 3%.

---

So even when a company makes 1.2 billion in annual profit, the workers are still screwed. No wonder many workers are increasingly distrusting any words these robber barons say.

quote:

---

Stephen Gordon: N. Beltov: What did I duck?

---

You were asked to provide some comments or examples where the employer "blows it". You provided none. Hence my caricature of your (non) reply.

quote:

---

Is your claim is that labour disputes have never resulted in job losses that left workers worse off?

---

Nice try. Corporations like Wal-Mart, and others like Tim Horton's, have closed their plants or businesses in response to a union organizing drive and for no other reason. Such actions have resulted in very modest penalties despite the claims to the contrary that working people are entitled to organize and belong to unions in Canada. The paper "right" looks like a sham. To fight the boss is to risk losing something ... even if it only a few days pay. Is it your claim that bosses can do no wrong? So far your non-reply leads me to believe that you think so. Maybe you should stay out of threads in the labour and consumption section of babble if you really are unable to look at things from a worker-friendly perspective ... and just debate topics in Canadian politics, etc., where you will feel more comfortable.

quote:

---

The rest of your post is boilerplate. Real bargaining power is the ability to walk away.

---

How unimaginative. Bosses that try to break a union try to force the employees to "walk away" ... for good. Those that walk away under such circumstances have no bargaining power. And on the other side, in a desperate situation, workers have engaged in sit-down strikes and other tactics, like some of those adopted in the famous auto strikes of the early post-war period, to compel the employer NOT to close a plant, for example, or to compel recognition, etc. Your notion of bargaining reads like someone haggling in the market for a carpet. Again, no surprise.

[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
The key source of workers' bargaining power isn't the strength of the union's resolve in the face of a demand for concessions: it's whether or not workers have credible alternatives if they refuse.

---

IOW: "Real bargaining power is the ability to walk away."

In negotiations theory, that's called a BATNA ("best alternative to a negotiated agreement.")

It's not actually the only source of "real" bargaining power. One of the ways that collective bargaining can actually lead to more efficient outcomes than the "take it or leave it" conditions of the open market is that when two parties trust each other they can actually engage in integrative bargaining where the union is able to share information about the production process obtained directly from the workers, that the employer was not previously aware of or would have found it too costly to obtain on its own. The two parties can actually work together to develop new work rules and production methods that both provide above-market compensation and better working conditions for the employees, and greater revenue for the employer. Because these new rules are bargained for, rather than simply imposed from above, employees are also more willing to "buy in" to the new system and help make it work. The ability of a party to come to the table and actually help the other is a tremendous source of power.

The problem with this is it does require two parties to trust each other, and to focus more on achieving long term goals rather than the short term boost to profitability that may come from a $4 per hour wage cut. If the employer thinks that its BATNA (i.e. crushing the union or closing the plant) is better than engaging in integrative bargaining, it is likely to do so, regardless of the consequences for the workers. In response, unions need to look for tactics that make the employer's BATNA less appealing to them, like strategic job action that imposes a significant financial cost on the employer, or the even bigger challenge of running a comprehensive campaign.

Those of us who support unions and believe that working people don't usually get a fair shake in the current economy also tend to support public policy measures that strengthen unions bargaining power, such as a ban on companies hiring replacement workers or trade policy that limits manufacturers ability to move production overseas and still sell to the Canadian market. The goal, of course, is not to kill the employers but it is intended to encourage them to actually bargain with their workers on an even playing field.

[ 01 February 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Any examples come to mind, Stephen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:

A union in N. Alberta tried this last year at a medium sized engineering firm. The union members happily walked out on strike and were hired the next day by non union employers.

The strike was eventually settled with the union losing most of their members. I'll hunt around to get the name of the firm.

---

Scooter, did you understand what Stephen said!? Yours is not an example of the workers losing their company. Yours is an example of the company losing its workers!

In any of those instances, has it *ever* been the case where, in retrospect, labour leaders might have said 'If we had to do it over again, we would have accepted that deal: half a loaf is better then the nothing we ended up getting'?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Because I find it hard to believe that of all the mortals who have ever walked this earth, union negociators are the only ones who have never made a mistake.

---

Grandiloquence cannot replace rational argument. I gave you an example where union negotiators made a mistake (IMHO) - the SAQ union, thinking it could win a dispute just by striking over the holidays. They miscalculated, and their members suffered for it.

I also explained how union foolishly (IMHO) gave wage concessions to Canadian Airlines, where many outside observers could see, and were saying, that it was a costly stopgap and ultimately a lost cause.

After decades of experience, I can give you countless examples of where union negotiators miscalculated.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about workers refusing concessions (thinking the employer is bluffing) and seeing the plant shut down as a result. You said it happened "often". I don't think it does - certainly not in Canada - but I'm prepared to review any examples you or anyone else may be able to find.

"go to 'ell. Oi you smell"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
In any of those instances, has it *ever* been the case where, in retrospect, labour leaders might have said 'If we had to do it over again, we would have accepted that deal: half a loaf is better then the nothing we ended up getting'?

---

quote:

---

The Parti Québécois' rank and file members on Saturday put to rest the leadership crisis that has plagued their leader André Boisclair all week, determined to show that the party was united heading into the upcoming provincial election campaign.

Mr. Boisclair responded with a speech that underscored the PQ's social democratic roots and his desire to achieve sovereignty should the party win the election.

Behind closed doors, Mr. Boisclair outlined his party's election platform, which reassured the left-wing groups who feared the party was becoming too conservative and right-wing on major social and economic issues.

"I am not in a position to reveal what it is the party's election platform but I can tell you it is a modern program that is inspired by our social-democratic principles.

He also blamed the Liberals for failing to solve the major crisis in the province's pork producing industry with the announced closing of the Olymel meat packing plant and the loss of 1,100 jobs in Vallée-Jonction, a small community in the Beauce region just south of Quebec City.

---

PQ stands behind Boisclair

[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]

quote:

---

We use extent of unionization within the establishment and a large list of establishment features as explanatory variables in estimation of the probability of establishment closure. Many controls behave as anticipated and as they have in other studies. Thus, plant size and single-plant status (not being part of a multi-plant firm) are often associated with a reduced probability of closure, while management activities associated with increased flexibility and reduced cost often reduce the probability of closure.

In a series of ever more complete specifications, a clear pattern emerges. Unionization plays no role in the determination of closure among smaller establishments. Yet unionization is routinely associated with a higher chance of closure among larger establishments. Moreover, these coefficients suggest a large economic influence.

---

The authors are careful to point out that the data they have doesn't exclude other interpretations:

quote:

---

Several caveats are in order. First, despite our best attempts, it remains possible that omitted variables could be driving both the union measures and closure probability. Thus, establishments most likely to close in any event may also have high values of the union measures. While we cannot rule this out, we emphasize the many controls including firm size, age, occupational mix, and detailed industrial controls. Second, we cannot fully distinguish between two alternative interpretations of the results. On the one hand, the results might show that firms with unions are simply more likely to close, and we are picking that up with the establishment data. On the other hand, it might be the case that firms remain open but choose to close heavily unionized establishments in an effort to reduce the role of unions within the firm. Certainly, the finding that single plants are less likely to close provides oblique support for the latter view, but as the data do not allow us to link establishments to firms, it remains an open question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce_the_vii:
Workers can't simply will the wage the owner pays them up any more the the owner can will the productivity of the workers up, although it would be nice.

---

It only looks at the closures of large plants. The very parameters of this study therefore are focused on manufacturing which is heavily unionised. The entire manufacturing sector has been decimated and continues to be through such factors as globalisation. I imagine in the early 90's a similar result would have been found with once again unions being blamed and the root cause of NAFTA being conveniently ignored.

In the past 2 weeks there have been massive layoffs in the banking and pharaceutical sectors. None of these jobs were unionised so I could just as easily commission a study to conclude that it was their lack of union protection that led to the job losses.

quote:

---

We draw our data from the 1999 to 2001 Workplace and Employee Survey (WES) conducted by Statistics Canada. The sample of establishments is stratified by region, industry, and size. The WES covers business establishments of all sizes and industries, excluding all levels of public administration and the primary sector...The primary sector is crop and animal production, fishing, hunting, and trapping. Public administration includes the federal, provincial and local governments but excludes broad education and health services.

---

quote:

---

Plants of all sizes are in their data set:

---

Yet this is this is the conclusion that was originally behind the reason for posting this piece of spin:

quote:

---

Yet unionization is routinely associated with a higher chance of closure among larger establishments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[From paper:] Yet unionization is routinely associated with a higher chance of closure among larger establishments.

---

I can't afford $54.48 plus tax to purchase a full copy of this obviously ground-breaking study on the job-killing evils of unionization. So I thought I'd save myself the cash and write my own précis:

Unions are bad for business. Just ask any businessman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce_the_vii:
I make $10 an hour as a courier and haven't been paid more for 20 years now.

---

Well, $10.00 in 1986 would only buy $6.10 worth of consumer goods today, so I see why you might feel bitter about not getting a pay raise for 20 years and about unionized (skilled) workers who don't want to take pay cuts even to save their plant.

Had you contacted me any time during those 20 years, I could have given you some good advice:

1. Get a union; and/or

2. Ask for a raise; and/or

2. Get a better job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

That will be $1.95 (tax included), please.

---

I wonder what the statistics are for businesses closing-down, or offshoring, or sold off while still making a slight profit ?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I can't afford $54.48 plus tax to purchase a full copy of this obviously ground-breaking study on the job-killing evils of unionization.

---

If you - or anyone else - would like a copy, PM me and I'll tell you where you can get it for free.

quote:

---

So I thought I'd save myself the cash and write my own précis: Unions are bad for business. Just ask any businessman.

---

Sure. But the point of this paper is that - insofar as they might be concerned about the probability of having their workplace closed down - they appear to be bad for workers, too.

[edited for bad grammar and typos]

[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

There is another side to the story: the company lost $50 million during the past 3 years. So they are not blackmailing the workers. Its pure business decision and requirement. What was the origin of the loss? Anyone know?

---

I did some checking and couldn’t find anything. But it’s actually not another side of the story, but rather the same story that causes so much misery, poverty and oppression everywhere.

But regardless of reported loss or not, the company bosses are in fact blackmailing the workers, even if that’s not actually what they want to do. The nature of any form of capitalistic economics is largely one of coercion, blackmail and dealing under duress.

The fact that the bosses have dictatorial control over the firm and what it does (including closing it at their will), and the workers have no binding say at all (and have to resort to strikes and protests) creates an automatic oppressive and coercive situation.

Add to this, the fact that it is the workers who create the useful goods and services for trade that meet markets demand that gives the firm its value and generates income, including the profits, perks and big salaries and bonuses for the management.

And the fact that for all this, the workers are the ones who are often being asked to bear the cost of either taking huge concessions or losing their jobs altogether is a fundamental injustice across the whole capitalist system.

In this case of Olymel, the workers are being coercively offered a lose-lose situation: either take a huge cut in pay they can’t afford and lose their pension plan, or lost their jobs and go find work elsewhere. I don’t blame them for choosing the latter.

Which takes us to the $50 million loss. Info on this isn’t readily found. Given the fact that Quebec is, like the rest of the country (and much of the world), experiencing somewhat of an economic pick-up due to 50-year low interest rates, consumer spending (although fueled by huge debt increases on working people) is stable. This leads me to suspect the possibility that the loss is the result of some sort of senior management screw-up (yet another common feature of capitalist economics), and, as usual, the workers are getting dumped on to pay for it.

The other aspect of the injustice and blackmail is that these brutal austerity measures being imposed on the workers are not shared by the bosses themselves. Quite often, we see CEOs award themselves huge bonuses purely for being successful at squeezing concession out of workers. At Olymel, don’t assume for a second that Bouchard is going to give up his huge severance and pension if the firm does tank (or more accurately if he chooses to tank it).

The other common scenario is that the senior bosses, despite whatever claims they make, may not be interested in keeping plant open at all. In almost all cases where bosses try to impose brutal concessions on workers, the business ends up closing, since either the financial situation (again thanks to bosses) is so bad no amount of cuts and rollbacks can compensate for it, or because they have scheduled the business to close and are pushing to get out of or reduce severance or retirement benefits they had previously agreed to honour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Sure. But the point of this paper is that - insofar as they might be concerned about the probability of having their workplace closed down - they appear to be bad for workers, too.

---

You have been unable to date to provide a single example of a plant shutting down in Canada because of workers "overplaying their hand".

However, if unions and workers are afraid of plants shutting down and agree to work under whatever conditions employers dictate to avoid that, then they are no better than slaves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Are you in the right thread, Fidel? Olymel is consolidating plants in favour of others elsewhere in Canada.

---

Is Olymel the only company in Canada to ever threaten workers with closing down unless they knuckled under ?. Sounds like a case of workers held to ransom in typical one-industry town. How did the town vote in the last election, btw ?.

[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
How did the town vote in the last election, btw ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

For Hezbollah, I think, but I could be mistaken. If it's relevant to anything, I could check.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You have been unable to date to provide a single example of a plant shutting down in Canada because of workers "overplaying their hand".

---

Sure - but you're asking for an anecdote. I have a professional aversion to using anecdotes unless there's a statistical basis for believing that it is representative, so I really don;t spend much effort in collecting them. I'm much more comfortable with the large data sets used here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
There is another side to the story: the company lost $50 million during the past 3 years. So they are not blackmailing the workers.

---

It's easy to look like they are losing money. For most foreign-owned and controlled corporations and businesses in Canada, the idea is to claim as low a profit as possible to avoid paying taxes. More clear and away profit that way. You don't think Olymel ... Could they be ... D'ya think ... I mean ...

I think the company's bluffing. Quebec has more porky pig farms than any other province by what I can tell. And Alberta has a labour shortage, and they'll likely end up having to pay competitive wages once there. Olymel workers should hold the line, and tell management and Lucifer Bouchard to get stuffed.

[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

If it is more probable that unionised establishments will close than will non-unionised establishments, then it's worth taking the time to ask why. One theory would be irrational bravado on the part of union negociators. Another would be irrational union-phobic behaviour on the part of firms. There are doubtless others, and at this point, I'm not prepared to dismiss any of them out of hand.

---

That paragraph is baseless speculation. Either you know why they closed, or you don't. Does the study go into reasons? If not, until you actually have hypotheses that have been tested, we have nothing but anecdotes.

Moreover, you're changing the subject. We're talking about workers refusing concessions (i.e. giving back already-won gains) and causing a plant closure. Do you know whether a single one of the plants in your linked paper closed for that reason!?

Yes, some abusive fearful employers use plant closure as an anti-unionization tactic. That's a wholly different subject, and it's a well-known one. Wal-Mart closed its Jonquières outlet in order to avoid bargaining a collective agreement, and sending a terrorist message to all its other employees.

The union movement's response is: Good riddance! May all Wal-Marts close their doors. To hell with them. Wal-Mart doesn't create jobs - it kills local and national enterprises and kills jobs.

quote:

---

If it is more probable that unionised establishments will close than will non-unionised establishments, then it's worth taking the time to ask why.

---

But I think what you yourself are implying is that there is no evidence to show this is the general case.

In fact, I read reports for years showing that union shops are generally less likely to close (given similar economic conditions in their respective sectors) than non-union ones--largely because union workers are not only in general better paid, but better trained, have greater negotiated job security and stability that results from this, have better access to skill development and advancement, and therefore are overall more productive.

There are exceptions of course, like in the residential construction sector, where corporate-controlled political parties have legislated government policies that make the industry completely unaccountable to the public and consumers.

So the industry is dominated by numbered companies and fly-by-night firms that have no obligation to warranties and therefore can do lousy work, can invalidate collective agreements when the numbered firm is closed and therefore can pay far lower wages, no benefits or overtime, provide no training or apprenticeships and therefore do lousy quality work, and compete solely on that basis. That’s why there are literally ten of billions of dollars in faulty construction, tens of thousands of clients stuck with damaged buildings and no warranties to cover them, thousands of injuries and deaths among non-union construction workers every year and thousands more who end up without being paid, or paid less than what they were promised when the numbered companies they work for suddenly go broke.

I think it would be better if there were more co-operative workplaces. They could be run at cost if necessary during economic downturns. And like many small to large businesses have done out of necessity for short periods of time, they could even be run at a loss until the economy picks up or worker-decided cost cutting occurs by democratic choice. The idea could be the spark that causes a trillion dollar taxpayer-funded cold war.

Big multinationals prefer to be Soviet in size with their highly undemocratic, top-down hierarchical command structures, "islands of central planning in a sea of market relationships."(Coase). And they tend to lean on governments and taxpayers while crying poor mouth in hard times.

[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
But I think what you yourself are implying is that there is no evidence to show this is the general case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

The farthest I'm willing to go here is to not exclude a priori the hypothesis that some unions have overplayed their hand. Or that some firms have been willing to lose money in order to pursue an anti-union agenda.

---

I'm not prepared to a posteriori rule out C. Difficile infection as the root cause.

[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
The workers appear to have accepted Olymel's offer.

---

Actually, the workers rejected Olymel's last offer by 52.9% on Sunday, then accepted by 62.2% a compromise proposal put forward by the conciliator:

quote:

---

Dimanche, les employés de l'usine de transformation de porcs avaient refusé à 52,9 % la dernière offre de la direction d'Olymel avant d'être appelés à se prononcer à nouveau sur une proposition du conciliateur.

---

While there are still clearly monetary concessions involved, Olymel dropped a number of its demands regarding time off the job, choice of vacations, full-time health and safety rep, and the timing of various changes, in the course of ongoing bargaining. The union's explanation of the final developments are contained here (though I don't see full details yet of the deal):