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


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » CAW & Magna Part 5

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: CAW & Magna Part 5
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 February 2008 06:43 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gaaaahhhh! Between starting and sending my reply to triciamarie, jrose closed the thread! Here it is anyway:

Don't know about the CAW, but our local unions are mandated to provide assistance to all their members with CSST claims (that's workers' comp in Québec) including all appeal levels. Of course we retain some power to say "enough is enough" if the claim is deemed unwinnable, and the member can continue on their own, but disagreements of that nature are rare. In the case of smaller local unions, they will band together and get some "plaideur" to service their members in common - sometimes even from outside the union - but it will always be at local union expense.

Doesn't everyone work that way? I know that from a "legalistic" standpoint unions probably aren't obliged to represent members at workers' comp because it's not a collective agreement issue, but I can't believe any union would take such a stand.

As for giving "pro bono" help to non-union workers, that happens on a one-off basis, but it's obviously prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to do it systematically - unless, I agree, it's part of a "pre-organizing" campaign.

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 07 February 2008 04:36 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You will hear from members, "they're not doing anything". There is a real tendency to want to blame those members or call them complainers. But if you look at the cases, a lot of times it's actually true.

This is my understanding of how this happens. A member puts their claim in with the Local or the National or the benefits depatment, however the union has it set up. Someone then has to look at the thing and decide what to do. This person is probably handling, at a minimum, two to three times the maximum effective caseload, up to thousands of claims; think about the old Steel locals. This may include insurance benefits as well as compensation and usually other duties as well.

Some compensation cases are easy, so you put those cases in the queue and handle them. Some cases are urgent so you do them. Some cases are intolerable because the claimant is freaking out. You take them to a hearing.

So out of these groups you have your cases that you are working on and the "commission" is sending you letters and you are sending letters, back and forth, and eventually they make their way to a hearing.

Note that with with an impossible caseload, there is no time even for this ordinary kind of case to do the research or get new medical to try to actually win the case. Some exceptional union reps do manage to find time for this and I take off my hat to them. But if not, I think it is fair to say that many of those members are not receiving adequate service.

With that kind of caseload you will also have a sizeable proportion of cases simply falling between the cracks, if you don't get a response to a letter you sent, the member doesn't get back to you about something or you're waiting for a hearing date that never materializes. The member may be so sick and tired of dealing with the whole thing that they just walk away. It it their fault? Not usually.

And now you also have your cases that are more difficult. Some are old files, multiple claims, multiple issues -- there could be 20 or 30 distinct issues in a monster file -- various employers, non-compensable factors thrown in -- there is easily two feet pile of paper in that case, the case may often hinge on a single document but where is the time to sort through it? You intend to do so, but it just isn't happening. Maybe at best, you give the guy a hearing on one or two little pieces. But a lot of the time it just sits. This is a big proportion of ongoing appeals.

Then there are the cases that don't meet policy. Those workers are sent away, even though a lot of the would be winnable if you had the time and resources to work it up.

There are time limits missed on files. Those you try to blame the member.

Occupational disease cases require intensive research and long hearings. Whether due to time constraints or some other consideration, unions do not do hardly any of these.

But the largest proportion of cases where the worker is not receiving service are the ones where the final appeal is not pursued. A large number of those cases are actually winnable.

That is the nature of the service model of unionism -- it would take a vast amount of money to secure justice for their injured workers, and the money isn't there. The problem is not by any means limited to unions either; the legal clinics have some of the same issues, and /or some of their own. Many lawyers will simply reject your claim if it's too complicated, or they will take your money whether or not they know what they'r doing, and also charge you thousands of dollars on top of their own fees for medical opinions. And the consultants are mostly just scum.

Access to justice is just a real problem for injured workers. So in context of the Magna issue... if I were an existing CAW member in good standing whose union was not helping me with my WSIB claim, I imagine I might be pretty pissed to find out that Buzz was directing those scarce resources to Magna non-members instead.

[ 07 February 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
arm chair critic
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14761

posted 07 February 2008 11:37 AM      Profile for arm chair critic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just a few things. First in the CAW Local where I have represented injured workers on a full time basis for the past 10 years triciamarie's analysis of how CAW serves injured workers is flawed, at least in my experience.
When one of our plants closes we continue to represent the injured worker. In fact we have represented workers at all levels of WSIB appeal and CPP appeals long after their workplaces have closed.
As far as the level of representation my record at Appeals and the Tribunal speaks for itself.
I dont know of any CAW Rep that has refused to handle an occ disease claim. There is always someone to help out if a rep is unsure of handling a claim. In fact I have provided advice and representation to other Locals when a complex case or issue was involved.
As far as Magna workers go I have represented Magna workers at no cost even when there was no organizing drive on. My door is open to any injured worker and I do a straight up assessment of what we need to win the claim. If I cant honestly devote sufficient time and resources I refer them to a rep either OWA or a competent lawyer, (not a comp vulture consultant)

[Edited to remove a reference - please PM me if you want details, armchaircritic - Michelle]

We need to look at more collaborative approaches within our own Union structures and even through Labour Councils to better serve workers in under resourced locals.

On another more related topic, it is interesting to note that there has not been another Magna plant vote for the FFA since Windsor Modules and it looks like Integram is staying with Local 444.
This whole sordid affair may be dying a slow, quiet death.

[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: London | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 07 February 2008 02:00 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by triciamarie:
That is the nature of the service model of unionism -- it would take a vast amount of money to secure justice for their injured workers, and the money isn't there.

I'm sure you have had lots of individual experience with horror stories, but what I just heard from arm chair critic about the way his CAW local operates is exactly the same as what I described in our union. We have an obligation to defend members in comp claims - period. Your comments seem to be a blanket condemnation of all unions for not representing members' claims. If I understand you correctly, that is simply false. If you're saying something different, I apologize and please clarify.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 07 February 2008 05:58 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
it is interesting to note that there has not been another Magna plant vote for the FFA since Windsor Modules and it looks like Integram is staying with Local 444.

This whole sordid affair may be dying a slow, quiet death.


Sad to say- pretty certain this is not true.

It was never slated to be more than 10 divisions organized a year. And some ways back there in the few hundred posts I pointed out that it was going to take a while for Magna and the union to work out access ground rules and how the elections [for or against CAW and FFA] take place. It will take a while because there is much more precedent setting at stake than just the elections.

Windsor Modules was a special one time case that was actually a contract ratification, not an election under the trms of the FFA.

And Integram is another one time and short time deal- where Magna agreed to let the CAW and the Local have one last traditional contract [non FFA even though the terms of the FFA would have had trumped that]. Obvious timing considerations there: can't have those folks complaining while the virtues of the wonderful deal are sold. Its going to be some time before the octopus Magna amalgameted Local is up and running, and the Integram workers have a 3 year non-FFA agreement [while the workers in Mississauga whose contract comes up NEXT November will be SOL].


It was for all these reasons that I back then pointed out that with it taking some time to actually consumate this deal- many months to even get started- that gives a lot of time to torpedo it.

But it cuts the other way too- lots of time for people to shrug their shoulders and quietly acquiesce.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 08 February 2008 01:23 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I'm sure you have had lots of individual experience with horror stories


Correct.

quote:

Your comments seem to be a blanket condemnation of all unions for not representing members' claims.

This is the response I get from you guys?

The issue as explicitly framed is access to justice for all injured workers including those who are in a union and those without.

In context of a thread on the CAW and Magna, my comments were geared around union representation. I did specifically state that the other institutions assisting injured workers have the same problems and/or some others. That includes the legal clinics, as I stated, and I'm not claiming to be exempt from these forces either by a long shot.

Arm chair critic, I have in my caseload currently two ex- local presidents, and one of them was CAW.

IWOS groups are full of union refugees, whether current members or prior -- along with those from the other agencies.

There are tens of thousands of abandoned claims every year including many, many unionized workers.

There were just over 300 occupational disease claims filed in Ontario last year, from all sources. That number is smaller on an order of magnitude than the incidence of disease actually caused by workplace exposures. The occ disease claims come out of the workwork when a factory -- unionized or not -- is shutting down.

And for you guys to sit there wrapped in your union flags and maintain that there is nothing wrong, frankly is nothing short of disheartening.

[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 08 February 2008 04:04 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by triciamarie:

And for you guys to sit there wrapped in your union flags and maintain that there is nothing wrong, frankly is nothing short of disheartening.

Look TM, here's what I was referring to:

quote:
This is my understanding of how this happens. A member puts their claim in with the Local or the National or the benefits depatment, however the union has it set up. Someone then has to look at the thing and decide what to do. This person is probably handling, at a minimum, two to three times the maximum effective caseload, up to thousands of claims; think about the old Steel locals. This may include insurance benefits as well as compensation and usually other duties as well.

Your understanding of "how this happens" is incorrect. One person handling "thousands of claims"? Where would that be?? Thousands of claims? What size of a local union are you talking about?

Anyway, the problem of caseload and bureaucracy that you point to is obviously serious. But I didn't hear you propose a practical solution. I heard you use this as evidence that the "service model of unionism" (whatever that means) is bad for workers. That's where the blanket condemnation came in.

You're entitled to make blanket condemnations if you like. Just please make sure the evidence is accurate and applied on a blanket basis.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 08 February 2008 06:51 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

One person handling "thousands of claims"? Where would that be?? Thousands of claims? What size of a local union are you talking about?

I could give you examples but I won't. You're trying to make me out to be union-bashing, and I'm not.

And it's not that one person would be handling all this work; the local has the claims, so whoever is there at a given time will jump in, or not.

quote:

Anyway, the problem of caseload and bureaucracy that you point to is obviously serious. But I didn't hear you propose a practical solution.

Thank you for asking.

One solution within unions would be to adequately staff benefits departments to allow for reasonable caseloads. This is in keeping with the service model of unionism.

From Wikipedia "Trade Unions":

quote:

Unions are also delineated by the service model and the organizing model. The service model union focuses more on maintaining worker rights, providing services, and resolving disputes. Alternately, the organizing model typically involves full-time union organizers, who work by building up confidence, strong networks, and leaders within the workforce; and confrontational campaigns involving large numbers of union members.


Another solution, going to an organizing and inclusive model of labour solidarity, would be to support information and outreach services for all injured workers, both unionized and not. This structure is already there to a degree, but it's precarious, with few connections to organized labour.

Local activist education and the collaboration that arm chair critic was proposing could be funded through the unions but offered in the community, so that more members and non-members alike would be able to participate.

Similar education needs to take place on health and safety organization in the workplace.

I would be happy to discuss further solutions.

[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 12 February 2008 09:42 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
GM offers buyouts or retirement to ALL 74,000 UAW members


quote:
General Motors Corp will offer buyouts or early retirements to all 74,000 U.S. hourly workers represented by the United Auto Workers in a sweeping deal with the union intended to clear the way for GM to hire lower-cost replacements.

The cost-saving agreement follows on a program launched in January for about 5,200 workers at GM's service parts and operations facilities across the United States and five other facilities, and comes with better terms than GM offered to UAW workers in 2006.

.....

All three automakers reached agreements with the UAW that would allow them to hire new workers for some jobs starting at $14 per hour, or about half the current average hourly wage.

U.S. automakers have been cutting capacity to match their declines in market share and their new UAW contracts allow them to shift their union retiree health-care obligations to union-controlled trusts.



From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 22 February 2008 01:19 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At a crossroads, Big Labour digs in. Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove has won an ally in the battle against wage concessions. In the battered forestry sector, where mill closings and job cuts have rivalled if not surpassed those in the auto industry, the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union (CEP) of Canada will not allow employers to cut wages, pensions or benefits.

But we shall see about that line in the sand Buzz has drawn.

Where, as predicted earlier, the CAW aggrees to massive contracting out by the Big Three, on the condidtion the outsourced contracts go to plants where the CAW is recognized. IE, Magna plants under the Framework for Fairness, or other parts suppliers willing to sign a similar voluntary recognition deal.

Insert indirect two tier wage structure here.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 22 February 2008 08:09 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yep, I think you're right.
From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lev Bronstein
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14746

posted 23 February 2008 07:20 PM      Profile for Lev Bronstein     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed, we shall see. Buzz needs to be held to his word on this one. Here is a comment piece by Sam Gindin arguing along those lines:
Two-tier wages, second-class workers

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Lev Bronstein ]


From: Durham | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 23 February 2008 10:57 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sam Gindin:
quote:
Still, Mr. Hargrove's strong statements against the U.S. agreement are surely welcome. He has stuck his neck out, and if the CAW does takes on this fight, the rest of the labour movement must be there in support — for reasons of solidarity and self-interest.

The paragraph preceding is longer and talks about the reasons Buzz's challenges are to be taken with a grain of salt.

Gindin is implicitly saying the labour movement should stand up and show public support for what Buzz appears to be saying- for the words he mouths if not the deeds.

There is certainly tactical sense in that.

But the likelihood to do it is somewhat mitigated by the speed with which Buzz was always wont to shit on others for not standing tough.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brendan Stone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6257

posted 29 February 2008 02:54 PM      Profile for Brendan Stone   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More on the CCWU issue:

Working women and men form unions to improve their lives – better wages, dignity and respect on the job, fairness.

Unions that work to sabotage working peoples’ efforts to organize and collaborate with employers to weaken workers’ rights are not respecting the labour movement. That is exactly what the Canadian Construction Workers Union (CCWU) has done.

The CCWU was formed by Tony Dionisio after the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) ousted him as the President of Local 183 in Toronto two years ago. After being put into trusteeship, an arbitrator concluded that as President of Local 183 Dionisio did not enforce contracts and failed to tabulate benefit and pension entitlements to LIUNA members.

Dionisio’s new “union” was made possible through a series of interest-free loans of up to $5 million from the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). When announced in January 2007 CAW President Buzz Hargrove declared, “I’ve known Tony for a long time and found him to be a man of integrity and decency and a strong trade unionist” and noted the CCWU must report regularly to CAW on the disposition of funds, income and progress. (Journal of Commerce, January 17, 2007)

The CAW has publicly admitted to funding the CCWU, despite overwhelming evidence that this “union” is actively undermining efforts to improve working standards for women and men who desperately need a good union.

There is no place within the Canadian house of labour for a union that cuts sweetheart deals with management and breaks solidarity with workers who are desperate to improve their life on the job.

Article 4 of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) constitution calls on all affiliate member unions to respect organizing drives. By supporting the CCWU, the CAW has undermined a well established organizing drive by SEIU Local 2.

Our strength comes from our solidarity. When someone breaks that solidarity everything workers fight for is weakened. We demand the CLC take immediate action to halt its affiliate, the CAW, from supporting or funding the illegitimate CCWU.

For more information on Justice for Janitors (J4J) and the Hallmark campaign, please visit: www.EyeonHallmark.org


Timeline:

2006 – SEIU launched the Justice for Janitors campaign in Toronto

January 2007 – SEIU organized two of the largest cleaning contractors in Toronto and secured their agreement to participate in negotiations toward a multi-employer, multi-union city wide contract.

Early November 2007 – SEIU began receiving reports from workers that Hallmark supervisors were taking representatives of a new union through worksites and encouraging them to sign cards. Supervisor’s testimony to the collusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rql79vzpRb8

November 20, 2007 – the CCWU filed applications at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) claiming they had been voluntarily recognized by Hallmark.

December 15, 2007 – the CCWU held a ratification meeting organized and attended by Hallmark management, leaving workers at $9.00/hour, without benefits, without the right to choose a bargaining committee and without the right to strike when the next agreements are negotiated. Employee’s testimony to the harsh working conditions with Hallmark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHljGzf_jKs

January, 2008 – a Hallmark worker recorded a conversation with a CCWU organizer: “...You know ... what is the head of our union? The head of our union ... you know the CAW? The Canadian Auto Workers? You guys know the Canadian Auto Workers right? The guys who make the cars? The Canadian Auto Workers, we’re part of the Canadian Auto Workers.” To see the video, click: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRMvjfhZlRo

January 23, 2008 – the OLRB ruled that the CCWU is not a “construction union” and rejected three applications the union made for voluntary recognition of construction labourers. Nonetheless, Buzz Hargrove has re-affirmed the CAW’s plans to continue funding this union.

(sorry - there is no link that I know of - I had to post the whole thing. This is from an e-mail sent through the SEIU.)

[ 01 March 2008: Message edited by: Brendan Stone ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 17 March 2008 05:31 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This made the headlines of the trade press in the US.

Toyota faces union vote in Canada. Automaker will challenge vote set for Thursday in Cambridge, Ont.

I'll post the whole thing since I think you might have to be a subscriber to get it.

quote:
DETROIT -- A union vote is set for Thursday, March 20, at Toyota's assembly plant in Canada.

The Canada branch of International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union is trying to organize about 3,100 workers at the plant in Cambridge, Ontario. The plant is about an hour west of Toronto.

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc. is disputing a union's bid to organize the assembly plant.

The union is optimistic about the vote in light of a reduction in new-hire wages and other benefit cuts over the past several months, said Ian Morland, lead organizer for the union's Canada branch.

Toyota produces the Corolla and Matrix cars and Lexus RX 350 crossover in Cambridge. The automaker also plans to open an assembly plant in Woodstock, Ontario, this autumn to produce the Toyota RAV4.

On March 14, Toyota filed a challenge to the Machinists, claiming that the union miscalculated the number of eligible workers in Cambridge. The union claimed to have support from a pool of 3,100 eligible employees. According to Toyota's paperwork, the plant employs more than that.

Toyota's challenge asks the Ontario Labour Board to seal the election results until it rules on whether the union has correctly identified the plant bargaining committee.

A statement issued on Monday by Toyota said, " The company will challenge the union to prove that they have enough signed cards (40 percent of the bargaining unit) and will request the vote be sealed until the Board provides a ruling."

The Canadian Auto Workers union has tried and failed on numerous occasions to organize the Cambridge plant. The last effort was in 2000.

Similarly, the UAW has been trying to organize Toyota's U.S. plants -- particularly the sprawling assembly operations in Georgetown, Ky. The UAW Web site has been maintaining a " Support Toyota Workers!" link for several months.

In Cambridge, Morland said the Machinists union set the stage for the vote by collecting signatures of more than 40 percent of the plant workers.

In September, Toyota cut new-hire wages from $30 an hour Canadian to $25 an hour, he said. Workers also have faced more out-of-pocket costs for supplemental health care coverage, he said.

Workers are worried that Toyota will try to take advantage of new-hire UAW wage reductions negotiated by the Detroit 3 to drive down wages even further, Morland said.

He said results of the vote probably would be unavailable until after the weekend.



From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 17 March 2008 05:40 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Also on Toyota from a short piece in another trade press:

quote:
Toyota Challenged by Union in Ontario Vote Complaint (Update3)

By Alan Ohnsman

March 17 (Bloomberg) -- Toyota Motor Corp. engaged in unfair labor practices to sway workers at an Ontario plant where a representation election may be held this week, the Machinists union said in a complaint to the provincial government.

Communications sent to workers at the Cambridge, Ontario, factory ``crossed the line set by the law, which prevents employers from intimidating and unduly influencing employees to vote against a union,'' the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers said in a statement today.


This and the complaint by Toyota may be just advance manouvers by each to give them leverage if the vote doesn't go their way, or some kind of tit for tat.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 20 March 2008 10:19 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Globe and Mail: Toyota unionization drive fails
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
arm chair critic
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14761

posted 23 March 2008 04:58 PM      Profile for arm chair critic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If IAM only had 40% of signed cards as reported in earlier media reports they would never have won the vote even if their numbers of eligible employees were right.
Unions in organizing drives make the decision to apply for a vote for one of three reasons;
1)They have enough cards signed to believe they will be sucessful in a vote
2)They want to abandon the drive because they are not getting the cards signed or they are spending too much money with no results and need a way out, or
3)They want to get access to the list of eligible employees in order to make a more direct appeal phone calls, mailouts etc.

Toyota has developed a culture and mindset in the workplace (much like Magna) that make it difficult to organize using traditional models of organizing. Whoever organizes Toyota will have to find and exploit whatever weakness the corporation has along with addressing the issues identified by the workers.

I wish IAM the best of luck if they take another run at Toyota. They may get there if they continue their strategy of doing more listening to what the Toyota workers want rather than promising them what the Union thinks they need.


From: London | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 23 March 2008 05:52 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry I didn't post when I saw it, and now don't remember where [not mainstream media], but the IAM was quite clear that they intend to carry on signing people up, while they fight over who belongs on the list.

It didn't sound to me like they were looking for the dignified exit.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 April 2008 10:37 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Uh oh.

CAW to Release Details of New Magna Agreement

quote:
LONDON, ON, April 9 /CNW/ - The CAW will be releasing the details of a new agreement covering workers at a London-area Magna plant this evening. The workers will be the second group to join the CAW under the CAW-Magna Framework of Fairness Agreement (FFA), reached in October 2007.

This agreement will become part of the master agreement with Magna. The FFA could cover more than 40 factories and 18,000 workers.

Media briefing:

6:45 p.m. tonight


Stay tuned...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 09 April 2008 04:47 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm puzzled by the process. I thought it was vote first [whether workers want CAW], and then an agreement which would be voted on like any collective bargaining agreement.

Did they already have the vote? And did not publicize it???

The first agreement at Windsor Modules was an anomolay- where existing negotiations were simply trumped by the just signed FFA.

So this would be the first agreement with the whole process under the FFA. Even if they just had the vote, that would put them on schedule for bringing into FFA the projected 5 divisions a year.

I even thought working out the access protocols would take some extra time on this first one with Magna insisting on controlling access details.

[ 09 April 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
arm chair critic
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14761

posted 11 April 2008 07:48 AM      Profile for arm chair critic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Union in this case has what can be best described as voluntary recognition by the employer to negotiate a first agreement in all the Magna divisions (workplaces) In practice if the workers vote the agreement down they turn down membership in the Union.
The problem as earlier posters have pointed out is that the actual workers have no real input or participation at the bargaining table.
It is important to note that these were workers already earning $24.00 an hour with the standard Magna benefit package. There was no pay increase negotiated other than the COLA like formula in the FFA and Master agreement.
What was negotiated was a signing bonus and recall rights. There has been problems with worker management relations for some time and impending layoffs. Also this workplace had only been in operation less than 4 years so the Magna paternal culture had probably not taken root.

From: London | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 11 April 2008 12:43 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Understood that it is a voluntary recognition. But the FFA specifies that there is to be a vote by the workers who would be covered to see if they want to join the CAW.

Essentially, company and union agreed to layer this on as an extra step for what is under the OLRA a voluntary recognition.

So did that vote already happen at the plant? If so, any idea when? If not, then....?


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 11 April 2008 01:31 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
So did that vote already happen at the plant? If so, any idea when? If not, then....?

Here it is:

quote:
Workers at a second Magna International Inc. plant have accepted a controversial agreement with the company and approved joining the Canadian Auto Workers union.

About 170 employees of Magna's Qualtech Seating Systems in London, Ont., voted 74 per cent in favour of a contract and the company's Framework of Fairness agreement this week.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 11 April 2008 10:55 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
IF the Star article is correct it would appear that the process is that FIRST a contract is negotiated, and then the workers at the division vote at the same time whether they want the CAW, and want the collective aggreeent negotiated.

My first inclination would be to question whether the Star got it right. But they've been accurately reporting this all along, and we haven't heard any previous announcements of a vote at the plant.

This plant by the way is closely related to the Mississauga plant that has an existing [conventional] collective aggreement as is the case at Integram in Windsor.

But a big difference between those two. The Integram contract expired last November, and even though the FFA would have allowed Magna to have it brought in under the FFA, they signed a new conventional 3 year agreement keeping the stewards and conventional CAW plant Chair. Safe to say that was down to keep those people from doing embarrasing howling within the CAW while the FFA was being promoted within the union.

But the Mississauga plant has a later collective agreement. That expires in 6 months and safe to say they will not get the Integram exception- being folded into the FFA as per that agreement.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 April 2008 12:56 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
But the Mississauga plant has a later collective agreement. That expires in 6 months and safe to say they will not get the Integram exception- being folded into the FFA as per that agreement.

You know, Ken, you may be correct, but I've been in the union movement all my life and I wish I knew where you got that crystal ball from...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 12 April 2008 08:10 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No crystal ball.

It was discussed in the past. My dial-up is so dreadfull that its too hard for me to go back and dig it out, but I remember the important details.

I looked up the dates of the collective agreements.

Integram in Windsor expired November 2007- which means that accaording to the FFA it should have been folded into an FFA agreement.

But Magna quietly agreed in October to bring in a new contract with the stewards and plant chair intact- even though it was clearly advantageous to Magna to do away with them- that's the point of the FFA [supporting the general point of hobbling independent union power].

You may remember that the Integram Plant Chair got up at December Council and said the FFA is good for Magna workers, but not for workers in his plant. What might he have been saying if they were already folded into the FFA?

The Magna plant in Missisauga has a different collective agreement that expires November 2008.

Magna could sneak in an exception for Integram without that setting a precedent. But that won't be possible when this contract comes this November.


I'm quite certain of the significance of the above.

I find it interesting that the London plant that was the first to be brought into the FFA from scratch is closely linked to the Mississauga plant thatt has a tradiontal collective bargaining agreemnt it will lose in months.

What the connection is, I don't find it useful to guess [or don't find my guesses illuminating], but I doubt it's a coincidence.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 12 April 2008 05:06 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is the most detail I've seen on the UAW two tier wage 'mechanics'. From the Detroit News:

Some GM jobs called 'non-core', Changing classification means that new workers will earn half as much for many assembly jobs.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 14 April 2008 12:03 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is interesting. Shows how it may not be quite so easy for the automakers to dump their problems [workers] into supplier companies that turn out to be not so dependent as thought.

This is a subscriber only article from a trade press, so I'm posting the entirety.

GM is the wild card in axle war

NEWS ANALYSIS

quote:
DETROIT — American Axle is sticking with its demand to cut the wages of its striking UAW workers in half — and why shouldn't it? Standing reluctantly in the wings is General Motors. The former owner of American Axle's operations may have little choice but to broker a deal.

Within a week, GM will run out of American Axle-made parts for its hot-selling Chevrolet Malibu and Pontiac G6 sedans. Then GM will begin to feel real pain from a 2-month-old strike at American Axle that has done little to date except trim some of GM's fat inventories of pickups and SUVs.

"GM has to be concerned about getting a settlement fairly quickly," says auto consultant Craig Fitzgerald, of Plante & Moran PLLC in suburban Detroit. "GM is producing Malibus full-out already. If they lose any production, they probably won't be able to recoup those sales."

That pain might persuade GM to help "buy down" American Axle workers with one-time bonuses in exchange for permanent wage cuts. Or the carmaker might allow many of the 3,650 striking workers to transfer to GM and keep their automaker wages. American Axle was created in 1994 from plants jettisoned by GM.

So far, GM has stayed out of the negotiations. The company line is that the dispute is solely between the UAW and American Axle. GM has been a passive observer, closing or partially shutting down 30 assembly and parts plants as the strike interrupts the supply of axles and other parts. The shutdowns have predominantly affected pickup and SUV plants.

High-stakes poker

But as happened in Delphi Corp.'s bankruptcy, GM is being sucked into a high-stakes poker game between the union and an irreplaceable supplier. And, as with Delphi, GM holds the weakest hand.

On one side of the table is American Axle CEO Richard E. Dauch. His company is sitting on a $344 million pile of cash. Moreover, Dauch continues to operate four U.S. plants, a major plant in Mexico and several factories overseas. So he has the financial resources to hold out for weeks.

Last week, Dauch rejected a UAW proposal that he said fails to address the wage gap between American Axle, which pays workers $28 an hour, and less generous rivals such as Dana Holding Corp.

American Axle is offering $14 an hour. Benefits would be slashed, too.

On the other side is UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who is personally involved in the negotiations. He knows his strikers never will accept the massive concessions being demanded. So Gettelfinger's troops continue to walk the picket lines and draw $200 a week in strike pay from a strike fund of nearly $900 million.

Last week three GM locals not affected by the American Axle work stoppage threatened to strike GM over local grievances.

Local union officials say the strike warnings relate to local issues and should be taken at face value. But the implication has not been lost on GM executives.

Strategic targets

Indeed, it appears that the UAW, which approves local strikes, has chosen its strike targets carefully to remind GM that it could disrupt key vehicles.

One plant that might shut down is GM's Delta Township assembly plant near Lansing, Mich., which builds the Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook crossovers.

The shadow of GM's bailout of Delphi looms over the American Axle dispute.

The automaker has spent more than $7.5 billion to restructure its former parts division, Delphi.

GM is helping Delphi buy out more than 20,000 UAW members, and it may have to spend billions more to help the supplier emerge from Chapter 11 reorganization.

At Delphi, GM was legally obligated to help with worker cutbacks. It has no such obligation at American Axle.

But from a practical standpoint, GM may have no choice. Shortly before American Axle workers struck on Feb. 26, the supplier's executives asked GM to allow 2,000 of its workers to transfer to GM, said a source familiar with the talks.

The offer fizzled when GM asked whether price cuts or other considerations would be offered in return.

Within a week, GM will learn the price for noninvolvement. That's when the carmaker runs out of an American Axle-made knuckle used in rear suspensions on the Malibu and G6. Dealers have slim 40-day inventories of those vehicles.

And that's when the UAW and American Axle will find out exactly how much pain GM can tolerate


[ 14 April 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 02 May 2008 05:19 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With friends like these....

Cut wages and build smaller plants, Stronach tells Detroit 3


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 01 September 2008 06:41 PM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Go Steel!!!!!

quote:
Although workers at Magna International's biggest plant in Canada could soon join a union, it won't be the Canadian Auto Workers, despite the CAW's accord with the auto parts giant.

The United Steelworkers union has applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to hold a certification vote next week at Magna's Formet Industries plant in St. Thomas.


http://www.thespec.com/article/426639


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 01 September 2008 07:40 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Should make things interesting.

Anybody know how long Steel has been organizing at the plant?

Anybody have a profile of the plant and/or its division in Magna?

Or even some general knowledge of what is produced there?


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 02 September 2008 05:39 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to the St. Thomas economic development corporation site, Formet employs 1,600 workers in a "full automated frame assembly plant using hydroforming technology". There is also a Ford assembly plant in town as well as a Sterling Trucks heavy trucks plant and a number of other parts manufacturers.

http://www.st-thomasedc.on.ca/index.php?menu_id=641

A 2003 real estate subsidiary prospectus pdf on the Magna site says that the St. Thomas plant is "a 1,082,617 manufacturing facility on 85.3 acres leased to Formet, an operating unit of Cosma, with an initial lease term expiring in 2017...The tenant manufactures frames for the General Motors GMT800 program (full-size pickup trucks).

www.magna.ca


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 02 September 2008 05:55 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the full Star article:

quote:
Aurora-based Magna indicated earlier this year that the St. Thomas plant has about 1,600 workers who primarily produce frames for pickup trucks. The union claims Formet's employment levels are significantly lower.

quote:
Hemi Mitic, an assistant to CAW president Buzz Hargrove, said yesterday Magna was slow to respond to his union's overtures in the spring to proceed with organizing at Formet. "We would prefer that it didn't proceed this way," Mitic said of the Steelworkers' certification bid.

Meanwhile, a senior executive at Magna's Cosma Structural Systems division, which oversees Formet operations, said the plant workers would be making a mistake if they join the Steelworkers. Scott Turner, executive vice-president at Cosma, said the Steelworkers don't have any experience representing any other Magna divisions and lack bargaining relationships with Formet's customers. "We trust our team members to make an informed decision on this matter," Turner said.

Fraser said plant management has already sent a letter to employees indicating they would make a better choice joining the CAW. But it's clear workers prefer a union that is independent of management, he said. Fraser said organizers expect Magna, which is heavily non-unionized, to put up a hard fight against the certification bid.


It also says the company is planning 400 layoffs next month. (They laid off 1,200 during the American Axle strike.)

http://www.thestar.com/article/486778

[ 02 September 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 02 September 2008 04:45 PM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
USW press release -- the vote is tomorrow.

quote:
TORONTO, Sept. 2 /CNW/ - United Steelworkers' (USW) Ontario/Atlantic Director Wayne Fraser said Tuesday that Wednesday's vote by employees at Magna International-owned Formet Industries provides an important opportunity for the hundreds of workers at the St. Thomas auto parts plant to have strong union representation.

"The USW represents thousands of workers in the auto sector across the union," said Fraser. "We would be privileged and honoured to have the employees at Formet become part of our family."

"The company has spent a lot of time trying to convince workers that joining the USW is not in their best interest. However, workers have questioned the fact that, when recent troubles hit the shop floor, management was nowhere to be seen. One of the workers' major concerns is that, during the recent layoffs, several hourly-rated employees lost their jobs to salaried employees."

"We cannot emphasize enough that all workers have the legal right to join our union and be epresented to fullest extent of our ability," added Fraser. "We urge Magna/Formet employees to exercise their democratic right to join our union, and vote 'yes' on Wednesday."

It is hoped that results of the vote at Formet will be available late Wednesday.


http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2008/02/c8715.html


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 02 September 2008 04:59 PM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
Anybody know how long Steel has been organizing at the plant?

quote:
The union filed an application for union certification Wednesday after spending weeks handing out leaflets in front of the Formet plant.

(snip)

[Magna] said the Steelworkers are taking advantage of troubled times at the plant. Formet gave layoff notices in June to 400 workers -- a quarter of its workforce. It's the first permanent layoff in the plant's history.

Banks said it was employees who approached the Steelworkers, not the reverse. "The Formet employees looked to a trade union and chose us," he said.

The layoffs at Formet take effect Sept. 8.


http://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1176578


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 03 September 2008 12:08 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the info triciamarie. I've got some thoughts but I'm going to wait till after the vote.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 03 September 2008 12:27 PM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No news on the results of the vote yet but there are some interesting comments here on the legality of the CAW-Magna pact, and how Magna's response in this Steelworkers drive could come to influence the Board's opinion of the "Framework of Fairness".

quote:
So, the inevitable has now happened. Another union–the United Steelworkers–has tried to organize a Magna operation.

Recall that Magna entered into a much-hyped preferential organizing agreement with the CAW last year the parties called the “framework of fairness”. That agreement confered on the CAW a variety of organizing aids, including employee lists, access to the workplace for the purpose of organizing, a union ‘captive audience meeting’, and the verbal support of the employer. The USWA has not requested equal treatment to that given the CAW, presumably because their strategy has involved emphasizing that they have not entered into the sort of cozy arrangement described in the Framework of Fairness. I have no idea if the Steelworkers have attained the necessary 40 percent support to obtain a ballot, but regardless, a vote will be held this coming week (because the Board holds the vote, and sorts out afterwards whether there was a legal right to the vote).

I have noted before that the Magna-CAW arrangement sits uneasily with Canadian labour laws that prevent employers from providing ‘any support’ to a union trying to organize their employees, and that prohibit employers from interfering or participating in the ’selection’ of a union by the employees (see s. 15 and s. 70 of the OLRA).

The issue is whether Magna can give preferential organizing rights to the CAW and not, say, the United Steelworkers. Reading the Act literally, it’s hard to imagine how Magna is not giving “other support” to the CAW if, for example, it refused a Steelworker request for the same access rights to its employees it gives the CAW. It will be tempting for Magna during the next few days prior to the vote to tell employees that they would be better off supporting the CAW and the Framework of Fairness model, and that supporting the USWA would be a mistake. Would this then amount to unlawful interference in the ’selection’ of a union?

I think it could. In a case involving Coca-Cola, the OLRB ruled that the employer had not provided unlawful support to the CAW by permitting employees who supported the CAW to organize during working hours, while the same possibility was not afforded rival UFWC organizers.

Here’s what the Board said about s. 15 and s. 70:

The Board may not certify a union when it has received employer financial or “other” support. There is no allegation of financial support of the CAW-Canada by the employer. The allegation is that the employer gave the CAW-Canada “other support”, such as is proscribed in s. 70 and s. 15 of the Act. [The UFCW] says that permitting access to CAW-Canada supporters to the staff canteen and other areas … was the “other support”.

32. In some contexts, these facts could lead to the conclusion that, prima facie, an employer has provided other support to a union in its organizing campaign. However, the context in which the events occurs is important. In this case, the main allegations by the [UFCW] are that employees were allowed to circulate in the workplace undeterred, expressing their preference for the CAW-Canada, and having employees sign cards in support. The employer is not accused of having its managers, or supervisors, or any person associated with it, participate in, or encourage, the CAW-Canada’s organizing drive. The contest for employee support was between two very sophisticated, large unions, whose independence from employers is unquestionable.

In that case, the OLBR ruled that ‘other support’ had not been provided the CAW. But it might be different if the employer expressly encourages employees to reject one union because it has already entered into a cozy relationship with another. Let’s watch how Magna manages this situation. Stay tuned.


http://www.yorku.ca/ddoorey/lawblog/

[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 03 September 2008 04:40 PM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The final result of the vote is expected to be made public Thursday night.

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/business/story.html?id=766852


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 03 September 2008 06:44 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Steel appears to have lost the vote decisively.

The article triciamarie linked must have changed since she posted it, because it now says:

quote:
At about 10 p.m. Wednesday, Magna announced that 71% of workers voted in favour of maintaining Formet's non-union environment.

I'm digesting it all.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 03 September 2008 08:34 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm puzzled by this drive.

It was started in a plant that must be in very substantial jeopardy for whether it stays open.

Making frames for fullsized GM trucks is s losing proposition. There are going to be a lot more than the existing 400 layoffs.

And there is little opportunity for switching. The number of vehicles planned to have anything but unit body frames in the next couple of years, let alone longer range, is dropping even faster than the sales of full size trucks and SUVs.

So it like the MOST likely plant for the workers to be concerned that the employer will simply shut down if the certification was successful.

Given that the vote lost decisively, I wonder even about the one plausible guess I had: that workers at the plant were receptive because it is assumed the plant is doomed and they are looking for a real negotiator to get the best they can out of the situation.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 04 September 2008 01:49 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wierd. (About the contents of the article changing.)

Will be interesting to hear if Steel agrees with the numbers reported by the Post / Windsor Star. Earlier they were saying that the employer is vastly overstating its workforce, so that will obviously affect the percentages.

Anyway, according to Prof David Doorey, who I neglected to acknowledge for his blog entry posted above, the least that can be said about Steel's commendable efforts in this drive is that the employer's negative response --

quote:
"a tense labour drive opposed by the company"

(from the same article) -- may bode poorly for the FFA as a whole, if it points up the employer's unlawful interference with its employees' choice of a bargaining agent.

Fingers crossed...


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 04 September 2008 03:15 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm guessing that Magna was pretty careful to not leave themselves exposed. They obviously have lots of pricey labour law on tap.

As to the article- online versions frequently change during the evening until they pup the paper to bed for the print edition. Not that it is worth your time checking on such a possibility unless its a hot national news item. In politics it would have to be something fairly high profile the Cons or Liberals are doing. Any new mrder or news about a murder would do. Since on-line matters they want to get something out there quick, and add more to it when they get it. That is definitely not the kind of article I'd be expecting a change, I just looked at it later then you. But it is Windsor. I know that auto industry news is always hot for the News in Detroit, though the Star is pretty slim on that by comparison.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683

posted 04 September 2008 05:35 AM      Profile for George Victor        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Strange thing about the United Steelworkers, however - from time to time down the years they have burst out singing O Canada.(As did Frank Stronach himself, a few years back...although I'm sure for different reasons.)

Would really like to hear the thoughts of the workers who went to Steelworkers in that spirit...and how much of that spirit still flies in Canadian union offices.


From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 04 September 2008 05:56 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Come to think of it, not only did this employer apparently get involved in what under the LRA should be employees' sole discretion to choose a bargaining agent -- and this could be a case where their lawyers got too smart for their own good, or lost control of events -- but the FFA also substantially dictates the terms of any agreement with the CAW, and it is tied to certifying that particular union; so for the employer to try to promote the CAW over USW could even be construed as illegal bargaining.
From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 04 September 2008 06:12 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Based on what we have seen I think you are jumping to conclusions as to whether the OLB would consider what Magna said publically as getting involved in the choice of a union.

Its not like they can say nothing at all when asked to comment.

If they sent around info to all the workers that is another matter. But we don't know about that one way or the other. And thats just the kind of thing you can bet they would stay away from. Too much to lose, and too little to gain from playing the line.

Remember that it isn't such a big plant that they cannot deliver whatever they message they want just with a whisper campaign that cannot be formally faulted.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 04 September 2008 06:47 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, granted, the degree of the employer's involvement is not established. I'm also not current on what degree of interference the OLRB would tolerate. But I look forward to trying to find out more about this because I think it goes to the heart of the problem with the CAW Magna lovers pact.
From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca