Hargrove to Feds: Buzz Off

This is from CNews.
I presume voting strategically would be voting for the Liberals where they have the most chance of winning and for the NDP where they occupy a similar position. However, Hargrove seems to favor the Liberals. He certainly has attempted to get NDP voters to vote Liberal to block the Conservatives in the past. Hargrove in spite of his reputation as some sort of militant has led his unions to the right. This is not surprising since the power of the big auto companies and others over workers has vastly increased with globalisation. However, Hargrove has negotiated contracts that negate some of the basic rights of a union such as that to strike and also watered down union democratic power in the contract with Magna. This sell-out was not necessary even in present economic conditions.
Of course Hargrove is bang on with respect to Harper. Harper is trying to buy votes. Insofar as many union members affected may support short term gain over longer term pain from Harper policies the pork politics may work to some extent.

September 7, 2008
Hargrove to feds: Buzz off
By BRIAN GRAY, SUN MEDIA
Jobs and the federal election were the driving issues for delegates at the Canadian Auto Workers convention yesterday -- and Stephen Harper was their "No. 1" target.
Outgoing CAW leader Buzz Hargrove had some parting shots -- and a wave of the middle finger -- for the federal Tories and their pre-election spending.
"Four or five days before an election call they find over $300 million -- not to help the industry, they don't give a damn about the industry, not to help the workers and families and communities, they don't give a damn about them," Hargrove said, referring to cash provided by the federal government to preserve jobs at Ford's Essex plant and Oshawa's GM plant where hundreds have been cut over the last few years thanks to sagging markets for large trucks and SUVs.
"They want to buy the votes of the auto workers. But we should send them a message today that this is what we think of their effort to try to bamboozle us into voting for them," he said, waving his middle finger.
His replacement, Ken Lewenza, will be faced with the job of swaying an election, an area where his predecessor didn't have much luck. One of the few failures for Hargrove, who reigned over Canada's largest private sector union for 16 years, was an attempt to swing the election in former Liberal leader Paul Martin's favour.
But Lewenza said he will promote strategic voting to keep the prime minister from gaining a majority government.
"We have to recognize we are in crisis, the manufacturing sector is in decline and unions by themselves can't fix the problem," said Lewenza, former president of CAW Local 444 in Windsor and the union's chief negotiator with Chrysler Canada.
But Lewenza's Jab was directed at Prime Minister Stephen Harper, expected to sound the starting gun on a federal election this morning.
"I will do everything within my power, within the influence of the Canadian Auto Workers union to influence the electoral process and citizens not to give the Tories the majority government that they're working for," he said.
The speech struck a chord with delegates, many of who are disgruntled workers in the Ontario auto manufacturing sector.

Hargrove eyes political run.

Hargrove might as well run for the Tories. Maybe after he has had a run for the Liberals first. He might as well try out all three! He has been turning to the right so he just has to go a bit further. Maybe since he is retired he chose the Liberals so he could sit on his hands all day and let Conservative legislation pass.



Friday » July 11 » 2008

Hargrove eyes political run

Juliet O'Neill
Canwest News Service
Thursday, July 10, 2008
OTTAWA - Buzz Hargrove says he will consider running for the federal Liberals after his successor is in place in early September. A campaign as an Independent MP is an alternative possibility.
Hargrove, who is retiring from the presidency of the Canadian Auto Workers union, said Thursday he thinks Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is "on the right track." Once a power broker in the New Democratic Party who considered a run at that party's leadership, Hargrove threw his support behind the Liberals in the 2006 federal election when Paul Martin was leader.
In an interview with Canwest News Service, Hargrove, 64, said his relations with the NDP are still sour and his possible candidacy "won't be Tory, you can bet on that."
Dion called to congratulate Hargrove on his retirement from the union this week and the two agreed to talk again. Hargrove said Dion did not specify what he wants to talk about, though "I assumed it might be" about running. Hargrove said he wants to talk policy.
The environment and the economy are entwined, he said, and people are concerned about both.
"I think people are past the stage where they want governments to use that (the economy) as an excuse to do nothing about the environment," Hargrove said. "I think Dion's on the right track and I believe expressing it better than he was a few months ago publicly."
Hargrove pointed to a poll last week that showed the Liberals tied with the Conservatives at 31 per cent approval.
"Once people start to focus on an election on what the real issues are and what their concerns are for the future, I think the Liberals will do really well."
Asked whether he'd run for office in the heart of Canada's auto industry, southern Ontario, or elsewhere, Hargrove said he'd think about that after the CAW leadership convention. It is tentatively scheduled for Sept. 6.
© Ottawa Citizen 2008

Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

Blockade of GM headquarters

Judges have a real genius for understatement. Justice Salmers avers that GM was ''almost deceitful". I think that Buzz Hargrove would leave out the "almost" and substitute a few swearwords. Buzz would be more accurate!

GM was 'almost deceitful': judge
Union blockade allowed to continue over weekend, then must be pared back
GREG KEENAN
June 14, 2008
An Ontario Superior Court judge has chastised General Motors Corp. for announcing the shutdown of a truck plant in Oshawa, Ont., two weeks after signing a new contract with the Canadian Auto Workers that contained commitments that the plant would be kept open.
Mr. Justice David Salmers granted an injunction yesterday ordering the union to end a blockade of the company's Canadian head office and limit its pickets to 20 people, but said the auto maker "should not be rewarded for improper conduct."
So instead of ordering an immediate end to the protest, Judge Salmers will allow it to continue this weekend before restricting the union to 20 pickets beginning at 7 a.m., Monday.
The union began blockading the General Motors of Canada Ltd. headquarters in Oshawa one day after its parent, GM Corp., announced that it will cease production of pickup trucks in Oshawa next year.
That announcement on June 3 was castigated by union officials as a "betrayal" because it came so quickly after GM Canada signed a new contract with the CAW that committed the company to building the next generation of its pickups in Oshawa in 2011.
Officials at GM's head office in Detroit would have known that the plant was in danger of being closed, Judge Salmers wrote.
"Knowing the dire straits of the truck market, for some time before June 1, 2008, these sophisticated business people would have considered the possibility that the Oshawa truck plant might have to be closed," he wrote.
Two clauses in the new contract between the two parties called for the company to give notice to the union and have discussions before making major changes in production at any of GM's Canadian plants.
The judge found that GM ignored those clauses.
"I find that GM Corp. engaged in almost deceitful business practice by allowing GM Canada's lead negotiators to agree to the advance notice and discussion clauses in the May 15, 2008, agreement at a time when the truck business was in dire straits and when GM Corp. should have been at least aware of the possibility that plants, possibly including the Oshawa truck plant, might have to be closed," he wrote.
He also wrote that a party such as GM seeking relief from the court should possess so-called "clean hands," which means its own actions should not have created the situation it is trying to resolve.
"I find without hesitation that GM Canada does not come to court with clean hands," he ruled.

Hargrove rules out strike over Ontario GM plant closing

This is from CBC.
Hargrove's strategy is completely unfathomable. He could be accused of giving aid and comfort to the company while limiting his own options. Hargrove seems less and less credible as a union leader. No wonder he has no difficulty negotiating contracts that mean very little. There is a clause that allows GM to renege on contract provisions because of economic conditions. Apparently economic conditions within two weeks of signing made closing of the truck plant OK!
Hargrove may find that his assurances to GM that there will be no strike may not stop a wildcat strike and other actions unsanctioned by the union. What else would you expect.



Hargrove rules out strike over Ontario GM plant closing
Last Updated: Monday, June 9, 2008 12:39 AM ETAThe Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union isn't considering a strike over the decision by General Motors to close the truck plant in Oshawa, Ont., president Buzz Hargrove said Sunday.
The prospect of a wildcat strike had been rumoured as an option in the union's campaign to keep the plant open, and save the 2,900 jobs there. GM said on June 3 that it will close the plant in 2009, citing collapsing sales for the large pickup trucks assembled in the factory.
The union is considering its legal options, Hargrove said. "What's our best approach? Is it through the grievance procedure? Expedited arbitration, which we have under our contract? Is it the Ontario Labour Relations Board, or is it the courts? We'll decide which place we can be the most effective and get a decision the quickest before this thing starts to wind down."
The CAW has said GM broke the union contract but analysts have said the company used a loophole in the contract to close the plant.
Hargrove was speaking at a rally held at GM's corporate head office, where angry workers set up a blockade on June 4. They expect GM will seek an injunction to make them move.
Union representatives called on the federal government to protect Canadian jobs by adopting measures which other countries already use. Hargrove said he wanted a rule requiring automakers to build the cars they sell in Canada in Canadian plants.
"That's not very radical," he said.
The government has suggested it may use a green auto fund to help GM.
Earlier Sunday, Canadian Labour Congress president Ken Georgetti called on unions to back the autoworkers.
"I think it's time for some raw shows of force. What you're doing here is exactly what we need to do in the rest of this country. It's time to say enough," he said.With files from the Canadian Press

Buzz vows GM wont get away with closing plant

Since there was an escape clause in the contract that allowed GM to close the plant if economic conditions made it necessary Hargrove probably doesn't have much of a legal case. However, this does seem a case of bargaining in bad faith since economic conditions hardly changed that much in a couple of weeks.
Legal remedies are long, expensive, and costly for the union. A strike would punish GM and perhaps bring it to its senses and show other automakers that similar actions will not be tolerated.


AARON LYNETT/TORONTO STAR
Apoplectic CAW president vows automaker won't get away with closing truck plant
June 04, 2008 Tony Van AlphenBusiness Reporter
General Motors of Canada Ltd. has breached a contract by planning to close its Oshawa truck plant next year, union leader Buzz Hargrove charges.
GM confirmed yesterday that it will probably close the plant in the second half of next year because of plunging pickup sales. But Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, said that decision clearly violates a contract commitment of less than three weeks ago to keep the operation open.
An angry Hargrove said GM made written commitments for future truck production and a new generation of models at the plant beyond 2011, and is now "illegally violating" those contract terms.
"In my opinion, they can't do that," he said. "If GM can get away with that in a contract, what would stop any other company from doing the same thing and getting away with it?"
The contract states those commitments depend on market demand, but Hargrove said "no intelligent human being" would believe demand could have dropped so quickly in a few weeks to justify the new decision.
Calling GM's move "unjust" and a "betrayal," Hargrove and other furious CAW officials said the auto giant misled union negotiators and workers into ratifying a contract that assured production and future models when the company knew otherwise.
The union charged workers would have never ratified the contract without product commitments.
CAW Local president Chris Buckley said workers overwhelmingly accepted the three-year contract with a wage freeze because of the commitments for future work.
"Can you imagine how our members today feel?" Buckley said. "They're now told by General Motors, `You don't have a job in 2009.' That's absolutely disgraceful of GM."
GM Canada spokesperson Stew Low said the company will not respond publicly to the CAW's comments. "We will discuss the issue privately with Buzz," Low said. "But this situation (of falling demand) has accelerated beyond anyone's expectations. You can't build trucks when there are no orders."
The news of the plant closing came as the industry released May sales figures.
In contrast to the U.S., Canadian sales of cars and light trucks declined about 1,000 vehicles or less than 1 per cent to 184,467 in May from the same 2007 period, according to manufacturers' statistics.
The performance came despite a 20-per-cent plunge in GM and a 6.4-per-cent drop at Ford. Chrysler's sales climbed 6.2 per cent in May.
Meanwhile Toyota and Nissan, which have strong car lineups, posted double digit increases. Honda reported a 2.6-per-cent gain.
Earlier in the day, GM announced it would probably close four North American assembly plants permanently in the next year, including Oshawa, because of a plunge in sales of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles.
The company blames soaring gasoline prices and tightening credit in a weakening United States economy for a whopping 35 per cent slide in truck sales in the first quarter from the same period last year.
The company's reports show consumers who buy pickups primarily for personal use and not for work purposes are shifting in droves to smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles.
GM has already cut a shift, or 1,000 jobs, at the plant this year. The company plans to reduce production by the equivalent of another shift in the fall before a full closing in the second half of next year. The closing, however, could come sooner if demand continues to deteriorate, according to Troy Clarke, North American Group vice-president for GM.
The 43-year-old plant, which has won international industry awards for productivity and quality, builds the full-size Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra models.
The operation produced more than 316,000 last year, but that will fall significantly this year. In a twist, the closing means GM won't start building much more fuel-efficient hybrid versions of the pickups later this year.
Hargrove said the union is considering its options, including legal remedies, but could not provide details. The union could file a grievance and pursue the issue before the Ontario Labour Relations Board to force GM to keep the plant open, Hargrove suggested.
"We're going to do everything in our power, and we have power, and we'll select our target," he told reporters. "But this is not going to happen without a fight. Our plant will not cease production in the third quarter of 2009."
In response to a reporter's question, Hargrove said the union would not rule out production disruptions.
GM informed CAW leaders of the decision Monday. They spent most of the day and evening trying to get a reversal.
Keith Osborne, the CAW plant chair in Oshawa, noted top GM labour relations officials looked "sheepish" when they told the union of the company's plans.
"I could never trust them again," Osborne said.
=

Hargrove vows GM will not get away with closing truck plant

This is from the Star. After the union has given concession after concession in order to save jobs GM then turns around and almost immediately announces a plant closing. This is surely bargaining in bad faith. Apparently there is a clause in the contract that allows closings for economic reasons but still after in effect promising to keep plants open to reach an agreement it is surely disgraceful to make this announcement so soon. It remains to be seen if Hargrove can do anything to stop the closure at least for a while. These pickups are not only bought by people who want them for personal use. Many farmers and construction people need larger pickups. It may be shortsighted to close these plants rather than just cut out shifts or have layoffs until inventory is cleared.


AARON LYNETT/TORONTO STARWorkers at GM's truck plant in Oshawa get ready to leave after their shift June 3, 2008. General Motors announced it would close the plant in 2009.Apoplectic CAW president vows automaker won't get away with closing truck plantJune 04, 2008 Tony Van AlphenBusiness ReporterGeneral Motors of Canada Ltd. has breached a contract by planning to close its Oshawa truck plant next year, union leader Buzz Hargrove charges.GM confirmed yesterday that it will probably close the plant in the second half of next year because of plunging pickup sales. But Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, said that decision clearly violates a contract commitment of less than three weeks ago to keep the operation open.An angry Hargrove said GM made written commitments for future truck production and a new generation of models at the plant beyond 2011, and is now "illegally violating" those contract terms."In my opinion, they can't do that," he said. "If GM can get away with that in a contract, what would stop any other company from doing the same thing and getting away with it?"The contract states those commitments depend on market demand, but Hargrove said "no intelligent human being" would believe demand could have dropped so quickly in a few weeks to justify the new decision.Calling GM's move "unjust" and a "betrayal," Hargrove and other furious CAW officials said the auto giant misled union negotiators and workers into ratifying a contract that assured production and future models when the company knew otherwise.The union charged workers would have never ratified the contract without product commitments.CAW Local president Chris Buckley said workers overwhelmingly accepted the three-year contract with a wage freeze because of the commitments for future work."Can you imagine how our members today feel?" Buckley said. "They're now told by General Motors, `You don't have a job in 2009.' That's absolutely disgraceful of GM."GM Canada spokesperson Stew Low said the company will not respond publicly to the CAW's comments. "We will discuss the issue privately with Buzz," Low said. "But this situation (of falling demand) has accelerated beyond anyone's expectations. You can't build trucks when there are no orders."The news of the plant closing came as the industry released May sales figures.In contrast to the U.S., Canadian sales of cars and light trucks declined about 1,000 vehicles or less than 1 per cent to 184,467 in May from the same 2007 period, according to manufacturers' statistics.The performance came despite a 20-per-cent plunge in GM and a 6.4-per-cent drop at Ford. Chrysler's sales climbed 6.2 per cent in May.Meanwhile Toyota and Nissan, which have strong car lineups, posted double digit increases. Honda reported a 2.6-per-cent gain.Earlier in the day, GM announced it would probably close four North American assembly plants permanently in the next year, including Oshawa, because of a plunge in sales of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles.The company blames soaring gasoline prices and tightening credit in a weakening United States economy for a whopping 35 per cent slide in truck sales in the first quarter from the same period last year.The company's reports show consumers who buy pickups primarily for personal use and not for work purposes are shifting in droves to smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles.GM has already cut a shift, or 1,000 jobs, at the plant this year. The company plans to reduce production by the equivalent of another shift in the fall before a full closing in the second half of next year. The closing, however, could come sooner if demand continues to deteriorate, according to Troy Clarke, North American Group vice-president for GM.The 43-year-old plant, which has won international industry awards for productivity and quality, builds the full-size Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra models.The operation produced more than 316,000 last year, but that will fall significantly this year. In a twist, the closing means GM won't start building much more fuel-efficient hybrid versions of the pickups later this year.Hargrove said the union is considering its options, including legal remedies, but could not provide details. The union could file a grievance and pursue the issue before the Ontario Labour Relations Board to force GM to keep the plant open, Hargrove suggested."We're going to do everything in our power, and we have power, and we'll select our target," he told reporters. "But this is not going to happen without a fight. Our plant will not cease production in the third quarter of 2009."In response to a reporter's question, Hargrove said the union would not rule out production disruptions.GM informed CAW leaders of the decision Monday. They spent most of the day and evening trying to get a reversal.Keith Osborne, the CAW plant chair in Oshawa, noted top GM labour relations officials looked "sheepish" when they told the union of the company's plans."I could never trust them again," Osborne said

GM closing plants in US, Canada, and Mexico.

This is from Bloomberg.
Watching TV today I see Buzz Hargrove howling and crying fowl. He says that GM has violated the agreement with the union. This could very well be correct. However, Buzz should note that production is not just being shifted to lower wage Mexico. A Mexican plant and two U.S. plants are also slated to be closed down. GM will try to shed the Hummer as well perhaps.

General Motors to Halt Production at Four Plants, Globe Says
By Sean B. Pasternak
June 3 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., the world's largest automaker, will probably announce today that it's halting production at its pickup-truck factory in Oshawa, Ontario, cutting about 1,000 jobs, the Globe and Mail reported.
The Detroit-based automaker may also announce at the annual meeting of shareholders that it's closing two U.S. plants in Wisconsin and Ohio, along with a factory in Mexico, the newspaper said, citing unidentified people. The cuts are related to rising gasoline prices and a U.S. housing slowdown, the Globe said.
Spokespeople at GM Canada didn't return phone calls to the newspaper seeking comment, and spokesman Stew Low didn't return a call from Bloomberg News placed before business hours.
To contact the reporter on this story: Sean B. Pasternak in Toronto at spasternak@bloomberg.net.

Ford reaches early labour pact.

This is from the Star. The by the numbers introduction fails to mention the wage freeze! This in effect means that with inflation pay is going backward but apparently not nearly as much as in the U.S. or to the degree that GM and Chrysler want. If the workers gave up to thirty dollars an hour than given that production technicians earn only 33.90 an hour they would receive under the minimum wage and even skilled tradespeople receive just 40.30 so they would get just $10.30!
I wonder if there is much contact between North American unions and unions or auto worker organisations in Japan and South Korea. Capital is globalised but labor is fragmented, a good recipe for disastrous competition between workers to the bottom. The best one can say about Hargrove's agreement is that it is not as bad as the UAW cave in and two tier agreement. Ford is obviously in good shape compared to the other two ageing auto giants. Kerkorian's investment may be a good move for him.
Given that TTC employees rejected the union negotiated agreement perhaps the same could happen with this agreement.




Ford reaches early labour pact
TheStar.com - Business - Ford reaches early labour pact


RON BULL/TORONTO STAR
CAW president Buzz Hargrove announces the centrepiece of a three-year deal between the union and Ford. BY THE NUMBERS

9,000
workers covered

$2,300
"productivity and quality" bonus on ratification

$3,500
payment in exchange for vacation time

3 years
length of agreement

1 week
of vacation given up

1 year
extension for the plant in St. Thomas




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FURTHER FORAY


DETROIT–United States billionaire Kirk Kerkorian has made yet another foray into the troubled automotive industry with an offer to expand his stake in Ford Motor Co. to 5.6 per cent.

Kerkorian's investment company, Tracinda Corp., sees signs the automaker's turnaround plan is working and plans to offer $8.50 (U.S.) per share in cash for up to 20 million additional shares. Yesterday's offer represented a 13.3 per cent premium over Friday's close.

Tracinda said Ford's first-quarter results reinforced the view that the company is having success in its turnaround efforts, despite the difficult U.S. economy.

On Thursday, Ford posted a surprise profit of $100 million for the first quarter, the first since the second quarter of 2007.

"Tracinda believes that Ford management under the leadership of chief executive officer Alan Mulally will continue to show significant improvements in its results going forward," Tracinda said.



Associated Press


Canadian Auto Workers' chief says tougher times behind move to bargain outline of deal in advance

April 29, 2008
Tony Van Alphen
Business Reporter

The Canadian Auto Workers stunned the auto industry yesterday by announcing it had reached agreement with Ford Motor Co. on key monetary items for a three-year deal that would freeze wages for current workers, cut one week of vacation pay and trim some retiree benefits.

In a dramatic shift from traditional bargaining at the Big Three automakers, the union revealed it had negotiated the "centrepiece" of a new deal five months earlier than in past contract years and it would set the pattern for subsequent bargaining at General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC.

"We do recognize the problems of the companies and the industry and we recognize the times are different and we (have) got to do things different," CAW president Buzz Hargrove said in an interview.

"I've read a lot about the tsunami. If I was on low ground and saw it coming I would be heading to high ground. That's what we did here."

Hargrove said union and company negotiators would now drive for a tentative contract, including resolution of local issues, by the end of the week at a Toronto hotel.

If the two sides reach a deal, about 9,000 workers in Oakville, Windsor and St. Thomas would vote on it within a week.

Ford spokesperson Lauren More cautioned that a tentative contract will depend on successful agreement on local issues specific to each operations.

If workers ratify, the union would press for similar deals at GM and Chrysler, which have taken a harder public position on the need to cut labour costs significantly so they can compete with Japanese-based rivals.

The Ford deal could set the stage for a major confrontation. Hargrove, however, avoided using the word strike.

Analyst Dennis DesRosiers said the monetary terms with Ford put GM and Chrysler in a difficult position that could ultimately give an edge to the Japanese auto giants, which have no unions in North America.

"Both these companies (GM and Chrysler) were looking for the CAW to give back a lot more than this contract ended up giving up so they are going to be very disappointed," said DesRosiers. "They were looking for upwards of $30 per hour and this agreement doesn't even come close to that number."

The union has said this year's bargaining would be the most difficult round of negotiations in its 23 year-history because of the continuing slide in market share by the Big Three, competitive pressures and significant concessions in last year's deals by the United Auto Workers in the U.S.

The current contracts in Canada affect more than 30,000 workers and expire in mid-September. Production technicians currently earn about $33.90 an hour while skilled trades people receive about $40.30. They are among the highest paid industrial workers in the country.

Under the Ford deal, the starting wages of new employees would drop to 70 per cent of full rates but they would gradually increase to 100 per cent after three years. In the current contract, new workers start at 85 per cent and move to 100 per cent after three months.

Although the provision cuts starting rates, Hargrove stressed that the union had successfully beatenback the controversial two-tier wage and benefit system that the UAW accepted last fall in efforts to slash labour costs at U.S. operations.

But under terms of the Ford deal here, the union agreed to an immediate freeze in a cost-of-living allowance until September next year and a reduction in vacation pay by 40 hours or one week annually.

In exchange for the freeze, Ford would give workers a $2,300 bonus this fall and a $3,500 special payment the following year for the loss of vacation pay over three years.

The union said it had also gained a reprieve on any decision about the future of the company's sputtering assembly plant in St. Thomas until the fall of 2011. The plant operates on only one shift and Ford had committed to production only until 2010.

Union officials acknowledged that the monetary cuts won't match the labour savings in the UAW deals in the U.S. But CAW economist Jim Stanford emphasized that the Big Three operations in Canada are more productive so the deal shouldn't jeopardize future investment.

The union's main bargaining committee has endorsed Ford's offer, which followed secret negotiations during the last two weeks.

Hargrove explored early bargaining but found little interest from the automakers and indicated recently that chances of success were remote. But the union and Ford found common ground to spur full bargaining two weeks ago.



And thousands of retirees won't get an increase in their inflation-indexed pensions for a year as protection will resume in the second and third years.

The sides also negotiated a stricter limit on long-term care expenses for retirees plus a 10 per cent increase in prescription drug payments to a maximum of $250 annual per family.

Two-tier Wages, Second-Class Workers

While Hargrove sounds defiant about allowing the two-tier agreement at Canadian auto plants, Hargrove was instrumental in negotiating a no-strike contract with Magna so he could change his mind. It seems that labor is losing more and more power so that there are fewer well paying jobs in the auto industry. As can be seen from this article there has been a tremendous decline in the number of unionised auto workers over the years.

Two-tier Wages, Second-Class Workers
Sam Gindin When Autoworker President Buzz Hargrove makes new pronouncements, they carry weight within and beyond the labour movement – even when, as has recently been the case, they seem to undermine what Canadian unions have always stood for. What then are we to make of Hargrove’s defiant declaration, in response to the permanent two-tier system negotiated in the U.S., that this is ‘one automotive import that won't cross the border into Canada’?
The significance of the ‘two-tier system’ is that it takes the inequalities that have been growing within the workforce to a new stage: it brings them right into the workplace and includes the union as an accomplice. The agreement last fall between the UAW and GM, Ford, and Chrysler divided jobs into ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ jobs. The wage rate for workers newly hired into the non-core jobs will be permanently cut in half and benefits still further – in spite of these workers doing the exact same work as others getting the higher rate. This agreement was sold on the basis of needing to compete with the Japanese transplants and doing do in a way that would shift the concessions to future workers. For the young workers to come, this has not only reduced their access to decent-paying jobs, but done so in a way that formally defines them as permanent second-class workers – hardly a formula for generating the enthusiasm, amongst a new generation of workers, that is so critical for any revival of unions.
But is it possible, in this most-integrated of industries and with the rise of the loonie, for Canadians to ignore the developments in the USA? The high value of the loonie is indeed a serious problem for the Canadian auto industry (and Canadian manufacturing more generally). But the Canadian operations still benefit from Canada’s health care system; even with the companies shifting the risk of health care on to their employees, the company share of costs for active workers and of the new funding arrangements remain high relative to Canada. Factoring in the high productivity and quality of Canadian plants, the likelihood of a long-run Canadian dollar in the $.93-.95 range, and the fact that labour costs are in any case under 10% of the price of a vehicle, mean that the rise of the loonie is in fact not that decisive. Jobs, as the past three decades could not have made any clearer, depend on both larger corporate strategies and circumstances beyond the companies’ control: between 1978, when the era of concessions began in the U.S. and the present, UAW Big Three membership has fallen by some 80% – from 750,000 to under 170,000.
Yet, if U.S. auto wages do start moving to half their present level, Canadian autoworkers could clearly not simply ‘bargain as usual.’ The key here lies in how American workers themselves respond. Many American workers did vote against this agreement (almost half at Chrysler and one-third at GM) and more are coming on side as they come to see that even in terms of competitiveness, the two-tier system is a sham. Japanese auto companies have a well-developed two-tier system at home, but have not implemented it in their U.S. plants for fear of this driving their workers to unionization. With the UAW now bringing it into American plants, the door will be opened for the Japanese companies to now follow suit. Net result: lower wages for autoworkers at the big Three and the transplants paying for higher salaries to corporate executives and greater dividends to stockholders, with absolutely no change in relative competitiveness and job security.
This dawning recognition has led to an impressive opposition emerging in the U.S. that is determined to cast out this offensive system in its own bargaining in 2011. In this context, what happens this coming fall in Canada is crucial. A Canadian surrender would weaken that movement, but if the Canadians do challenge it this has the potential to inspire and deepen the resistance in the U.S. thereby ease longer-term pressure on the Canadians.
There are those in the labour movement (and perhaps some within the CAW) who treat Hargrove’s promise to take on such a fight with great skepticism. They raise the concessions earlier made in Oshawa, Bramalea and elsewhere, and note that Hargrove was hardly worried about the inequalities facing workers when he came out in support of politicians who bore a large responsibility for the policies that aggravated those inequalities. They point to the Magna agreement which, in surrendering the right to strike and the right of workers to democratically determine their own in-plant structures, essentially created a two-tier system within the CAW. And some question whether, if the CAW does reject the two-tier system, it will only do so by letting the companies achieve the same results in other forms (e.g. though outsourcing) or at the expense of concessions elsewhere (giving up time off the job).
Yet, Hargrove’s strong statements against the American agreement are surely welcome. Hargrove has stuck his neck out and if the CAW in fact takes on this fight it, the rest of the labour movement must be there in support – for reasons of solidarity, self-interest and the future of its own shaky status.
Sam Gindin teaches political economy at York University.

The CAW and Magna: Disorganizing the Working CLass

I am really surprised there is not more reaction to Hargrove's sellout of one of the basic principles of unions, the right to strike. This article by Sam Gindin gives a good analysis of the situation. Hargrove has not only been narrowly focused on the interests of particular members of the working class--and not very effectively protecting them but he obviously will give up almost everything to expand his union base. Recently he has complained about environmental policies as destroying the auto industry, rather than pressing the Big THree to change their ways. The NDP is probably glad that he seems to be supporting Liberals now.


Gindin used to be Hargrove's economic advisor.]



The B u l l e t
Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 65
October 19, 2007
The CAW and Magna:
Disorganizing the Working Class

Sam Gindin

In the neoconservative Canada of the late 1990s, the labour movement
needs to become more militant, less accommodating to the demands of
corporations and governments. If this sounds like a return to the
days of the 1930s or 1950s, so be it. It's either that or watch
decades of hard-won gains disappear. This resistance will mean
arrests, charges, maybe even jail terms for some of our leaders and
members. But if we are to check this massive wave of unfairness, we
simply have no alternative. — Buzz Hargrove, Labour of Love (1998),
pp. 88-9.

Through the 1980s and 1990s, as the attacks on past working class
gains intensified, the Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW) was widely
recognized – not just in North America but abroad – as standing at

the forefront of working class resistance. With the Magna-CAW
Agreement signed on October 15, 2007, the CAW now seems at the
forefront of working class desperation and defeat.

This startling agreement raises three sets of questions.

What is in it for Magna?
What did the CAW get out of this (other than dues)?
What are the implications for the labour movement as a whole?
Before getting to these questions, it is useful to return to the
foundations of independent unionism (still taught in CAW
educationals) and consider how they relate to the 'Magna Model' the
CAW has turned to.

What are unions as independent organizations?

The contradiction that has always faced working people is that they
are dependent on their employers for work, yet need to create a
degree of independence so they can address their own, distinct needs.

The foundation for that independence was a democratic organization of
workers – a 'union.' It resonated with workers because it was truly
'theirs'; it was a space within which the employer had no say. In
practice the innovation of shop stewards, workers elected from
various sections of the workplace, was crucial. The stewards
represented workers in their daily struggles with management and also
acted as mentors and leaders in the development of a culture of
solidarity. Against the god of profits and the devil of
competitiveness, workers and their unions developed their own
understanding of the world and formulated distinct working class
values.

But all this would come to naught if workers didn't also have an
independent basis of power to offset, if not match the power of the
employer. That power rested on the right to withdraw their labour – a

basic democratic right that was only reluctantly recognized, and even
then limited, by governments and employers. Pierre Trudeau summarized
this well in his early years, before he entered formal politics:

'In the present state of society, in fact, it is the possibility of
the strike which enables workers to negotiate with their employers on
terms of approximate equality..... [Without it] the trade union
movement becomes nothing more than one institution among many in the
service of capitalism: a convenient organization for disciplining the
workers, occupying their leisure time, and ensuring their
profitability for business'. – The Asbestos Strike (1956).

What's in it for Magna?

Magna has been able to limit the CAW to only three of its 45 units
and faces no major organizing drives today. Why then has it suddenly
opened the door to the CAW (even if it's on Magna's own terms)?
Bringing the union in, even on the company's terms, does mean new
administrative headaches (at a minimum, more meetings and
consultations take time) and possible hazards for Magna (things are
stable now; why risk something blowing up in your face). Other
companies, even if they could get the CAW deal, would likely reject
it unless the point was to co-opt an actual organizing drive. In
fact, its no secret that even most of Magna's top management is not
all that enamoured with this new step.

The new relationship to the CAW starts and ends with Frank Stronach.
Frank Stronach, Magna's founder and current top officer, has always
had a paternalistic vision of workplace relations. Fairness is good
as long as he gets to define it. Unions are okay if they are certain
kinds of unions. The CAW, which left the American international union
in the mid-1980s over how close its leadership had gotten to the
companies and how far they had gotten from the membership, was
certainly not a potential partner for Stronach. Nor was the Buzz
Hargrove of the years following that separation, Stronach's ideal
labour leader. But over the past few years Stronach had clearly
decided that the new CAW – made desperate by a loss of jobs and with

a president vain enough to declare victory no matter the scale of the
concessions – does get his stamp of approval. And so Stronach moved
ahead to, as he says, 'transform North American labour relations.'

In the Magna model, these foundations for independent unionism are,
to all intents and purposes erased. It is true and important that the
company has agreed to open the door to the union contacting its
workers. But that comes at the cost of the kind of union the workers
can then have.

The right to strike is fully erased; it is gone forever. As the CAW
press kit puts it: 'There will be no strikes or lockouts under this
system' (emphasis added). When the agreement ends, if the members
reject the new offer, it goes to arbitration. Period. (The kit goes
on to suggest that the strike weapon is, in any case, not really that
important.)

Shop stewards do not exist. The CAW has accepted this. Stewards are
replaced by a 'fairness committee' staffed by equal numbers of labour
and management reps (who are part of the 'concern resolution
process'). The key union rep under this structure is the 'Employee
Advocate', a carryover from Magna's traditional practice who seems to
be the formal equivalent of a plant chairperson. According to the
Toronto Star (October 16, 2007), the Employee Advocate is not elected
from the membership at large but screened by a committee which
included both labour representatives and management(!). To date it is
not public information how the final selection is made. This system
is reminiscent in some ways to the 'controlled democracy' in
communist Europe a while back, where managers – in that case as union

members – prepared lists from which the leaders could be chosen.

The Magna units will be part of one Canada-wide – effectively
Ontario-
wide – amalgamated local. (This in itself may tend to isolate each
unit form interaction with other units in the community). The above
Employee Advocates will make up the executive of that local and
constitute, along with representatives from the national union, the
bargaining committee. The local officers – for example, the President

and Secretary-Treasurer – will be chosen by this executive rather
than, as in current CAW practice, via a vote of the membership.

As for ideology, the CAW president has proudly declared his
enthusiasm for a 'non-adversarial' relationship, repeating (without
embarrassment) all the mushy clichés about 'teamwork' and 'being in
this together' that he not so long ago scorned for their rank
hypocrisy. This, it is important to emphasize, is not just about
rhetoric. The attitude to labour-management relations is one of the
criteria that will be used in evaluating acceptability for being the
Employee Advocate. Trouble-makers – those who challenge the system,
'stir up trouble' and have always been the backbone of independent
unionism – need not apply.

Magna workers, it is clear, need a union. There are, for example,
questions of internal wage parity, equity across jobs, and contract
workers. And Magna has often undercut other Canadian producers in
overall wages, benefits and working conditions. Magna argues that it
sets its wages at the average manufacturing wage for the particular
work, that its raises follow that average, and that it has no
intention of changing this practice. Given that Magna the largest
employer in the industry – larger even then General Motors – and in

the face of its' profitability and provision of outrageous
compensation to its executives (Stronach's earnings over the past
three years have totalled over $100 million), it would seem that the
union is positioned to demand that Magna should actually lead in
setting higher standards.

But given the constraints on the union of the Magna model, above all
with the possibility of a strike not on the table, it's questionable
how much collective bargaining will accomplish. As well, the union
has already agreed to set aside its own practice of establishing
defined benefit pension plans at major employers and accept Magna's
alternative of a savings and profit-sharing plan. As for workplace
itself, Magna is steadfast on its absolute control in running the
plant; with the union agreeing to ensure the company's
competitiveness, it is not simply credible to suggest that the union
will introduce any significant challenge to the company on working
conditions.

Why did the CAW do this?

The union might be defended on two grounds. The first is that the
union is engaging in a scam: once it has a foothold it will revert to
traditional unionism. But suggestions that this is the hidden agenda
do not stand up. In the 1980s, when the CAW was at its peak in terms
of confidence, it might have been argued that such an experiment
would draw Magna workers into the CAW orbit. Today, when the CAW has
itself been drifting more and more towards corporatist partnerships
with the Detroit Big Three, other CA acceptance of responsibility for
managing their domestic capitalist orders in a manner that
contributed to the America-led management of the international
capitalist order W may be drawn into the orbit of the type of trade
unionism this deal with Frank Stronach represents.

In any case, it is difficult enough to build a union presence in the
best of circumstances; it is virtually impossible when, as in the
Magna model, the ideological framework and internal structures all
work against you. As well, the path to the full unionization agreed
to here is spread over a 9-10 year period in which the CAW gets
access to about five plants yearly. This implies a self-disciplining
incentive: if the union wants all the plants, it will have to behave
– and get the members to behave in the initial plants where the union

is recognized – in a way that doesn't disrupt the agreement before
all the units are in the CAW. And by the time all the plants are in
the union, a decade or so from now at best, a culture will have been
established that will not be easily changed.

In fact, the more likely scenario for the development of a 'real'
union might come from the outside. Frustrated with a union that draws
dues but acts like the industrial relations arm of the company,
workers might rebel and look to another union to come in, this time
to join workers ready to challenge the status quo. It should however
be noted that this leads to murky legal territory. Since the units
will be under one collective agreement, the Labour Board might rule
that they must all stay or go together and can't be picked off one at
a time – making a change in unions difficult if not impossible (as
was seen in the failed attempt at organizing the banks in the 1980s).

A more traditional defence of this new CAW policy would be that the
unionization of Magna is critical to the rest of the parts industry
and the auto industry more generally, but the only way to accomplish
this is by way of a tactical retreat from principle. The problem
addressed in this argument is serious. There is no question that
unionization in today's climate of overwhelming restructuring is
extremely difficult and this is all the truer at Magna where keeping
unions out has been one of its major investments.

The main point of course is that raised earlier: it doesn't make much
sense to kill the patient to cure the disease; the union is better
off without Magna than with getting Magna but giving up what the
union stands for. But that's not all. A number of other hard
questions are relevant here.

Before the Harris revolution and even under Conservative
administrations, Ontario had labour laws and regulations which,
though the union movement never thought they went far enough, allowed
for a meaningful right to organize. With the victory of McGuinty,
there was an opportunity to reverse what Harris imposed. Why did the
CAW not join the labour movement to mount and sustain through the
election the kind of campaign that might have given us a better
alternative than 'collective begging'? Why, instead, did the
President of the CAW endorse the Liberals without any commitment on
such changes (and do so, incidentally, without a mandate from his
members)?
The CAW has in the past insisted that part of its relationship to the
Big Three include a corporate rule of conduct that calls on parts
suppliers to show 'neutrality' in workers' decisions on whether or
not to join a union. (This was, in fact, an element in the CAW's
victory at Magna's Integram unit in Windsor.) Why is this now not
getting the same or more emphasis?

Any serious campaign to bring Magna into the fold would indeed cost a
small fortune. The CAW is financially strong and the issue is a
matter of priorities. The CAW has, for example, found the resources
to provide $5 million in financial support for what some consider a
shady break-away local of the Labourer's International when this
could have gone into an organizing drive. More important, can the CAW
continue to realistically rely on its full-time staff to organize
modestly-paid workers? Would it not be more sensible (and less of a
strain on resources) to combine experienced full-time staff with
dozens of young, energetic workers – paid at their existing wage rate

and drawn from CAW workplaces across the country – to organize within

their communities?

It has to be recognized that unionization is not just about what the
organizing department does; it's also about the drive and vision
within the union as a whole. How far can unions go in attracting new
members if they demand dues but sound like management? If there is no
larger vision of building the working class through unionization,
what reason is there to expect members and staff to make the material
commitments and sacrifices to do what is necessary?

In the face of the increased corporate aggressiveness, competition
between unions over whose institution will expand is can be
especially destructive. Where the goal is a major organizing
breakthrough, how can some degree of cooperation among unions be
established? Can this happen without unions coming to identify the
main goal as being to build the working class as a whole?
What are the larger implications for the CAW as a whole
and for other unions?

The importance of the unionization of Magna was always seen in the
CAW as of value in itself but also as being about the protection of
standards in the rest of the auto parts sector. But now it is almost
inevitable that in any new bargaining, companies will demand the same
structures as Magna. If not a permanent no-strike ban, then at least
six-year Agreements during which strikes are banned. If getting rid
of stewards is not on, maybe having fewer stewards will be accepted.

This may have implications outside the parts sector. In response to a
question at the press conference announcing the deal, Hargrove
bizarrely commented (Globe and Mail, October 15, 2007) that he would
'make a similar arrangement available to General Motors or other auto
makers that wanted to build a new greenfield plant in
Canada' (meaning an entirely new plant, not an addition). GM workers,
fully aware that a more modern plant with radically lower standards
will over time erode their existing standards if not their jobs,
might be surprised to hear this.

The CAW's abandonment of the right to strike at Magna has enormous
implications in terms of the labour movement's struggles (including
in the CAW) to win this democratic right. And it mindlessly
undermines those workers who never had this right or have seen it
eroded as governments expanded the scope of 'essential services', or
introduced back to work legislation. If it is the case that, as the
CAW press kit claims, 30,000 CAW members don't have the right to
strike, is this not of concern to the union? (Ironically, the first
section on the CAW web page has a runner giving the latest 'News
Flash'; included here is the formation of a cross union alliance,
including the CAW, to resist the Nova Scotia government's threat to
bring in legislation curtailing the right to strike for health care
workers).

Hargrove has already declared that if other companies offer something
similar to the Magna model, the union will jump at the chance
('Invite us in', Hargrove says, Toronto Star, October 16, 2007). But
other union leaders, some who were not as outspoken as Hargrove in
the confrontation with the Rae government's imposition of conditions
on workers, have reacted negatively. Wayne Samuelson, president of
the Ontario Federation of Labour, warned of the precedent being set.
And Wayne Fraser, Ontario-Atlantic director of the United
Steelworkers rightfully asked: 'What's to stop other employers,
especially Magna competitors, from rightfully asking the CAW for the
same no-strike right?' (Toronto Star, October 16, 2007).

Where in all this are the militants of the CAW – the activists, staff

and local and national leaders who not long ago so clearly understood
that they couldn't 'watch decades of hard-won gains disappear'? Where
is their outrage? •

Sam Gindin teaches political economy at York University

CAW shelves right to strike

The yellow dog union is not innovative. The company union had been around for ages until outlawed but up until now no legitimate union leader would recognise such unions. This is the great new change a legal company union recognised by legitimate union leaders. Just as Dion will swallow his pride and support Harper's throne speech, so Hargrove will swallow his traditional support for the right to strike and shake hands with Frank Stronach in a deal to form company unions with no right to strike. The great benefit for Hargrove is that this company union will be paying dues to the CAW and so his salary is guaranteed.



CAW shelves right to strike
TheStar.com - Business - CAW shelves right to strike

Magna and auto workers aim to build a new management-union relationship

October 16, 2007
Tony Van Alphen
Business Reporter

Employees at Magna International who vote to join the Canadian Auto Workers won't have the right to strike under a historic labour relations deal.

In a dramatic change regarding fundamental labour rights, the CAW confirmed yesterday it has agreed to shelve the key strike provision in efforts to build a new management-union relationship at Magna, the country's biggest auto parts maker.

Under the agreement, about 18,000 workers at 45 Magna plants, predominantly in southern Ontario, will have the opportunity at each operation to decide on union representation by voting in favour or against a tentative three-year contract.

CAW president Buzz Hargrove and Magna chair Frank Stronach signed their "framework of fairness" agreement that sets out a process for major changes in traditional union-management relations on the shop floor, including resolution of disputes.

"It's an innovative approach and an opportunity for us, using this model, to try to show the country and the world that you can deal in labour management relations in a different manner, where you don't start out with a fight over whether or not the workers are entitled to have a union," CAW president Buzz Hargrove said at the company's headquarters in Aurora.

Stronach, who founded Magna five decades ago, initiated the idea more than two years ago in an effort to improve the competitive position of the company and the auto industry, which is losing business and jobs to offshore competition.

He told reporters that companies and unions have to build trust so everyone can prosper.



"We have yet a ways to go to really get the respect of the employees," Stronach acknowledged. "You know we're not afraid of labour organizations. I have disagreed with some of the philosophies of the union. But at the same time we all have to change. Business has to change. Unions have to change."

The CAW said the deal gives the union a major opportunity to gain members in the struggling auto sector where its clout has dropped during the past two decades. Despite organizing attempts, the union represents only about 1,000 workers at three Magna plants.

The agreement contemplates an overhaul of traditional bargaining processes, grievance procedures and representation on the shop floor.

If workers vote in favour of the CAW and the contract at their plant, any subsequent collective bargaining disputes would be resolved through binding arbitration rather than a walkout by the union or a lockout by the company.

The fundamental right to withdraw labour is a provision that unions have protected vigorously for decades as its only ultimate power against management.

Don Walker, Magna's co-chief executive officer, stressed the agreement won't drive up company costs. Without the no-strike provision, Magna wouldn't win as much business, he said. "This is a core fundamental issue."

But the CAW's decision to give up the right to strike triggered criticism from other labour leaders.

"It's a pretty drastic measure and ultimately is not good for workers because they no longer have the right to withdraw their labour," said Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

"It's pretty fundamental to the labour movement and collective bargaining. This is not good, especially if it's exchanged for voluntary recognition of the union. It certainly sets a precedent that working people need to be concerned about."

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

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

If workers support a first contract, they would need to pay union dues of two hours and 20 minutes of pay each month. For example, a worker earning $14 an hour would pay about $32 a month.

Hargrove said he's received broad support for the agreement from CAW leaders, including officials in the auto-parts sector. "I wouldn't go down this road if it was going to divide the union in any shape or form," he said in an interview.

Under the deal, a joint "employee relations review committee" of three Magna representatives and three top CAW officials will discuss overall goals and projects and negotiate a national agreement covering wages, shift premiums, benefits and retirement programs. There would be some alterations to the deal reflecting local conditions.

Magna currently pays workers the average of the industry and other plants in the community. It also has a profit-sharing program.

In the new agreement, each plant will have an "employee advocate" to raise concerns. The company and union will screen candidates; workers will ratify the selection.

Critics question whether workers will have real power to elect the advocate and union representatives on the main review committee that negotiates contracts.

The two sides have also agreed to change the traditional grievance procedure with a "concern resolution process" that is more efficient, less costly and fairer. It involves an "open door" policy to deal with complaints and issues with superiors and safety officials, use of the Magna central "hotline" and review by the employee relations committee and an arbitrator if necessary.

Buzz Hargrove on the High Loonie

I lifted this from the Progressive Economics Site. No doubt it has appeared elsewhere.
As a union leader in the manufacturing sector it is not surprising Hargrove is negative re the rising Canadian dollar. Although Hargrove is no doubt correct in his analysis as far as he goes there are other factors he ignores. It is the US dollar that is sinking perhaps even more than the Canadian dollar rising. That sinking is caused by several factors but among them the credit crunch and doubts about the US economy as well as the balance of payments problems.


A Black Day in Canada’s Economic History
By Buzz Hargrove
Some were popping champagne corks yesterday over the loonie’s attainment of full U.S.-dollar parity. But their celebration was misguided.
Yesterday was a black day in Canada’s economic history. Our dollar’s rise to parity is a symbolic milestone of the triumph of paper mania over economic reality. Far from celebrating, we should be thinking about new ways to stop it, and reverse it.
The loonie’s flight has been driven by a distorted, unbalanced boom in oil exports, and a corresponding surge of foreign takeovers of Canadian resource companies. The appreciation benefits just a small, specialized minority of Canadians: retailers, some investors, and snowbirds. For most of us, the high-flying dollar does much more harm than good. Our wealth comes from what we produce, not from paper. And the dollar’s rise badly undermines what we do.
Yesterday’s events, capping a five-year rise that is one of the most dramatic in global history, should give us pause to reconsider the causes and consequences of these incredible changes.
Some argue the appreciation reflects global market forces. This implies it’s a natural, efficient, and likely inevitable result.
But in fact this record-breaking run-up reflects a series of powerful, wasteful distortions – not efficient market pressures. Our currency is now at least 25 percent higher than any estimate of its real value (based on purchasing power parity, unit labour cost competitiveness, or any other pragmatic measure). That’s clearly a distortion.
It’s been pushed up by incoming flows of hot money, attracted by Canada’s renewed status as resource supplier (especially oil). That in turn reflects world oil prices driven skyward by cartel power, geopolitical instability, and monopoly pricing. More distortions.
Meanwhile, Canadian resource profits are astronomical largely because Canadians receive scandalously low royalties for non-renewable resources that they themselves own. Oil sands royalties (as low as 1 percent) were set when oil cost $20 per barrel, and the technology was unproven. Today oil is $80 per barrel, and the technology is utterly predictable. In that context, a 1 percent royalty is a blatant, distorting subsidy.
That lucre has sparked an unfettered, chaotic boom in northern Alberta – another distortion. Wages and prices rise, pushing up interest rates and reinforcing the dollar’s ascent. The takeover of Canadian resource companies is another distortion: deal-makers scramble to grab virtually any producer with a pulse, at unparalleled premiums, lest they be left behind when the M&A party ends. The fact that
Ottawa demands next-to-nothing of these takeovers in terms of protecting the Canadian public interest, simply throws gasoline on the fire.
The end result of this chain of distortions is that hard-working, productive Canadian manufacturing workers are losing their jobs by the thousand, every day. People who work more diligently and productively than ever before, are told they can no longer compete – all because of a greed-fueled orgy on currency and stock markets that is unsustainable, wasteful, and destructive.
This isn’t inevitable. Policy-makers could immediately release much of the hot air out from the loonie’s bubble. The Bank of Canada could cut interest rates; more importantly, it could announce that future monetary policy will be guided (like the U.S. Fed’s) by a broader view of Canada’s well-being, not solely inflation. The Alberta and federal governments could impose new royalties and taxes (within their respective jurisdictions) to ensure we all get more value from our own resources. Oil sands development could be managed at a more sensible, efficient pace. And Ottawa could turn down foreign takeovers that do not demonstrate significant net benefits to the public interest.
Those measures alone would knock the loonie back substantially, the day they were announced. More importantly, they would re-equip Canada to retake some agency in our own economic development. Instead of seeing our economic destiny determined by global cartels and hyperactive financial traders, we would develop our own resources – and the industries which add value to those resources – in line with our own preferences and interests.
The dollar’s uncontrolled rise is wreaking havoc over vast tracts of Canada’s economic landscape. Policy-makers who claim they can’t do anything about it, are simply passing the buck. It’s time for them to do the jobs they’re paid to do.

Hargrove Fetes Ontario Liberal Premier

Hargrove obviously has no real commitment to the NDP. He sees it only as a vehicle to promote his specific union issues. Given the Liberal record as portrayed in the article and given the way in which he has caved in to corporate demands he is feted by the Liberals and even corporate leaders. He is the ideal leader for the times. He is the TINA (there is no alternative) position union leader of the year!

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Canadian Auto Workers bureaucrats fete Ontario’s Liberal Premier
By Carl Bronski
1 May 2007


In yet another example of the inexorable shift to the right of the Canadian Auto Workers union bureaucracy, CAW President Buzz Hargrove ushered Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty onto the podium of a CAW National Council meeting in Port Elgin, Ontario, April 13.

“I believe this (Liberal provincial) government has done an incredible job for people,” gushed Hargrove. McGuinty’s appearance marked the first time in the CAW’s history that an Ontario premier had been invited to address the CAW leadership. Hargrove went on to tell the 800 delegates assembled at the union’s Lake Huron retreat that he was “absolutely thrilled” to introduce McGuinty, whom he characterized as a “champion” of the automobile industry.

Ontario’s Liberal premier returned the compliments. “The CAW,” he affirmed, “has always been a force for good across Canada and we are rolling in the same direction.”

Hargrove’s embrace of McGuinty is the CAW bureaucracy’s response to an unprecedented crisis in the auto industry that threatens the jobs, wages and pensions of tens of thousands of current and former auto workers. It is the political corollary to the union’s imposition of a new round of concessions at various Big Three plants and its agitation for protectionist measures to defend “Canadian jobs” at the expense of workers in other countries.

The feting of McGuinty is the latest in a series of steps that the leadership of the CAW, the country’s largest industrial union, has taken to forge closer ties with the Ontario Liberals and their sister party and the Canadian bourgeoisie’s traditional national party of government, the federal Liberals.

In the 1999 Ontario election, Hargrove and the CAW called for a “strategic vote” for the Ontario Liberals in select ridings, in the name of defeating the provincial Tory government of Mike Harris, a position effectively endorsed by the leader of Ontario’s social democratic party, the New Democratic Party or NDP. Continuing the same tack, Hargrove declared in 2003 during the election campaign that ultimately brought McGuinty and his Liberals to power, “People know how to bring about a change in government and you don’t do that by voting for someone who doesn’t have a prayer of winning. We are looking at information riding by riding, to see where there are opportunities to knock off a Tory.”

With Hargrove’s full support the NDP sustained a federal Liberal government headed by Paul Martin, who previously had imposed the greatest social spending and tax cuts in Canadian history, in office for six months in 2005. But Hargrove ran afoul of the NDP leadership when he publicly stumped for Paul Martin and Belinda Stronach, daughter of the boss and principal owner of Magna International, and had his union explicitly call for the reelection of a minority Liberal government in the January 2006 federal election.

Hargrove responded to a subsequent NDP decision to expel him for having endorsed a rival political party by successfully pressing for the CAW and its locals to disaffiliate from the NDP. This ruptured a decades-long relationship between the CAW and Canada’s social democrats. The latter, it should be added, were not too upset to see the severing of the NDP-CAW tie, since they, in response to pressure from big business and the corporate media, have been anxious to refute allegations that they are organizationally and financially dependent on the unions.

In keeping with the CAW’s orientation to the Liberals, last month’s CAW Council meeting endorsed “strategic voting”—that is supporting the election of Liberal governments—in both this October’s Ontario election and the next federal election, so as to prevent Conservative victories. “We need strategic voting to ensure we don’t have a majority Conservative government,” affirmed Hargrove.

But the CAW, or at least its president, does not rule out supporting select Conservatives. After McGuinty’s unprecedented appearance before the CAW leadership, Hargrove told the press that he fully expects to have union members working for all three national parties, including the Conservatives, but only “a small amount for the Tories.”


The Ontario Liberal’s right-wing record

While Hargrove and the CAW bureaucrats laud the McGuinty Liberals, under Liberal rule workers in Canada’s most populous province have continued to see their living standards eroded, social services slashed, and jobs lost.

On coming to power in 2003 McGuinty announced, in the tried and true manner of incoming governments, that because the deficit was larger than the ruling Tories had admitted, Liberal election promises were no longer applicable.

Refusing to roll back the all-out legislative assault on working people undertaken by the previous Conservative governments of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, McGuinty upped the ante even further by imposing a $900 per person healthcare “premium” that has a disproportionate impact on working people and the poor.

Making further inroads into the province’s public healthcare system, McGuinty removed restrictions on private healthcare facilities and ended provincial funding for eye exams, physiotherapy and chiropractic services. His government also reneged on other election promises, removing the cap on hydro electricity rates and refusing to end the Tories vicious clawback of Child Benefit Supplements to the poor that takes $2,700 per year out of the wallets of single mothers on welfare.

A social advocacy group recently issued a report harshly criticizing the McGuinty Liberals for failing to address the plight of the poor in Ontario. According to the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition (ISARC) the poor in the province are worse off now than they were when the Liberals took office. And while the government has made very public certain changes it has introduced, such as a meager raise in the minimum wage to $8 an hour and a 5 percent increase in welfare rates, the report points out that these measures hardly make up for the erosion in their real value due to rate freezes of a decade or longer. The report also cites the fact that construction has begun on only 6,724 of a promised 20,000 affordable housing units.

Of course none of this is news to Hargrove and the CAW leadership. Why then is Hargrove so enamored of the McGuinty Liberal government? Because it has faithfully upheld the interests of the Big Three, funneling hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies into the coffers of Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler, opposing the federal Conservative government’s plans to reach a free-trade pact with South Korea, and lobbying for new regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions to be tailored for the auto industry.


The CAW and the assault on jobs and wages

No less damning is the CAW bureaucracy’s response to the massive restructuring now taking place in the North American auto industry.

In March Hargrove and the CAW leadership exhorted workers at the DaimlerChrysler assembly plant in Brampton, just northwest of Toronto, to agree to a significant package of concessions that they had strongly voted down in a February plant-wide vote. Riding roughshod over its own constitution that restricts re-votes on matters duly settled, Hargrove and his assistant Bob Chernecki made it clear to the membership that they must vote to accept $5,000 in annual givebacks through the elimination of shift premiums, the intensification of work practices, and the contracting out of union janitorial jobs or accept the consequences. Should they reject the concessions, Chrysler would move auto production out of Brampton without opposition from the union bureaucracy. “It’s just a matter of smart bargaining,” explained Chernecki.

After a heated meeting in which denunciations of the leadership were hurled from the floor, the autoworkers, bitterly noting their total abandonment, ratified the concessions. “A lot of us voted ‘no’ to speak out against the unfolding mistrust with our union,” said Dan Ciurlia, a 27-year plant veteran. “We understand the big threat of globalism. We understand that our jobs can go away. People are scared. But we are being told to make decisions with really no information and very quickly. The workers want to know if the union leadership is truly going to stand up for us.”

A grateful DaimlerChrysler summed up the role played by the union in forcing through the concessions package. “We could not have moved forward without the CAW,” said company spokesperson Dave Elshoff.

When Chrysler announced cuts of over 2,000 jobs in Windsor, Brampton and West Toronto earlier this year Hargrove characterized the attack on his membership as “a real disaster,” but refused to fight the cuts, advising those members on the chopping block to “take whatever package they could get.” And last fall when Ford announced a 21 percent production cut and plans to shut nine plants in North America over the next two years, including an engine factory in Windsor, Ontario, the CAW president called it a “mixed result,” since the job cuts fell disproportionately on US workers.

The CAW leadership, with the support of various middle class radical groups, presented the breakaway from the UAW in 1985-86 as a rebellion against the right-wing leadership of the International. In reality it was a bureaucratic manoeuvre aimed at derailing an incipient rank-and-file challenge to wage cuts and plant closures and at facilitating closer collaboration between the union bureaucracy and auto bosses on both sides of the border.

For years, the CAW bureaucracy has sought to impress upon the auto bosses the importance of the so-called “Canadian advantage”—i.e., the fact that their labor costs are significantly lower at their Canadian than at their US operations, due to the differential in the value of the Canadian and US dollars and Canada’s state-funded public health insurance scheme, Medicare— “the gift that keeps on giving,” according to one Wall Street financial analyst.

But under pressure to take action to prevent major job losses and fearing the erosion of their dues bases, the CAW bureaucrats are becoming ever more blatant in their appeals to the Big Three to recognize that they are the provisioners of cheap labor.

During the 2002 round of collective bargaining, Hargrove lobbied the Wall Street and Bay Street financial houses to pressure the automakers to concentrate their job cuts in the US. During a conference call with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Hargrove opined: “The real challenge for all of us if we want to make money is to try to demand that the companies pay more attention to those countries or those communities where the obvious quality, productivity, cost and profitability numbers are there.”

The response of the CAW bureaucracy to the current financial crisis of the Big Three has been to deepen its longstanding corporatist relationship with the auto bosses and the big business Liberals. In the name of a “national auto strategy,” the CAW lobbies the federal and Ontario governments to make further tax concessions and outright grants to the Big Three to assist them in competing against Toyota, Honda and other foreign-based automakers. Meanwhile it works to pit North American workers against each other in a fratricidal struggle over jobs, actively campaigning for the Big Three to close US and Mexican facilities in preference to those in Canada, while urging Ottawa to adopt aggressive trade war measures against Asian automakers.

Hargrove has already indicated that in the scramble among billionaire investors to seize control of DaimlerChrysler, so as to squeeze out new profits through massive jobs and wage and benefit cuts, he is considering throwing the CAW’s support behind a bid being prepared by the Canadian Magna boss Frank Stronach, who for years the CAW reviled for his aggressive antiunion tactics.

The most far-reaching conclusions must be drawn from the dead end into which workers have been driven by the CAW labor bureaucracy. The defense of jobs, working conditions and living standards can be taken forward only through the building of an independent political movement of the working class based on the struggle to unite workers internationally and reorganize economic life along democratic and egalitarian—that is, socialist—principles.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved

Buzz Hargrove on Kyoto

Hargrove is reliable in fighting for his constituency but otherwise he is an opportunist at times. Not surprisingly he wants to get old cars off the road. This will he no doubt hopes create more new car sales and work for his union workers. When it comes to gas guzzlers he thinks it is wrong to promote 4 cylinder imports over the less efficient union made vehicles! Aren't the foreign assembly plants in Canada unionised?


Buzz on Kyoto
Posted by Andrew Jackson under labour market , climate change

From today’s FP - I’ve dropped the misleading headline - this is a much more reasoned piece than some recently and widely circulated short quotes from Buzz on the implications of Kyoto for workers.


Friday, April 20, 2007



As the president of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, I often find myself taking controversial positions, usually with a strong opinion on one side of the debate. But on the issue of the environment I find myself actually taking a position in the middle. I’m not used to that.

On the one hand, I have no time for those who deny the science of climate change and who steadfastly resist reductions in greenhouse gases or try to hide them with intensity targets. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that Stephen Harper and his Tory colleagues were climate-change deniers.

But I also oppose those who insist that a full-steam-ahead, immediate, damn-the-consequences approach is the only answer. Instead I find myself in agreement with those environmentalists who propose the twin goals of improving the environment as well as strengthening our economy.

The CAW continues to support the objectives of the Kyoto protocol and the principle of international obligations. While it is impossible to achieve Kyoto targets in the time frames spelled out in Kyoto, Canada needs to work vigorously towards them and be part of a broader community of nations in our efforts to halt and reverse the degradation of our environment. All of which means we need clear targets, achievable timelines, the commitment and the resources to turn these goals into a workable plan.

I’m in a similar position when it comes to cars and the environment. I reject the proposition that reducing our environmental footprint means we must drive small vehicles or get rid of cars altogether. I think that Canadians are eminently practical - the top three selling vehicles in the country are a subcompact, a minivan and a pickup truck. These vehicles speak to the demands of life in Canada. Whether driving a pickup truck or a subcompact, consumers need to know that their choice of vehicles is meeting targets for fuel efficiency improvements.

It doesn’t make any sense that the federal government, in its recent budget, would announce higher incentives for imported 4-cylinder vehicles than for leading-edge, Canadian built products. For the Conservative government to introduce an incentive program that rewards imports while punishing Canadian producers with higher taxes on Canadians products is unconscionable. The government’s incentive program will encourage consumers to buy imports from Asia at the expense of our manufacturers and Canadian jobs.

I am overwhelmingly concerned about the manufacturing job crisis in Canada. This country has lost more than 250,000 manufacturing jobs in less than five years. It is a huge mistake to accelerate the problem through government policies.

The CAW understands the necessity of maintaining a clean environment as one of the most important legacies we can leave future generations. Since the formation of our union in 1985, our constitution has mandated all CAW local unions to have active environment committees.

Over the last few years the CAW has taken an active role in schools and communities throughout Canada, spending over $3-million educating students on the importance of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Centered around Earth Day, each year CAW volunteers reach out to Canadian schools to educate youth on environmental

issues. In 2006 alone, the CAW brought this message to over 82,000 students.

Our union has already adopted a green car strategy and later adopted an Extended Producer Responsibility policy that would ensure all manufacturers must dismantle older vehicles and recycle the materials.

Our union recognizes that any solution will lead to some of our members losing their jobs. What Canada needs is a just transition period that recognizes this. We need government programs to support workers who lose their jobs and a serious retraining commitment that will allow industry to make responsible adjustments to ensure workers and their families don’t pay the price of cleaning up the environment.

Clearly, reducing greenhouse gases means reducing the amount of fossil fuel we consume. In addition to greater fuel efficiency and new technologies, we need a transportation strategy that will increase the use of renewable fuels and reduce the use of vehicles overall. This requires investments in clean and alternative fuels, mass transit, rail, as well as efforts to reduce gridlock.

The CAW supports mandatory fuel efficiency standards in the vehicle industry and believes that setting a clear target across all classes of vehicles, phased in by 2014, is achievable. These targets need to be constructed in a manner that drives improvements while at the same time strengthening, rather than undermining, Canada’s auto industry. There are real challenges to meeting those twin goals, but we can achieve both.

In addition, we need programs that support innovations in developing lighter materials, alternative fuels, green engine technologies, and fuel-efficient components. The federal government should introduce a Green Vehicle Transition (GVT) fee on each manufacturer that sells into our market, based on each company’s total Canadian sales. Companies would earn back the fees through Canadian investments in ‘green’ technologies and green production.

We need to look for opportunities to boost our economy and at the same time protect the environment.

A Ford engine plant in Windsor is closing– why wouldn’t government and industry join together to develop a new facility that produces a ‘green engine’ to replace those jobs? Through projects like these we can make our nation a leader in automotive and other green technologies. We need to find ways to protect the environment through ecologically-sound technology that create jobs.

The federal government has already recognized that incentives are needed to encourage homeowners to retrofit their homes. Similarly, we need real incentives to get older vehicles off the road. There are over 1? million vehicles that are over 20 years old on Canada’s streets and highways. Getting them off our roads will do more to solve GHG problems than any other proposal.

If the political parties are genuinely concerned with climate change, they should quit playing politics and work together to ensure that proper strategies and incentives are in place that will boost our economy and at the same time protect our manufacturing jobs. The future for young Canadians could flourish with a sustainable environment, a robust economy and a thriving manufacturing sector. A balanced approach is needed. - Buzz Hargrove is president of the Canadian Auto Workers.