|
Widely
seen as a shameless dues-grab, the deal between the Canadian Auto Workers’
Union and the Canada-based auto parts giant Magna International to
‘unionize’ the employees minus the right to strike, and sans shop floor
elections, has rocked the labour movement. It is a tragic sign of where the
CAW is going, with profound implications for the entire workers’
movement.
In
order to bring, gradually, 18,000 Magna workers at 45 plants into the union,
CAW President Buzz Hargrove has entered into a “Framework of Fairness”
pact with billionaire boss Frank Stronach. It consists of the following
elements:
•
The right to strike is gone forever. There will be no strikes and no
lockouts. Once the initial “Framework” deal elapses, if the members
reject a final offer, it goes to arbitration for settlement.
•
Shop stewards do not exist. Stewards are replaced by a 'fairness
committee' staffed by equal numbers of labour and management reps. The
key union rep under this structure is the 'Employee Advocate'. According to
the Toronto Star (Oct. 16, 2007), the Employee
Advocate
is not elected from the membership at large but screened by a committee
that includes both labour representatives and management.
•
The Magna units will be part of one Canada-wide (effectively Ontario-wide)
amalgamated local. This in itself may tend to isolate each unit from
interaction with other units in the area. The Employee Advocates will be
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.
•
In terms of rationale, the CAW president declared in favour of a 'non-adversarial'
relationship, echoing all the usual corporate cant about 'teamwork' and 'being
in this together'. But this is not just about rhetoric. Clearly, one of
the criteria for selecting the Employee Advocate will be acceptance of
this ‘model’ of labour-management relations.
Opponents
of this system, and those young rebels historically associated with
independent unionism, need not apply.
•
And there is no short-cut, turn-around option here. The full unionization
process is spread over a 9-10 year period in which the CAW gets access to
about five plants yearly. This means that for the union to get all the
plants, it must cooperate, and discipline its members 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 that time, at least a decade
from now, it will be difficult to change the established pro-boss
culture.
For
decades, Stronach kept unions out of most of his plants. So, why let the
CAW in now?
For
one thing, the CAW is not what it used to be. Its reputation as a militant
union has been eroded by years of concessions and of lobbying governments
on behalf of the owners. For another, Stronach can stabilize his globally
expanding base of operations, while seeking, as he put it himself, to
“transform North American labour relations.”
The
incentive to the CAW tops is all too clear. This is the way to stem the
loss of membership in its core auto sector while replenishing the flow of
dues to its treasury.
But
won’t this ‘cure’ effectively kill the patient? A number of circumspect labour
bureaucrats have weighed in on this one, chucking the usual diplomacy.
They’ve pointed to the precedent factor. What’s to stop other unionized
employers, including competitors of Magna, from demanding the same
no-strike, no-union-democracy deal?
And
they’re right. The Magna deal will only accelerate the race to the bottom
that began with the first wave of concessions to management.
Fortunately,
an important breech in the CAW’s top-down ‘consensus’ has appeared. Chris
Buckley, president of Local 222 in Oshawa, the largest single CAW unit
(with 23,000 members at General Motors and regional auto plants), is opposing
the agreement with Magna. Buckley
is urging the 800 delegates who will gather at the union’s national
council meeting in December to vote it down.
Naturally,
the disastrous “Framework of Fairness” is sharply reflected in the field
of political action. Buzz
Hargrove said during the recent Ontario election campaign, “I see absolutely
no reason to vote NDP. … Liberals have been more left than the NDP over
the last four years”.
The
tenor of his remarks shows that Hargrove was speaking as a self-appointed
chief labour lobbyist for more state subsidies for the auto giants,
rather than as a left-critic of the NDP poised to launch a socialist
alternative (which some on the left imagined him to be).
Sadly,
auto workers and workers in general will see only diminishing returns
from a practice that undermines class independence both in the workplace and
at the ballot box. The latest
development underscores the urgency of a fight for a new direction for
labour—one that replaces class collaboration with class struggle.
|