Labour Under Attack, Again...

Now that George Bush has decided to step forward and include a bailout package for the North American Auto Makers from the TARP funds approved by Congress, the package agreed to by Queen's Park and Ottawa will kick in. I am concerned, (and I am putting it as diplomatically as possible), that although this is designed to provide a rescue package to prevent the failure of one of the cornerstones of our economy, auto manufacturing, the required concessions by the workers are also a thinly veiled attack on organized labour. It is generally conceded that the workers at the big three assembly plants are probably the most efficient to be found anywhere in the industry. It is also undeniable, that the labour costs comprise approximately seven per cent of the price of a new D3 vehicle That is less than the profit margin of the retail dealers. It is also less than the aggregate delivery costs associated with that vehicle.Labour costs are not a large part of the problems plaguing the auto makers. What the governments in both Canada and the U.S. have done is to use the world wide economic crisis in a blatant attack on the workers. Unfortunately, a good many unorganized workers, have foolishly sided with the government and corporations and have become quite vocal in labelling the auto workers as lazy, greedy, fat cats needing to be put in their place. During my career in union leadership, I encountered this sort of mindset quite often in the past. Human nature being what it is, envy leads some people to believe that if some one has a better wage and benefits package, they should have that package reduced rather than working to raise their own level of remuneration. This is a slippery slope. Reducing the organized worker's wages and benefits will not stop there. Once the battle against stronger, organized group of workers has been waged successfully, the unorganized workers will be next on the agenda.

It is often forgotten or overlooked by many that Unions have always worked to raise the wages, and conditions of all workers. Unorganized workers will be defenceless in the face of an economic crisis and government policy that have made high unemployment and low wages the norm. It is also worth remembering, that former economist for the CAW, Sam Gindin, often commented, “The only thing that concessions lead to, is more concessions.”

This is just the latest attack in a long term plan on the part of the right wing. In the 90's the Harris government in Ontario struck down the provisions in Provincial legislation that prevented the use of replacement workers during a legal strike. Not long after, in 2000, Mine Mill / CAW - Local 598 struck Falconbridge in Sudbury. The company brought in replacement workers and the strike continued for seven months and was one of the most brutal and damaging labour actions in memory. The fallout from this is still evident in that community today. I believe that the auto makers needed a rescue package and such a package is vital for the economic well being of Canada and its citizens. However, the workers cannot be held responsible for the bad decisions that threaten to bring down the corporations. By the same token, anyone who works for wages in this country, must see the actions of Harper and Bush for what they are, a blatant attack on workers. If they are allowed to succeed, all will be threatened. Pensions, benefits, and a living wage should not be sacrificed to disguise the failed right wing policies of deregulation, tax cuts and globalization.

Why Blame Unions?

A person would have to be isolated indeed, to have missed the media frenzy surrounding the proposed government loans to rescue the Big Three North American auto makers. In a previous article, I have outlined some of the reasons I believe it is necessary to protect manufacturing jobs, especially in the auto sector, in Ontario. Some people have expressed in the newspapers and other media, reservations and sometimes open hostility as to why unionized workers feel should earn higher wages and better benefits than other workers. Others have expressed the opinion that unionized workers should be required to take a pay cut if tax dollars are going to be used to support the auto makers. Basically, these views hinge on the, “ union workers are lazy and greedy while I work just as hard for less”, arguments favoured by those on the political right, and the corporate elite.

Unions do not have a policy of “getting more” than anyone else. As a rule, Unions hope to raise the living standards for all workers. Most, including the CAW, have programs in place to lobby the Provincial Government for increases in the minimum wage even though most of their membership tend to earn higher wages. All have programs designed to promote issues such as health and safety in the workplace, human rights, and equality issues etc. All workers benefit, in the workplace, from the impact of advances made in these areas.

In Canada 53% of the wealth is held by 10% of the households, or the top 20% control 75% of the wealth. On the other end of the scale, those households in the bottom 10% of the economic spectrum control none of the country's wealth, and in fact have a negative net worth. In point of fact, most of those who complain about unions fall into the group of 80% of the households who are in control of the remining 25% of the wealth. It is true that Labour Unions are in the business of gaining a bigger share of the wealth controlled by the corporations. They are not attempting to gain a larger share of the wealth controlled by the bottom 90% of the population. That would make no sense. They are attempting to gain a larger, more equitable share of the wealth controlled by employers. What does make sense is that when one group of workers improves their lot, all have a better chance of making the same sort of improvement. Unions are not responsible for the current economic mess in the world economic system. There are a good many structural issues that brought these conditions about; we hear about them every day on the news. Working people have not had a significant impact on the creation of the conditions that brought about this collapse. Instead of complaining that their unionized neighbours are greedy, (the envy argument), it would make much more sense for non-unionized groups to organize, and get into the business of redistributing some of the wealth that is controlled by their employers, and seeking to improve their working conditions as needed. In uncertain economic times union membership is an advantage, not a liability. Group action is always more effective than a single worker attempting to protect his or her rights.

Corporations are the benefactors when workers argue among themselves about the efficacy and validity of unions. Unionized workers aren't the enemy; they don't control corporations, or the distribution of the country's wealth. There is an injustice built into our economic system, and the sooner people see where the source of the real problem is, the sooner a remedy can be constructed. In the twenty-first century workers need to have a voice in their workplaces more than ever.

Big Three Rescue

There seems to be a good deal of confusion whether the proposed “bailout” of the Big Three North American auto-makers is a good thing or not. Those in favour generally suggest that the economic impact and potential job loss make the loss of the auto-makers unthinkable.Those opposed seem to be of the opinion that they got themselves into this mess and shouldn't be allowed any special treatment because they didn't build the vehicles people wanted in the first place. A subgroup is intent on Union bashing, and claims the labour costs are too high and the unionised workers don't deserve the pensions that they bargained.

It is clear that any major failure in the North American auto sector would have a catastrophic impact on employment in central Canada, in particular, Southern Ontario. Automobile manufacturing is a base level industry that provides at least seven spin off jobs for every direct job created. It is estimated that if this industry fails, it could result in the direct loss of 288,000 jobs in this country. Further, the retail sector would be crippled overnight. It is not difficult to foresee stagnation in the construction industry, (recall the situation in Calgary after the last bust in the oil patch). The loss of tax base to municipalities, increased social welfare and Employment Insurance costs would clearly preoccupy all levels of government. We have some idea of the sort of pain that the loss of manufacturing can bring by studying the aftermath of General Motors closure of its plants in Flint Michigan. It should not be a scenario we would wish to see repeated on a wider scale across North America.It is clear that serious errors were made in terms of long range planning by the management of the Big Three. However, under our system as it is currently structured, management's function is to maximize the profit for the shareholders. There is little or no incentive to look forward in any great detail to try and head off any perceived problems. Management is rewarded for immediate results. Caution is not rewarded, and at best due diligence receives only lip service.

As to the argument that they never built the type of vehicle people wanted, one only has to look at what people are driving on the highways in our country. Pickup trucks, vans and SUV's abound. They built what people wanted. They didn't anticipate how rapidly the market would change, almost no one did.

Those who blame the labour and pension costs are chosing to attack the group that has the least influence on the source or outcome of the problem. They would like to see the wages in the order of fourteen dollars an hour. If that becomes the case, then it stands to reason that all wages across the board should be adjusted. To what level would we rolled back minimum wage. Perhaps we should investigate the salaried of people in the financial industry, their performance leading up to the current crisis hasn't exactly been stellar.To blame the workers for bargaining pensions, goes to the heart of what people want from our society. First, the company's should never have been allowed to under fund these plans, particularly when times were good. For people to state that pensions should not be factored into a person's working life in short sighted indeed. We have an aging population; what is society supposed to do with people who have reached the end of their working life? Everyone will be in that situation someday. Food banks and side walk sleeping arrangements ought not be a viable option in a civil society.