The CAW-Magna Agreement: Not the Way Forward
Canadian Dimension magazine, January/February 2008
Collective bargaining is a complex process. It requires assessments of relative power and strategic considerations that are usually only fully appreciated by the people directly involved. As such, we are reluctant to comment on the decision of the Canadian Autoworkers Union to agree to the Framework of Fairness Agreement (FAA) with Magna International Inc. The high public profile of the agreement, however, and the statements of CAW representatives that this agreement could be extended to other employers compel us to comment.
The agreement will enable CAW to obtain access to workers at five Magna plants each year to make the case for joining CAW and for coverage under a collective agreement that will be negotiated under the provisions of the FFA. There are currently 45 Magna plants in Canada. If all goes according to plan during the next nine years, over 18,000 workers would join the CAW and be entitled to participate in the union and its education programs. This would be an extremely positive development for the Magna workers, the CAW and the labour movement.
However, we believe that the problems associated with this agreement outweigh the benefits. In the Canadian labour movement it is recognized that in order to effectively represent workers the union must have the sole right to determine its own internal, democratic processes. This includes the method by which local union representatives are elected. The FFA places enormous restrictions on the rights of the Magna workers to participate in the union and to choose their own union representatives. It also limits union representation to one person per plant. This individual, called an Employee Advocate, will not be elected by the workers. Instead, he or she will be selected through a convoluted process, with the final decision being taken by the assistant to the CAW president.
The agreement also requires the union to establish only one amalgamated local union to represent workers in all of the plants. The executive and president of the local must be chosen by and from the Employee Advocates, who themselves have ultimately been appointed by a CAW staff person.
The CAW will not be able to change this restrictive system of representation without the permission of Magna.
The agreement also contains an open-ended no-strike, no-lockout clause. Any worker participating in a strike or in an activity that impedes the operation of the business shall be subject to immediate dismissal. If the parties cannot agree on the terms of a new, three-year agreement, the issues are referred to an arbitrator under a process of final-offer selection. Wage increases will be tied to a formula linked to average annual manufacturing-wage increases in Canada.
Such an open-ended commitment in private-sector manufacturing is exceptional and dangerous. Unions exist to challenge market forces, not to mirror them. Our gains have resulted from strikes and struggles, not decisions of third parties bound by a process of final-offer selection.
Ultimately, it will be up to the CAW to decide on if, and when, it will attempt to free itself from Magna’s influence over its internal union structures and to obtain the right to strike for the workers.
We hope that there will be an open and respectful discussion within the CAW concerning this agreement and the union’s future organizing strategies. We would strongly urge other unions to reject such compromises when they are proposed by employers facing organizing drives. The independence of democratic union structures and the right to strike are the very cornerstones upon which the Canadian trade-union movement is built.
Comment by Brian, writing from United States on February 6th, 2008 at 9:00 am:
Arguably, this is a ‘company’ union and therefore not entitled to be recognized as a bona fide trade union under Ontario’s Labour Relations Act.
You should also be aware that workers are at a serious dis-advantage by having their terms and condistions of employement determined by binding arbitration. Arbitrators are loath to grant anything but the most modest of gains because of an overiding principal governing their thinking: the union should not gain anything beyond what they might have bargained for without including the leverage of a strike.
Hemi Metic and Buzz have been been out bargained by Frank Stronach who is obviously the better negotiator. In their quest for new members, Hemi and Buzz have taken the labour movement back 50 years. Company dominated unions will now be a going concern thanks to this precident.
They should be ashamed at selling out labour’s most important value - a free, autonomous, independent labor movement!
Comment by Thomas, writing from Canada on February 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm:
If the Labour Movement and the academics speant as much time trying to make the worls a better place for workers, as they do trash talking Buzz and the CAW, oh what a world it would be. I had the oprtunity to sit in on the debate recently at the CAW Council and speaker after speaker in the CAW leadership lined up at those mics and talked of the rules and restrictions that govern there rights as workers. Health care workers with no right to strike, essential service acts, office workers that may approve of a less confontational approach. The list went on and on. Why no outcry about stripping workers of there rights when international unions are signing 15, 18 years agreement? The reason why, is plain and simple..they all wish they had dynamic leadership like the CAW and the type of democratic union that they enjoy. Some of these socalled trade unionist can’t resista an opprtunity to take a swipe at Buzz. Some of the ideas that have biunced around this article are ideas that have not resonated with workers or their families for decades, and probably won’t again for a generation or two. It is so easy to stand on high shaking your fist, and singing the banks are made of marble. Real life isn’t like that anymore Brother sand Sisters. there is a time and place for everything, and the workers at Magna will join another Union if they want to retain that precous right to strike. Plain and simple.
Comment by Brian, writing from United States on February 7th, 2008 at 6:07 am:
(laughing…)
Just because a group of staffers who are told to stand up at a meeting and say words in support of Buzz concerning a sell-out deal he authored doesn’t somehow make it right. Paid staffers under threat of lossing their jobs or being in bad favor with Buzz is a shameful example of how undemocratic the CAW has begun. To prove the point, even after all this so-called debate at the CAW Council meeting, when the time came for a vote, was it a secret ballot vote or a show of hands? It was a ’show of hands’. It wasn’t an honest accounting of the delegate’s wishes becuase the pressure of conforminity was present thru this undemocratic voting proceedure. But this process isn’t surprising given that the CAW leadership never thought to ask the workers at Magna (even once) what ‘they’ would like to see in ‘their’ contrcat! The back room deal making of Buzz is astounding! At a time when the labour movement is on the offensive when it comes to re-establishing labour rights as human rights, Buzz and his gang toss away a fundemenal right like this (right to strike) as easy as throwing away yesterdy’s trash. As worse, he has allowed Frank Stronach to choose the union’s leadership which is appauling and beyond resason.
Some leadership, eh!!!