On November 11, 2005, the CAW Auto Parts Conference took place. At this conference the CAW took a traditional tough militant approach to problems and employer concessionary demands in the auto parts industry. The Conference adopted an "Emergency No-Concessions Resolution" which in turn spawned the CAW's "7‑Point Action Plan to Fight Auto Parts Concessions." This was the Canadian response to the push for terrible concessions by Delphi Corporation in the United States, against members of the United Auto Workers whose leadership was bending like a sapling in the wind. A fight back plan by a fighting union.
In just under two years, the CAW has abandoned the debate, resolutions and determination expressed in the 2005 documents, entering into a union‑corporate deal with Magna that ushers in a plan of union‑corporate control of employees that violates almost every premise of traditional labour ideology and social unionism as expressed in a once proud CAW Constitution.
In 2006 the CAW had about 37,000 members in the parts industry, employed by twelve corporations, of which the 850 at Magna were in the smallest category. This might have changed since 2006, but not significantly. Why then has the CAW set up what we will demonstrate is a "company union" at Magna which will certainly undercut the wages and conditions of the other 36,000 or so members in the parts industry?
The CAW leadership has struck a blow against the entire Canadian working class, destroyed the universality of its constitution by creating "different members without the right to strike," wiped out generations of sacrifice and struggle by giving away the right to strike. They are the first large industrial union to negotiate a union‑corporate partnership to control workers, and become a direct agent of management by safeguarding efficiency, productivity and profit levels. The "No Concessions" programs of 2005 are not much more than crumpled paper in CAW President Buzz Hargrove's wastebasket.
Before we get into the odious particulars of this agreement, it may be fair to observe that it must have taken some time to work out, to negotiate. Did this take place concurrently with the militant roars of defiance and proclamations at the 2005 Conference? Was Buzz already working on a hidden agenda while claiming to defend workers, or was this the inevitable outcome of his weird posturing during his transformation into a Liberal party hack? And what of the other leaders in the CAW? Who the hell is minding the store? Who is guarding the constitution?
The dirty deed was consummated at one collaborationist stroke called the "Framework of Fairness Agreement" signed by Hargrove and his mentor Frank Stronach of Magna Corporation. This was not done at convention, not voted on after debate. This is a top‑driven sellout that, if unopposed, will undoubtedly complete the metamorphosis from a rank and file to an elitist-led corporate-business model union.
What is the "Framework of Fairness" and how will it work?
There will be one CAW‑Magna Local Union with a potential membership of 18,000 workers. Workers at a manufacturing site will vote by secret ballot on a CAW‑Magna Contract that has been worked out by a joint Magna‑CAW committee. Acceptance of the contract and membership in the CAW will be combined. The only way into the union is the acceptance of a union‑corporate deal.
If the contract‑union entry is accepted, the workers will become part of a Magna‑CAW local. Each plant will have an "Employee Advocate" selected by (read this more than once and try to figure it out) an "indirect process of application, peer group screening, and secret ballot ratification" (only one candidate) rather than direct election. One worker at each plant, no committees, no workers councils, no grievance committee and no stewards.
The employee advocates from each manufacturing site will form the executive of this giant country‑wide local, and this executive will elect the officers of the union. No direct nominating/elections procedure. No one person, one vote; no other choice; no chance to disagree or express another opinion. The entire plant level, local executive and officer structure will rest squarely on "an indirect process of application, peer group screening and secret ballot ratification."
Each plant will have a "Fairness Committee" made up of worker and management representatives, with the workers holding a 50% + 1 majority. The worker representatives are selected democratically by secret ballot from shifts and areas of the plant. There will be no standard grievance procedures. Instead, workers will use the "open door" approach to local managers, appeals to the Fairness Committee, contacting a corporate "hotline," and appeals to higher level CAW‑Magna bodies. If this does not resolve the issue, there will be binding arbitration to a neutral mutually selected party.
Every three years a new contract will be negotiated by the top level labour‑management committee consisting of three company and three union leaders, called the Employee Relations Review Committee. Having equal corporate representation on a non‑elected bargaining committee is a CAW innovation that will be hard to top outside the penal system.
If the CAW and Magna cannot agree on changes to the national contract, outstanding matters are referred to an arbitrator for final offer selection. There will be no strikes or lockouts, and illegal work stoppages will be dealt with severely. However the Magna workers will be required to pay into the CAW strike fund.
Wage increments will be negotiated annually (apparently not included in the three year contract) on the basis of a formula that considers changes in broader economic variables (this is even crazier than the indirect application process and peer group screening), consumer prices, and productivity performance on a plant to plant basis. No Magna‑wide wage increases.
Nowhere in the documents provided on the CAW website, nowhere in the so‑called Framework of Fairness, does it talk about the needs of workers and their families, about work at Magna providing minimum levels of a standard of living. Efficiency, productivity and profits are the cornerstones of this program, not workers' needs. In his haste to re‑invent the wheel, Buzz must have overlooked this minor point.
The CAW has created an anti‑worker monster and will surely defend it as a new industrial model, one which could eventually become the model for the Canadian auto industry. This means that internally, the powers that be will be looking for a base of support for this transformation amongst the most reactionary elements of the union, the least militant and the corporate sympathizers. This will certainly move the union to the right, turning it into a corporate fifth column in the labour movement.
If this fiasco is allowed, it will transform the once proud CAW, the union born in the fight against concessionary ideology, the champion of social unionism and the beacon for thousands of restless trade unionists, into a knee‑jerk corporate lap‑dog, a partner in the exploitation of workers. Where are the champions of militant social trade unionism who since the CAW's creation in 1985 have steered it through so many struggles? Where are the proud members who studied their history and their rights at CAW schools at Port Elgin? Where are the principles of partisan representation, where the interests of the members and their rights were paramount? Not least, how about the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines a workers right to withdraw his or her labour, to strike?
This will be the swan song and the legacy of Buzz Hargrove and the present leadership. This is what happens when a union leader starts draping haberdashery on a corporate personage whose family has a long tradition of union‑busting. People have been wondering for a long time where Hargrove is going. Wonder no more, he's there. The only hope is resistance of CAW members to this monumental sell‑out, this mark of shame and humiliation of a once proud labour union. There must be a recoil amongst the membership, this must be opposed.