Buzz Hargrove has been catching a lot of heat from fellow unionists and assorted
lefties who are outraged that the chief of the Canadian Auto Workers, Canada's
biggest union, would bargain away Magna International workers' right to strike
and elect their own shop stewards, should they decide to sign union cards as part of
the special CAW/Magna deal.
As Hargrove has pointed out: Magna workers(who have for the most part repelled
repeated attempts by the CAW to unionize their plants)can always vote against it.
Union leaders are more concerned about the implications of such a deal.
Former NDP leader and party elder Ed Broadbent accused Hargrove in a Globe
and Mail opinion piece of attacking the foundations of the independent union by
denying workers "those powers that underpin the right of collective bargaining."
United Steelworkers' Canadian director Ken Neumann declares "employers are not
going to give something up if they know that the union doesn�t have the clout to extract it
from them," while Chris Buckley, president of the 23,000-member Local 222 in Oshawa,
Ont., warns CAW members at supplier companies will be at a competitive disadvantage
if the right to strike becomes a factor in the competition�s(read Magna�s)favour.
The Magna/CAW deal has three key elements: no strikes or lockouts; employee
advocates rather than elected shop stewards; and arbitration for unresolved disputes.
Hargrove didn't intend the Magna deal to be the new labour/management template
for all CAW locals or other unions. But it sure opens the door to some creative
thinking on the subject.
It�s no longer necessary to base corporate/organized labour relations on an adversarial
model. Although there are some rapacious corporate weasels out there, we are
long past the days of loose labour law and the heartless exploitation of the working
class. With globalization changing so drastically the business environment for all
manufacturers�especially those involved in the North American automotive industry�
the strike option can be a toxic bargaining tool indeed, even when infrequently
deployed. A strike of any size has cascading economic repercussions. Need we be
reminded of the devastating economic fallout in Canada and the US from the GM
strike of 1998? There has to be a better way.
Chrysler, GM, Ford and parts suppliers have learned from their Japanese adversaries
to ramp up the quality and make their plants more productive, efficient and
agile. The next lesson involves labour/management relations.
There are no unions in Toyota and Honda plants. More important— workers and
management have a non-adversarial relationship. They work together because their
interests are not exclusive. There are no strikes, or threats of strikes. And you don�t
hear of any lay-offs. Imagine that.
As manufacturers have been forced to do, unions must find more innovative ways
to do business if they are to be relevant in the global marketplace.
Joe Terrett
joe.terrett@plant.rogers.com |
