Seven Oaks Magazine.

The CAW and Magna: building a "framework for fairness?"
November 2 , 2007
Dale McCartney

Strange things are afoot in Toronto. The Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and Magna International, the auto parts manufacturer run by Frank Stronach, have come to an agreement Stronach calls the “framework for fairness,” which lays out the process through which the CAW will try to organize 18,000 Magna employees. When an employer is calling a union’s organizing strategy the “framework for fairness” it is obvious that something unusual is occurring, and sure enough, the deal is, to say the least, surprising. In exchange for a promise that Magna will not oppose attempts to organize its employees, the CAW has promised to sign agreements that guarantee a strike-free collective bargaining process. Not only would workers not strike when their agreements are in effect (standard under Canadian law) but in fact they would promise not to strike when not under an agreement either.

The strangeness does not end at the pronouncement. Commentators seem confused as to how to perceive this new framework. Bob White, the president who led the CAW out of the United Auto Workers because the leadership had lost its commitment to its members and to a militant defense of union rights, announced, “CAW members at Magna will have a quality contract.” (Toronto Star, Oct. 30, 2007) Meanwhile, Star columnist Thomas Walkom tries to contextualize the CAW’s concessions, by telling his readers that such an agreement would have been popular in Hitler’s Germany. (Toronto Star, Oct. 28, 2007) Finally, Sam Gindin – whose pro-labour credentials are pretty secure as the former research director for the CAW – quotes Pierre Trudeau to harshly criticize the move by the union. That is, the same Pierre Trudeau whose policy of wage and price controls in the 1970’s started a decline in union density in Canada that continues to this day. (Toronto Star, Oct. 26, 2007)

It falls to those of us here on the West Coast to try to sort out this confused jumble. First, a few facts. The deal not only denies workers the right to strike (a fundamental human right, by the way, although one that is not recognized as such by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), it also denies them shop stewards. Instead, the workers will be represented by one person per shop, who will be chosen by a board that is half unionists and half management.

That’s right, the agreement also undermines the most important difference between unions and every other institution in our society – their status as participatory democracies. On top of that, it has a conciliatory grievance procedure (oops, I mean “concern” procedure) that weakens the grievance process within the workplace.

On the other hand, as Bob White grumpily reminds us, the agreement does include guaranteed wage increases and “high-quality benefits.” He is also proud to note that it is voted on by secret ballot (see, Walkom: Hitler wouldn’t like it), and that it will be renegotiated after three years – although still under the “framework for fairness.” Thus, workers cannot strike to try to improve the deal.

The CAW often heralds itself as Canada’s most progressive private-sector union, a fairly accurate claim over the past decade or so (although this speaks more to the disappointing policies of many Canadian private sector unions than it does to the CAW’s commitment to social issues). Yet this would be a drastic step backward.

It is actually not that hard to see why the CAW has taken this step. There are several reasons, of course. One is that organizing Magna has been a constant struggle for years, and the CAW has not made a lot of headway. Bringing workers into the union does mean that they get better benefits, increased wages (theoretically) and have some sort of grievance procedure, even if all of these are somewhat neutered by the concessions made under the framework.

The second reason for a move like this is Trudeau’s legacy to the private sector labour movement. Since the mid-1970’s, unions have been losing members, and the CAW, which gets most of its membership and dues from an industry that is undergoing massive structural change right now, has suffered as much as anyone. Thus, organizing 18,000 new CAW members is very appealing, for both progressive (union density is good) and not-so-progressive (dues are good) reasons.

The third, and maybe most important, justification for this move is a result of the shifting position of the labour movement today. It has been decades since the labour movement was as disadvantaged by the law as it is today. In provinces like BC and Ontario, organizing workers is harder than it has been since before the Second World War. And popular discussions of unions do not help any, as the mainstream media rarely reports on the victories made by unionized workers, but never seems to miss an opportunity to portray unions as anachronistic lobby groups.

The result is that there is a growing gap within unions, between membership and leadership. In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests that the split is not necessarily between rank and file and leadership, but instead between a small cohort of workers who support their unions and work within them, and a larger body of workers who take the democratic elements of unions for granted, and instead look at unions as service providers.

We should not be surprised workers view unions this way. After all, it is how unions have cast themselves since 1950. No longer the lean, mean fighting machines of the pre-war (and pre-PC 1003) days, when unions struggled more to increase workers control over the conditions of their work, unions have become larger organizations that work (very hard, admittedly) to ensure their members receive good wages and “high-quality benefits.”
Unions organize by promising wage increases. Union leaders run campaigns promising wage increases. Workers demand wage increases when it is time to negotiate. Is it any surprise that the CAW thinks that that is its only role? If autoworkers think the CAW is more a mutual fund than a mutual aid society, why shouldn’t the union assume that it can trade the democratic, worker controlled aspects of its contracts for assured money?
From where Buzz is standing, the reaction to this must seem a little surprising. After all, as his campaigning for the Liberals revealed, he thinks the union movement is mostly about creating opportunities for workers to increase their paycheques. In this light, the “framework for fairness” is a good, forward-thinking move.

But, and obviously there is a "but", it is actually more complicated than this. First of all, I am not sure that workers are this cynical. To some extent, their unwillingness to engage with their unions might partly be because the unions themselves can be mired in bureaucracy, and show very little interest in trying to correct the day-to-day complaints of workers.

Yet far more importantly, Hargrove and Stronach’s new plan will not halt the decrease in union density, or allow for the creation of a union movement that can assure workers of good wages and strong benefits. Those have always, and I mean always, come as a result of organizing unions that are powerfully democratic and militant, that challenge corporations and represent a real threat to their bottom line.

Even at the height (or in the depths, depending on your perspective) of the liberal compromise, when (as Walkom rightly notes) William Lyon Mackenzie King’s dreamed-of system of industrial voluntarism was at its peak, it was the power unions had on the floor of their shops that forced companies to negotiate, to prevent any disruption to production. Before World War II, this was truer, when unions often had to fight for every gain, including being recognized as a collective bargaining agent.

Only by rebuilding the democratic elements of the union, and empowering workers to improve their everyday work situation, will the CAW be able to successfully ensure that Magna workers can expect generous wage increases and strong benefits. In an important way, Hargrove has put the cart before the horse. He needs to see that material benefits grow out of strong, democratic unions, or even the “framework for fairness” will simply be the “framework for a company union.”

One final note – there is a democratic element yet to play out, and I have great faith in it. Hargrove will need to clear this with the National council of the CAW before he can go ahead. Even is he should somehow hoodwink them, then the CAW will need to organize the actual workers. Hopefully, they believe in the democratic values at the core of the labour movement, and are not fooled by the false promise of this agreement.