The CAW, government and strategic voting
May 20, 2009 - 10:37pm
"Now, Mr. Lewenza said, the governments and GM Canada are seeking deeper cuts than what the union agreed to give Chrysler.
If the governments were not involved, an agreement could have been reached by yesterday, union sources said."
The scathing words for the federal Conservative government are not surprising, but the inclusion of the Ontario Liberal government in the broadside raises some questions about the union's political strategy, not least regarding the CAW's recent history of support for anti-Conservative strategic voting.
The disaffiliation of the CAW from the NDP in favour of support for strategic voting has been a measure of the sense of frustration of many in Canadian organized labour with both the NDP's limited electoral success and the willingness of some NDP governments to pander to anti-union sentiment when the going gets rough.
Federally the loss of CAW support has arguably had limited impact under the new funding laws. Provincially, the loss of both cash and activist secondment during elections has been a nasty blow to some NDP ridings.
So has the crisis in the auto and manufacturing sectors shone a light on a need for an activist union presence in a democratic socialist NDP? I think so. I also believe that Andrea Horwath's election as Ontario leader may turn out to be the bridge that had to be put in place to make it happen.
Admittedly, I have no clear sense of where the current CAW leadership sees their political strategy leading. From the outside looking in, it sure seems like somebody has to be wondering whether supporting Liberals really adds up to a strategy for anything but betrayal. Anybody with some insight into this care to weigh in?
The disaffiliation of the CAW from the NDP in favour of support for strategic voting...
Your premise is mistaken. The CAW was preaching strategic voting, first in Ontario and then federally, long before they disaffiliated. The disaffiliation was a response to the expulsion of Buzz Hargrove by the ONDP. The CAW, both nationally and locally, both federally and provincially, has continued to support NDP candidates where their policy deems those constituencies winnable - and that includes high-profile CAW members running for and winning elections under the NDP banner. The CAW, in my observation, had stopped giving blanket support to the NDP long before - certainly in Ontario, but later federally.
The CAW never adopted any "support Liberals" policy, as mentioned above. As for Quebec, they uniformly supported the Bloc. In the last provincial election here, the CAW supported the PQ (unfortunately IMO), and blasted the FTQ for remaining officially neutral.
As for a strategy for "betrayal", perhaps you didn't notice the strategy adopted by Dion, Layton, and Duceppe last December - if that wasn't "strategic voting" raised to a pinnacle, I have no idea what else it might have been.
I can't speak for Ontario, but here, CAW members and local reps would be shocked to hear that they are "supporting Liberals" - even those who supported last year's coalition, which is virtually all of them (and many non-CAWers too).
I think I heard Brad Lavigne say on Politics a couple of weeks ago that the federal party was enjoying a very good working relationship with the CAW under the leadership of Ken Lewenza. I suspect Peggy Nash's return to the union's staff is helping in that regard too.
The CAW started to back away from the NDP about the time of the social contract. They did support some federal candidates in 1997, particularly if the candidates came out of the CAW. I can't speak in depth to the details of what happened since then, but I've had the impression that the CAW retirees were much more supportive than the union executive under the previous President.
The CAW's policy may not have been one of supporting Liberals, but when the visual on TV is Buzz Hargrove appearing with Paul Martin and giving him a CAW jacket, you have to admit that the details of the policy kind of get lost to most casual observers.
Oh, and I completely disagree that a negotiated coalition post-election is the same as strategic voting push during an election. They are two different approaches, albeit designed to try and accomplish somewhat similar outcomes.
Oh, and I completely disagree that a negotiated coalition post-election is the same as strategic voting push during an election. They are two different approaches, albeit designed to try and accomplish somewhat similar outcomes.
I never said they were "the same" - didn't mean to leave that impression - just wanted to dampen Peter3's blanket statements a bit. For example, I supported the coalition attempt, but not the CAW's "strategic voting" notion. Aside from that, I generally agree with all your observations.
This is off topic, but I really worry about many CAW retiree's. Despite all the anti-union rhetoric they never made big bucks and if they loose penisons - they will be in a hard place.
In my experience some of the most positive forces for progressive change are CAW retirees. They deserve more than the worry they are getting
Your premise is mistaken. The CAW was preaching strategic voting, first in Ontario and then federally, long before they disaffiliated. The disaffiliation was a response to the expulsion of Buzz Hargrove by the ONDP. The CAW, both nationally and locally, both federally and provincially, has continued to support NDP candidates where their policy deems those constituencies winnable - and that includes high-profile CAW members running for and winning elections under the NDP banner. The CAW, in my observation, had stopped giving blanket support to the NDP long before - certainly in Ontario, but later federally.
The trajectory of events is well documented and unambiguous. The CAW advocated a policy of so-called strategic voting that gave support to candidates best situated to defeat Ontario Conservatives. This involved advocating a vote for Liberals and against NDP candidates in many ridings. It was ignored for a while, but when Buzz Hargrove put a CAW jacket on Paul Martin's shoulders in front of the national news media, the Ontario party invoked its constitutional requirement that members not work against the party and turfed him. The union then disaffiliated. The precipitating issue was always strategic voting.
This article from a Sudbury publication gives a reasonable summary.
The CAW never adopted any "support Liberals" policy, as mentioned above. As for Quebec, they uniformly supported the Bloc. In the last provincial election here, the CAW supported the PQ (unfortunately IMO), and blasted the FTQ for remaining officially neutral.
As for a strategy for "betrayal", perhaps you didn't notice the strategy adopted by Dion, Layton, and Duceppe last December - if that wasn't "strategic voting" raised to a pinnacle, I have no idea what else it might have been.
I can't speak for Ontario, but here, CAW members and local reps would be shocked to hear that they are "supporting Liberals" - even those who supported last year's coalition, which is virtually all of them (and many non-CAWers too).
The CAW has publicly advocated a federal vote for Liberal candidates where they can defeat Conservatives. In Ontario Buzz Hargrove was as effusive in his praise of Dalton McGuinty as he was of Paul Martin. One has to parse those facts pretty arbitrarily to see them as not advocating support for Liberals. In places where the Liberals are the de facto conservative party (like BC and Quebec) I imagine things roll out differently, but the sub-head on the linked news story is "Union accuses Ottawa, Ontario of interfering in negotiations with GM". In those places the equation is as I described it.
I think betrayal accurately describes the current conduct of the Ontario government toward autoworkers. The question I posed is whether the CAW electoral strategy makes sense given the role of the Ontario Liberal government, and whether a rethink that might bring a rapprochement with the NDP is likely.
The CAW has publicly advocated a federal vote for Liberal candidates where they can defeat Conservatives.
Look, this issue was discussed here endlessly before you joined, and I don't want to go back there because life has changed. Your statement is misleading and erroneous, and it doesn't give credit to the many CAW delegates that voted for this (IMO erroneous) policy. The stated policy was to support NDP candidates except in ridings where they had no reasonable chances of winning - in which case, the policy was to support whoever had the best chance of defeating the Conservatives. In many ridings, that meant supporting Liberals. In Québec, it meant opposing Liberals. And Buzz Hargrove's personal antics were not identical to the CAW's policy.
Why... what position has the ONDP taken on the current situation facing auto workers?
Corporations blame unions for economic meltdown
By any logic, advocates of unfettered capitalism should be seeking cover from public wrath these days, as the deregulated capitalism they foisted on us continues to self-destruct, bringing calamity into the lives of millions.
Yet I've heard barely a whisper of mea culpa from members of this corporate crowd.
On the contrary, they seem to see the economic meltdown as an opportunity to finally do in their old foes in the labour movement.
German and Japanese auto companies are being bailed out too, but their government are not demanding wage rollbacks from auto workers.
After years of demonizing unions and undermining workers' rights, they're now taking advantage of the unpopularity of the auto bail-outs to try to take away gains that the Canadian Auto Workers spent decades achieving, and that set a standard for the labour movement.
In demanding wage concessions of up to $19 an hour, auto company executives and the Harper government are hoping to deflect public anger for the economic meltdown onto those who assemble cars. (If only GM workers hadn't frittered away their time on the assembly line bundling together those Credit Derivative Swaps.)
70 some-odd confidence votes for the ReformaTories later... If auto workers voted Liberal or Tory, they have nothing to complain about.
Why... what position has the ONDP taken on the current situation facing auto workers?
I'm not sure about the ONDP, but I know Jack Layton, speaking before the Toronto Board of Trade, said that workers need to have the "courage" to "take a pay cut"
Courageous pay cuts?
Maybe this is what we should be supporting:
Many Canadians will be taking the opportunity of a long weekend to take a break from busy lives, see family or spend time away from home. On behalf of New Democrats across Canada, I offer my very best wishes for Victoria Day.
Well, at least it will resonate with Aboriginal people, Quebeckers, immigrants, the poor, the unemployed...
Do you have a direct quote for that? Because here Jack says:
Chrysler asked for billions of dollars in taxpayer money and in order to get it, had to get workers to accept pay cuts on top of reductions agreed to in recent labour negotiations.
"These workers have been placed in limbo," said Layton. "They were forced to make sacrifices to prevent exactly this kind of idling. They were told time and time again it wasn't enough, so they kept negotiating in good faith and look where it's gotten them."
A lot of them voted Liberal and Tory and voted strategically, too. And look where it's gotten them.
The CAW has publicly advocated a federal vote for Liberal candidates where they can defeat Conservatives.
Look, this issue was discussed here endlessly before you joined, and I don't want to go back there because life has changed. Your statement is misleading and erroneous, and it doesn't give credit to the many CAW delegates that voted for this (IMO erroneous) policy. The stated policy was to support NDP candidates except in ridings where they had no reasonable chances of winning - in which case, the policy was to support whoever had the best chance of defeating the Conservatives. In many ridings, that meant supporting Liberals. In Québec, it meant opposing Liberals. And Buzz Hargrove's personal antics were not identical to the CAW's policy.
Why... what position has the ONDP taken on the current situation facing auto workers?
Can't rewrite history though. I was at the NDP rally when jack was here. Buzz was busy at that very moment in the same riding handing our a jacket to prodigal son Martin on his visit in windsor where the cons have until last election always been 3rd or worse. This is in complete opposition to the stated policy as the NDP was leading in the polls.
Buzz and paul blow in to town for a photo op telling windsorites to vote liberal. Luckily most of us have a hard time decided who is worse basil or paul.
Buzz and paul blow in to town for a photo op telling windsorites to vote liberal. Luckily most of us have a hard time decided who is worse basil or paul.
I cant imagine what it must be like being a toady to a washed up vicious toady.
I agree with Unionist that this has been MUCH discussed before, and that in the main 'life has moved on'. It would be hard to see anything productive in those earlier discussions.
I will offer a summary comment that i think might bridge a lot of the differences in what people are saying.
First of all its a mistake to ascribe any consistent position to what the CAW did. Resolutions passed were only part of it. Facts on the ground, there were moves in a variety of directions- and I'm talking from the national leadership, let alone that locals went their own ways.
And as pointed out, in practice, Buzz absolutely pushed a support the Liberals line. He never failed to parrot the offial strategic voting line when asked, but what Buzz Hargrove did in his last few years was unfailingly support Liberals, and he offered himself specifically as a tool for the Liberals against the NDP. Little wonder he was expelled.
Even at the time it was going on, there was never any evidence that Buzz acted on behalf of anyone but himself. And the unfolding of events since, confirms that. That said, I also don't see any evidence that their was general displeasure with Buzz's choice of blanket support for Liberals.
Much as Lewenza was Buzz's choice to succeed him- he takes a pretty different approach to leadership. And I say that knowing nothing about what steps he has taken in electoral politics that OO referred to. Yes, Peggy Nash returing might have a lot to do with some warmer relations with the NDP. But I'm guessing its mostly that Buzz is gone, and that Ken Lewenza is Ken Lewenza.
The NSNDP has always by the way had strong relations with the national CAW. That did not change during Buzz being expelled, etc.
The CAW is just a more complex animal than other unions. Its more complex in its internal politics. Big surprise that makes the way it relates to the NDP harder to read. Its a hurly burly place, and you never know whats going to come out of the end of the pipe.
We shall see, but my hunch is that "strategic voting" has exhausted itself in the CAW- if not in general.
And I don't think Iggy is the kind of figure to give it any life. Thats not a comment on his ideological inclinations. Paul Martin was a classic all things to all people panderer. Claim the mantle of 'progressive' and of deficit killer. Iggy's specific kind of pandering doesn't leave anything for strategic voting dupes to glom onto.
But I don't think the setting of 'strategic voting' within the CAW clears the deck or sets the stage for anything else.
Its the same old unanswered questions.
I was wondering what became of McGuinty's tripartite commission thingie for Ontario manufacturing.
Buzz was so enthusiastic for it that Jim Stanford was warming a Co-chair seat on it until after Buzz was out of office.
Never heard anything about it. events overwhelm it?
For that matter haven't heard what Buzz is actually doing.
The tripartite commission thingie likely has fizzled for larger reasons, but the betrayal that Buzz should have expected leaves that as a non-starter for him.
Anyway, good riddance to the distraction of the stillborn thingie [if it is dead].
Do you have a direct quote for that?
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/575944
Here's the quote as full as the Star gave it:
It's that kind of courage workers will need "to take a pay cut so your friends at the plant can keep their job," Layton says in the 20-minute address..
That was said in January. While many here would question the wisdom of ever saying it [and I personally would not say it], you heard then the same sort of thing from union leaders and rank and file when they were agreeing to cuts.
But it was said in January- not in the current context of unions agreeing to murderous contexts. You would not find any of the same people expressing the sentiment that way now- Jack included.
My question was, what position has the ONDP taken on the situation facing auto workers? Anyone know?
I just noticed this.
Those 2 things are more accurately seen as overlapping; and related, but with no simple causal relationship.
Dissafiliation with the NDP is the expression of the larger and longer time trend with many roots.
That could sound like a niggling point. But I saw it as an opportunity to come at points I already made.
To answer Unionist's question: I don't know, but would be surprised if the ONDP has done any more than express regrets and sympathy.
To be fair- everyone is reeling on this. As soon as you think you might be making some sense of ordering ones general thoughts on it [let alone grappling with what could be done], things get even worse and stranger than you could have ever guessed they would.
I'm hoping that Peggy Nash being back at the CAW, and if she is left time to work on such a 'luxury,' might ultimately lead to some interesting proposals from the federal NDP. But neither the union or the NDP wants to come out with half baked concrete proposals. And lord knows when people can catch their breath enough.
I know nothing about the workings of the ONDP caucus. But they just don't have the research chops of the federal caucus. Though it would seem there is an opportunity there with Andrea's leadership if the CAW was willing to second Peggy Nash. Aside from the fact such a possibility is pure blue skying... I can see that the CAW would be gun shy about stirring the hornets nest by doing something like that. They need more than ever to get whatever is possible out of the provincial government- whatever they think of them. Working with the federal NDP would not have those risks.
Those 2 things are more accurately seen as overlapping; and related, but with no simple causal relationship.
Fair enough.
My question was, what position has the ONDP taken on the situation facing auto workers? Anyone know?
From the ONDP website over the last 2 months:
March 19 release
March 30 release
April 18 release
April 18 release
May 14 release
"
Jack Layton wrote: Victoria Day honours Queen Victoria, first sovereign of confederated Canada, and celebrates the birthday of Canada’s current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Today reminds us of Canada’s place in the Commonwealth and our roots in Europe. Above all, it is a reminder of history and the tragedies and triumphs that were a part of forging our nation.
Many Canadians will be taking the opportunity of a long weekend to take a break from busy lives, see family or spend time away from home. On behalf of New Democrats across Canada, I offer my very best wishes for Victoria Day.
Well, at least it will resonate with Aboriginal people, Quebeckers, immigrants, the poor, the unemployed..."
So, what's your point? In a month it will be St. Jean Baptiste Day, and you can be sure that the NDP will put out a press release celebrating that day and what it means for Quebec and for canadians of French descent - and I suppose that it will not "resonate" with most Ontario WASPs - tough. I've seen NDP press releases on Christmas (which exclude non-Christians), Passover, Eid, Diwali (which exclude all kinds of other people).
Since the issue is being rehashed here, perhaps someone would care to comment on the complete and utter failure of the CAW's strategic voting efforts, which resulted in Conservative sweeps both provincially and federally in Oakville and Oshawa.
Fidel pointed out the irony of this elsewhere, earlier in the week.
Thanks, Peter3.
Not one single word about the blackmail of the auto workers by Clement and McGuinty. Not one comment on the demands for wage, benefit, and pension cuts. Not one voice raised to oppose the mass frenzy that the problems of GM and Chrysler stem from union greed.
Here's what Paul Miller said:
Yeah, Paul Miller is an NDP MPP, not a Liberal. And yeah, that's exactly what the McGuinty Liberals are doing. They're demanding that Chrysler and GM reduce workers' conditions even more before Ontario kicks in one more dime.
So, are there some more press releases that Peter3 missed, where the ONDP sticks up for workers (and no, I don't just mean, saving future jobs at any cost - that's what Clement and Harper and Obama and the companies are doing)?
From an auto worker's viewpoint, what exactly is the difference between McGuinty and Horwath?
That's rather disingenuous, unionist.
Job guarantees is at the top of the list of things Miller was 'demanding'
What Miller demanded mirrors what the CAW was publically pushing the govt use its clout for.
To be more precise than what I just posted: Clement, Harper, GM and Chrysler are talking generally about "sacrifices [autoworkers] to save future jobs"... no commitment of course. The CAW is asking the same thing as is the ONDP- guarantees about employment levels in return for aid.
From an e-mail that I received
This week, Andrea Horwath, Ontario NDP Leader pushed the McGuinty Liberals on the need for caps on executive compensation, following the introduction of her Private Member's Bill on the issue.
Read Andrea Horwath's questions from this week's Question Period here, or the full hansard below:
May 14, to Finance Minister Dwight Duncan - http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardETITLE/39-1/L151-34.html#BeginOfTitle
May 13, to Premier Dalton McGuinty - http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardETITLE/39-1/L150-33.html#BeginOfTitle
Read Andrea Horwath's Bill 180, Capping Executive Compensation Act, 2009, here: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2190
For more information, please e-mail: malika@ndp.on.ca
---
Ontario Hansard - 14-May2009
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Premier made crystal clear his opposition to my bill calling for a cap on executive compensation. This morning, we may be finding out why he was so opposed. It may have something to do with the company he keeps.
My question is simple: Has the government sought advice on the issue of capping executive compensation, and if so, from whom?
Hon. Dwight Duncan: The one thing that our government is intent on doing is protecting the footprint of the auto industry in Ontario. The member opposite wants to pretend that there's an easy way out of this. The member opposite wants to pretend that there haven't been more jobs lost in Michigan, Indiana and Indianapolis.
In terms of executive compensation, a number of parts of the arrangements in the Chrysler situation-and the General Motors deal, if we're able to come to one-will address those kinds of questions as well.
But let's all understand the enormous difficulty that this major employer and major contributor to our GDP is going through. Let's all resolve to work together to get a deal with GM, to protect the jobs and pensions of the workers here in Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?
Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, this morning's Globe and Mail paints a picture of how this government comes up with its economic policy. It would appear that the person really calling the shots at the finance ministry doesn't even sit in this House. No, he works at TD Bank, and he reports directly to a CEO who raked in more than $22 million in pay over the last two years.
Why is this government putting the interests of corporate executives ahead of the interests of everyone else?
Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have a group of 12 economists who regularly provide advice to the government, including Jim Stanford from the CAW, who has provided a lot of very good advice to me individually, and with whom I communicate regularly.
Unlike New Democrats, I don't have all the answers. We reach for advice from all kinds of people, from CAW economists to bank economists, from the director of the food bank to the directors of some of our largest companies.
To the member opposite, I'll continue to seek their advice, and I will continue to seek the advice-
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.
Ms. Andrea Horwath: We shouldn't be surprised by any of this. Executives responsible for the poor decisions that have left large companies on the brink will continue to be handsomely compensated through the public purse while hard-working Ontarians are left to worry about the everyday essentials, worry about disappearing pensions, worry about getting slapped with an 8% tax increase that's going to cost them more every single day, all because well-heeled executives say so.
What will it take before this government finally says no to self-serving corporate executives and yes to the other 99% of Ontarians?
Hon. Dwight Duncan: That is sad. Let me say this: I don't believe Don Drummond is self-serving. I think Don Drummond provides good advice, some of which we take and some of which we don't.
We offered that member a full briefing from our ministry on the state of the economy prior to the budget, and she said no. She refused to take it. To the leader of the third party, I will continue to take advice from Mr. Drummond. By the way, the Canadian banks are not losing money; in fact, they're a symbol of success at a time when world banks are collapsing.
I ask our members in Toronto-more than 300,000 new jobs have been created in financial services in the last five years. No, no, to the leader of the NDP-
---
Ontario Hansard - 13-May2009
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question's to the Premier. As this government asks auto workers to make unprecedented sacrifices to keep companies like GM and Chrysler alive, as this government asks taxpayers to fork over their hard-earned tax dollars to prop up some of the world's largest corporations, New Democrats believe that the senior executives at these corporations must be required to make some sacrifices as well. That's why I introduced yesterday the Capping Executive Compensation Act, a bill that would place a ceiling of $400,000 on compensation packages for senior executives at large corporations receiving government bailouts. My question is a simple one: Will this government support my bill?
Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the effort made by my honourable colleague and the sentiment that informs the bill that she's presented. But, no, I can't support it, and I'll tell you why. I think, ultimately, our responsibility is to find ways to enter into partnerships with businesses that serve the public interest-a partnership that serves the public interest. What we want to do is find ways, through these partnerships, to strengthen the economy and create jobs. If we are achieving that aim, if our partnerships strengthen the economy, if it creates more jobs, then we are satisfied. I'm not looking for a kind of incidental or collateral benefit, so to speak, to reach in and interfere with salaries awarded to executives.
Again, our objective is to achieve more jobs in a stronger economy, and if the partnerships achieve that, I think that's what the public wants us to do.
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?
Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'm trying to understand the choices that this Premier is making. He introduces legislation that removes its obligation to the pension benefits guarantee fund, he forces auto workers to reopen their collective agreements as a condition of their employers receiving provincial aid, and he asks taxpayers to fork over billions of dollars to some of the world's largest corporations. When will he realize that high-flying executives at corporations on the public dole also have a role to play, and it starts with a limitation on their pay and on their perks?
Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I do agree that executives have a responsibility to lead by example, but I don't enthusiastically, on the part of our government, embrace interference in the private sector through our partnerships. What I do embrace and what I sense the responsibility to do is to find ways to enter into partnerships that serve the public interest. Again, that's all about creating jobs. It's about finding ways to strengthen the economy. It's about giving our families more reasons to be hopeful for themselves and their children. Those are the criteria that we apply, and I think that's what families want us to continue to do, and that's what we will do.
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?
Ms. Andrea Horwath: The public interest is served when everyone shares in the pain, I would submit to this Premier. In fact, President Obama recognized that with his financial services bailout, where he capped corporations' executive salaries at $500,000. It's something this Premier could do as well. Plain and simple, it's about fairness. Hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their jobs, and the pensions of tens of thousands more are in danger. These workers and pensioners are making tremendous sacrifices. Corporate executives must start making sacrifices too, with a cap on their pay and with a cap on their perks. Why doesn't this Premier agree?
Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we will do what is necessary to ensure that when we do enter into these partnerships, they serve the public interest, create jobs, strengthen the economy, give our families reason to be hopeful.
There will be some cases where it's appropriate for us to introduce the kind of capping that my honourable colleague talks about. In fact, we did that in the Chrysler deal. There is a cap in place on executive pay. In some cases, it will be appropriate and it will be possible; in others, it will not. But we will not be motivated by a sense of some kind of class warfare that sometimes inspires my colleagues opposite in the New Democratic Party. We will try to be fair to people on all sides, regardless of their income levels.
From an auto worker's viewpoint, what exactly is the difference between McGuinty and Horwath?
Not my call, really, which is why I asked what I asked.
I do think that this quote from Andrea Horwath on the day she won the leadership is generally relevant to the question of how she differs from a Liberal:
"The middle class is disappearing and the working class is largely unemployed. We could accept this and adjust, that's what the other parties say, but adjust to what - growing unemployment lines and growing food bank lines, adjust to this growing discrepancy? Adjust so that those who stole our money can get more of it? We refuse to adjust."
In an interview earlier this month she said, in the context of the auto sector's troubles, "I don't think we should always be saying that it's the worker that has to take the hit, or it's the woman or man on the shop floor that's the one who has to scale back." and went on to talk about capping executive salaries.
Whether any of that matters from an auto worker's perspective would be something you would be better positioned to answer.
Whether any of that matters from an auto worker's perspective would be something you would be better positioned to answer.
Not being an auto worker, I don't understand your comment. So let's get back to basics, shall we?
You opened this thread, indeed, you named it. Your opening post quoted Lewenza condemning both the federal Conservatives and the provincial Liberals for "seeking deeper cuts" from GM auto workers than they gave to Chrysler.
You then asked whether this calls into question "anti-Conservative strategic voting".
So I asked whether the ONDP is any different ON THIS VERY ISSUE from the other two parties. Because if not, then the auto crisis would not impact on anyone's vote, would it?
So far, we have seen Layton praising workers' courage for taking wage cuts so that others can keep their jobs, and we have heard Paul Miller warning McGuinty to squeeze GM and Chrysler harder before giving them a single taxpayers' dollar.
And so, I ask once more - is the ONDP's position on stripping auto workers' hard-won rights any different from McGuinty and Clement? The silence here is rather overwhelming.
So far, we have seen Layton praising workers' courage for taking wage cuts so that others can keep their jobs, and we have heard Paul Miller warning McGuinty to squeeze GM and Chrysler harder before giving them a single taxpayers' dollar.
No.
And so, I ask once more - is the ONDP's position on stripping auto workers' hard-won rights any different from McGuinty and Clement?
Yes.
Whatever.
So, Peter3, I see you get very weary when people ask questions in response to the discussion you opened. Superiority must be such a dreadful burden. But if you happen to notice any comments by the NDP on the current attack on the CAW and GM and Chrysler workers, maybe have one of your people just post a little something here.
Thanks for your time.
So, Peter3, I see you get very weary when people ask questions in response to the discussion you opened. Superiority must be such a dreadful burden. But if you happen to notice any comments by the NDP on the current attack on the CAW and GM and Chrysler workers, maybe have one of your people just post a little something here.
Thanks for your time.
Cheers.
You are badgering Unionist.
Peter3 posed some questions. You asked him some questions that are really a point made, and demanded replies.
He didn't feel in a position.
Let alone that is a prerogative prople had, you got answers to your questions from me.
That counts for nothing?
Ken, LTJ, and everyone else:
I am not talking about "job guarantees".
I'm talking about pressuring the CAW and its members to give the 3rd round of concessions in one year.
I'm talking about what is happening right now, at the bargaining table, where Lewenza is condemning McGuinty and Clement, NOT for failing to get job guarantees, but for pushing the workers to give deeper concessions.
Is that clear?? That's all I'm talking about. And I'd like to know where (if anywhere) the ONDP stands on that issue. NOT demanding jobs (however important that may be) - but about blaming autoworkers' compensation levels as being the touchstone of survivability of GM and Chrysler.
Sorry if I hadn't made myself clear earlier, but perhaps this repetitious post will do the trick.
So, what's your point? In a month it will be St. Jean Baptiste Day, and you can be sure that the NDP will put out a press release celebrating that day and what it means for Quebec and for canadians of French descent
My point, Stockholm, is this horrendous statement:
Just thought I'd highlight that in case you still don't get it.
The two very similar old line parties at both levels gave taxpayer funded handouts without any strings attached to the car companies for years. And this is how theyre repaid.
Horwath fights for auto jobs as Oshawa plant closes
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath marked the final day of General Motors' Oshawa truck plant today with a demand that the McGuinty government must do better when it comes to protecting jobs in Ontario's auto sector.
"Right about now, the final pickup truck is rolling off the assembly line at GM's Oshawa truck plant. It marks not only the end of an era, but also the end of GM's long run as Canada's largest automaker. The McGuinty government played a role in the sad demise we are seeing today," said Horwath, during this morning's Question Period.
Horwath, who is making a visit to the Oshawa plant this afternoon, noted that in 2005 the government gave GM $235-million without securing the production of the company's Sierra hybrid pick-up truck even though much of the engineering work was done in Oshawa.
"Having already betrayed GM workers once by not securing the Sierra hybrid pick-up for Oshawa, will this government continue to betray them by failing to negotiate job guarantees for GM's latest multi-billion dollar aid package?" she asked.
One of the things that is interesting is despite the turmoil in Oshawa in recent years, the riding has stayed Conservative.
Now since the last election in October when the Conservatives got re-elected in Oshawa again, things have deteriorated even further.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the riding in the next election, but I think if the NDP can't win it back after all this, it may mean that it will never recover that ground.
Ontario was politically conservative for 50 years! There will be pockets of greying resistance for a few years yet.
Meanwhile, this is the Liberals showing what they can do. And God help us.
But Ed Broadbent was able to hold Oshawa for 20 years - from the late 60's to the late 80's. His successor briefly held onto it and then it went Liberal during the Chretien years and then went Conservative in the last several elections.
Why is it so difficult to knock Colin Carrie out of there?
I think that part of the reason Oshawa has stayed Conservative is that there is a pretty large NDP and and large Liberal vote - so this is one place where the Tories tend to win on a split opposition vote. Then you had the problem in '04 and '06 where the NDP candidate was Sid Ryan - who is a double edged sword - he may be very popular with a certain core element, but he is not the kind of New Democrat who can attract suburban commuters that live in Oshawa - he can only appeal to the "old labour" crowd - which is a shrinking part of the riding. Sid Ryan can get 35% of the votre - never higher than that. In 2008, the NDP had a really good candidate, but Tory support went way up across Ontario between the 06 and 08 elections , so it was not a good time to try to knock off a Tory incumbent and the collapse of the auto industry handn't hit home yet at that point.
In the next election, it SHOULD be a perfect storm for the NDP in that riding since tory support will be sinking like a stone. The main obstacle might be that so many jobs in the auto industry will have been lost that a large part of the NDP base in Oshawa simply won't be there anymore.
"Today reminds us of Canada’s place in the Commonwealth and our roots in Europe."
Yeah, so what. Canada does have roots in Europe. We were a French and then British colony for much of our history and we still have the Queen of England as our head of state. If you don't like - start a republican movement.
Just a couple suggestions/ thoughts:
First off, I think this is a perfect example of Activism and Unions going a little far as to out right say that they are affiliated with any one political party with the idea that there is no implication. The point being, Canada's system of democracy and any one political party having the chance to take over, that when the CAW is in support to the NDP. The Conservatives get elected and this isn't in the best interest of the CAW in regards to negotiations. Lets face it, these parties have one interest... Not the communities in which they are elected to serve, yet companies that will get them that vote and that seat in the next coming election. I need to point out that do you think if the NDP got elected, don't you think with CAW's support with the whole crisis would be resolved in a different way... Maybe an outright bailout package? Maybe they can internally push one party but not right out support one party over another.
Secondly, why hasn't the CAW ever pointed the finger at anyone else who has piggy backed off of the auto industry? Where do you start? The Government mandating to have insurance yet call two different insurance brokers and see thousands of dollars difference! I thought I am contributing to my surrounding community by being employed to the public sector, yet I am supposed to work a broker's job on finding where I can get the cheapest insurance? Everything, even grocery stores, two stores, same product, different prices... then you have the gas companies racking in billions in profit each year.... What about the managers that drive the company into the ground and that rakes in money not to mention take off with it before they file for bankruptcy? Yet those people who's pensions that they were differing for all those years of labour.. Now there take home salary with hope that one day they will be able to not have to work and enjoy life with grandchildren, provide help to their families. Who is thinking of the children, who would want to spend time with there grandparents to get to know them before it's too late? There are many implications that are making Canada seem as if we have lost our democratic liberties and that we are voting on which political party should set us up into our next communist ways... (I'm a little frustrated to say the least!)
We have salary caps in our sports where these people are suppose to be actually fit, not allowed alcohol or drugs or to make bad decisions with the implications that there life career could be scrutinized and the public eye have any right to speak freely of them. Yet they are capped with a salary, no matter how good or valuable they could be to the success to that team, that you are... So, why isn't there salary caps to CEO's of companies? Are they actually producing anything or just pushing papers, putting money back into our society? our communities? Or just giving Canada's bailout action plan to European countries? Buying Porshe's? ferrari's? Audi's...
When the people we vote for are telling us that they are trying to help us, yet are giving the bail out's to the banks and insurance company's where all of the problems started in the first place back in the early 80's... What is the government doing for us? Shouldn't they be working for the people? Why are they able to raise there own salary but no one else's? Why are they forcing youth to have to take multiple part time jobs in order to pay off loans and debt? With un-unionized work with old structural systemic problems of oppressions and silence... Or a "living wage" that actually kept up with the rate of inflation. Or immigrants able to utilize there skills? Get employed in what they specialize in? Let them earn the same as any other "Canadian"... The reality is that they want to live here and put their money into our economy... Why isn't our government letting them??? Economic crisis????
Or just a way for government to silently oppress our communities and society's with keeping everyone so caught up in the North American way of a lifestyle of materialistic goods and an individualistic approach? That's what the television is used for isn't it? To brain wash people into thinking that they deserve all the materialistic materials that they can imagine...Imagine...Wouldn't it be great if we had some politicians that came from having to work for the money they earned rather then setting policies and agendas now having no realistic idea about what implications they are creating on the future?!?!!!
Sam Gindin on the CAW-NDP split
The union did subsequently explain its position in broader terms. It suggested that it had shifted from support for a tepid social democracy and narrow electoralism, toward a more explicit "movement politics." But the most visible signs of CAW involvement in the election had little to do with education of the members and movement building; rather, the election will be remembered for the presence of Paul Martin at the CAW convention, the smiles and hugs as the CAW president bestowed Martin with a CAW jacket, and the extent to which this left the membership confused, divided, and cynical. In the eyes of many activists -- both inside and outside the CAW -- the union's politics are increasingly driven by pragmatism, not an expansive vision. In the auto industry in particular, where the union put its main energy into lobbying for money for the Big Three, the union seems to have gotten uncomfortably close to both the corporations and the Liberals.
In defending his electoral role during the 2006 Federal election, CAW President Buzz Hargrove has been able to call on a resolution passed by national delegates to the CAW Canadian Council. The NDP's response, Hargrove argued, was therefore not just an attack on him personally, but a direct challenge to the overall union and its democratic autonomy. It is interesting to note, however, that while the actual resolution explicitly called on delegates to "endorse sitting NDP members" as well as NDP candidates in "winnable ridings," it stated that in other ridings, "the CAW will not endorse any specific candidates." In this context, the support given to Liberal candidates Belinda Stronach of Magna and a Toyota executive -- both representatives of notoriously anti-union companies -- was not only politically questionable in terms of the union's long-standing challenge to anti-union employers, but debatable even in terms of the wording and intent of the resolution.
The CAW leadership nevertheless insisted that it was in fact moving to the left and pointed to its new internal structures -- Union in Politics Committees or UPCs -- as the basis for "a new way of doing politics." But the UPCs had in fact been established back in September 2004 (a further reminder that the tensions with the NDP were not new). In the more than two years since, they have been disappointingly dormant. To be fair, there have been a number of well-received training sessions for these committees; the CAW's commitment to membership education remains unparalleled, and local CAW activists continue to play impressive roles in specific campaigns such as those around health care. Yet, without a larger overall commitment to challenging the status quo and a clear turn away from elite-oriented politics, the stagnation of the UPCs is virtually inevitable (the staff member assigned to act as a catalyst for the mobilization from below tellingly ended up concentrating his efforts on acting as the union lobbyist in Ottawa).
A "new politics" would have meant more than rejecting the NDP and replacing it with new but lifeless structures. It would have included:
In short, the possibility of a new politics cannot be raised without rethinking the place of unions within today's local and global struggle against neoliberalism. And rethinking that also means addressing (a) how unions think about their members and their members' role in the organization and (b) the adequacy of unions' structures -- including structures for democratic debate and participation -- to the challenges currently confronting unions and working people.
It is true enough that the NDP had moved to the center. The irony is that, in leaving the NDP, the CAW leadership was hardly breaking new ground on the left, but rather also moving, in its own way, to the center.
I dont understand unionized workers voting against themselves by voting Liberal. Theyve made their bed, and now they should lie in it and quit grumbling about the Liberal-fascists now working hand in glove with North American corporations to downsize wages and walk away from pension obligations. hargrove and the Liberals/Tories have corporate shit all over their moustaches now.
Quote:
"In short, the possibility of a new politics cannot be raised without rethinking the place of unions within today's local and global struggle against neoliberalism. And rethinking that also means addressing (a) how unions think about their members and their members' role in the organization and (b) the adequacy of unions' structures -- including structures for democratic debate and participation -- to the challenges currently confronting unions and working people."
I cannot agree anymore with this entire article, and feel something needs to come from the people! To give a choice/voice that is fair for all with dignity and respect!!!
Barak Obama has started to show people that change is possible... Hopefully more Canadians will start thinking out side the capitalist box that so many feel stuck with in...
To quote Barack Obama:
"One voice can change a room, and if one voice can change a room, then it can change a city, and if it can change a city, it can change a state, and if it change a state, it can change a nation, and if it can change a nation, it can change the world. Your voice can change the world." -Barack Obama
I expect the CAW to continue to support the oxymoronic "strategic voting" policy, though you won't see this leader endorse a Liberal leader like Buzz did with Paul "the E.I. Thief" Martin.
The big stupidity in all this is that everyone has the cart before the horse. Everyone acts like the CAW has within it's grasp a meaningfull block of votes, and there's no evidence to support that. Or, if they do have influence, it's to give a rational to those (inside and outside the CAW) who waver between the NDP and Liberals to vote Liberal.
I note that through all the strategic voting debate that the CAW and others "on the left" who expouse "strategic voting" never have the plain honesty to tell people that when they vote, they vote to put a dollar something into the pockets of the party they voted for.
Buzz, and all other advocates of "strategic voting" are actually Liberal Party fundraisers.
Getting back to the cart and the horse, if the CAW was interested in actually have a block of votes they could influence, they'd first be concerned with just getting their members to vote.
"Today reminds us of Canada’s place in the Commonwealth and our roots in Europe."
Yeah, so what. Canada does have roots in Europe. We were a French and then British colony for much of our history and we still have the Queen of England as our head of state. If you don't like - start a republican movement.
You think it's appropriate to say "our roots" as if the leader of the NDP isn't also speaking for the Indigenous people and the vast numbers of Canadians with roots in Asia, Africa, and Latin America?
Can you see Layton saying, "our ancestors had their lands stolen by the European colonizers"?
Why am I bothering explaining this to you?
We have our roots in Europe and in the Far East and in Latin America and in the first nations. This release just talks about our roots in Europe. I can certainly see how a mischievous interpretation of the phrasing is possible by those who want to believe that the NDP would think Canada *only* had European roots, and maybe that sentence could have been a little more elegantly written (or translated from the French), but I don't honestly think Jack believes it. Do you? Really?
Why am I bothering explaining this to you?
Because its better than smashing up the keyboard.
So you admit that most of the things issued from Layton's office are just "blah blah' that are not worth reading. I concur.
Courageous pay cuts?
Maybe this is what we should be supporting:
Many Canadians will be taking the opportunity of a long weekend to take a break from busy lives, see family or spend time away from home. On behalf of New Democrats across Canada, I offer my very best wishes for Victoria Day.
Well, at least it will resonate with Aboriginal people, Quebeckers, immigrants, the poor, the unemployed...
Of all the stupid and idoitic attacks you have made against the NDP this ranks as number 1 in stupidity and idoicy.
We do have roots in Europe. We also have roots in North America, South America, Asia, Africa and Australia. It takes roots growing in every direction that makes a tree stand tall, survive and thrive. Victoria Day is a day that celebrates that heritage, just like all the other days we celebrate honour other roots.
What next, please won't the NDP please just think of the children
Hello, it was Memorial/Victoria Day, you know celebrating the monarchy in Canada, the Day has nothing to do with immigrated peoples from others countries, per se. And indeed, the Day itself should be renamed to be something other than what it is. As the Day itself is exclusive, and as such one really cannot address it as anything else than a memory, once a year, of European roots colonializing Canada.
Gawd the unbelievable pickey shit people choose to carry on about in their marching to trash the NDP and Layton. Pretty much makes them transparent though, so for that we should thank them.
Oops, cross posted with BA!
Interesting thread drift.
I have been part of hosting and celebrating a Robbie Burns Day event for many years.
By Unionist's standard I must be close to an axe murderer for it.
Gi'e me a spark o' Nature's fire that's a' the learning I desire
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To Murder men, and give God thanks? Desist for same! proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for Murther!
Statement by New Democrat Leader Jack Layton on International Workers’ Day
“As workers around the world celebrate the labour movement on this May Day, we can reflect on the changes we are seeing in Canada and the work that is still ahead.”
“New Democrats are working from coast to coast to coast to maintain the rights of workers during this economic crisis. In Ottawa, we are seeing the Harper government use this crisis as an excuse to attack workers rights. In the past few months we have seen attacks on collective bargaining, pay equity and a refusal to support anti-scab legislation and pension protections.”
And another for workers, though I noticed that many alleged pro-workers people never acknowleged this day at all here
Statement on the National Day of Mourning
Today New Democrats across the country mark the National Day of Mourning and honour those men and women who have been injured or killed on the job.
“Since the Canadian Labour Congress first created the day of mourning for workers killed and injured on the job in 1984 we have seen successive governments pledge to support workers,” said New Democrat leader Jack Layton. “In addition to new legislation on workplace safety, the government needs to provide the resources to enforce these laws.”
Liberals join Conservatives to kill worker protection motion Wed 29 Apr 2009
OTTAWA - “With workers' rights at stake, Liberals joined with the Conservative government to kill a motion designed to level the playing field for workers in federally regulated industries during a strike,” said New Democrat Labour Critic Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain).
Anti-scab legislation had Liberal support in the last Parliament, but this motion failed when Liberals chose to side with the Conservative government.
Masse condemns Industry Committee auto report as an ineffective sideshow Wed 1 Apr 2009
OTTAWA - Yesterday, Brian Masse, New Democrat Industry, Automotive and Border Critic, declared the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science, and Technology’s report on the auto industry “an ineffective sideshow” that does nothing to inform the public of the sector’s real problems nor addresses the industry’s competitiveness and viability needs.”
They didn't.
While they stand by, good jobs are disappearing, and many of our jobs are being shipped overseas.
Thousands of hard-working Canadians are struggling to pay the bills and support their families because they are forced to rely on a succession of insecure, low-wage jobs.
We can do better. Every worker deserves a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, respect in the workplace, and a secure pension.
http://www.ndp.ca/platform/jobsandaffordability
But yet when one looks at the other parties web sites, Canadian workers are not even mentioned. But yet we are supposed to believe, according to some, that the NDP are doing nothing for Canadians workers.
We have our roots in Europe and in the Far East and in Latin America and in the first nations. This release just talks about our roots in Europe. I can certainly see how a mischievous interpretation of the phrasing is possible by those who want to believe that the NDP would think Canada *only* had European roots, and maybe that sentence could have been a little more elegantly written (or translated from the French), but I don't honestly think Jack believes it. Do you? Really?
No, I don't think Jack believes it. But listen to the cacophony in this thread. Remind calls it "picky shit" and that I'm "transparent" and "allegedly pro-worker". Bookish Agrarian throws a fit. I quoted this in a jocular tone way upthread while waiting for an answer as to the ONDP's stand on stripping auto workers of their benefits (still waiting, as you probably know), and the Inquisition begins.
You'd think these people don't even know (or obviously care) that no one in Québec even calls it "Victoria" Day. You'd think Jack Layton couldn't stifle some two paras, put out in his name, celebrating our European origins? This is insensitivity so ingrained that it has nothing to do with Jack's "beliefs". But people don't respond to what you "believe". They respond to what you say, and what you do. I have criticized the NDP all my life, while supporting them electorally and in campaign and money terms most of that time. I am proud never to have been a fawning sycophant, and to maintain my freedom of thought. My first allegiance is to the workers, and anyone who doesn't pass muster (especially those who claim to be pro-worker) will hear about it.
Remind's personal slanders are frankly sad and funny - she can't stick to a debating point for two minutes without seeing enemies on the other side. I find that sad, given our agreement on almost all points of principle. But when it comes to unquestioning slavish drooling over the latest face to be spewed out of a party - any party - count me out.
Well even Jack's holiday gesture is better than Iggy's "I'm a quiet American" speech.
At last we agree.
Unionist, I guess your caring for the workers doesn't extend to the workers who work in the Communications shop at the Federal Caucus. A lot of them are young and enthusiastic and new to their jobs (and one or two does not have English as a first language). You are so unforgiving of every single word. You must be a very angry person.
I'm sorry I couldn't answer your question about details on the ONDP and the CAW. But is it really acceptable evidence to you that you ask a question on a bulletin board, no-one reading it that night is able to answer, and therefore the ONDP has done nothing?
Unionist, I guess your caring for the workers doesn't extend to the workers who work in the Communications shop at the Federal Caucus. A lot of them are young and enthusiastic and new to their jobs (and one or two does not have English as a first language). You are so unforgiving of every single word. You must be a very angry person.
And you must be very tranquil and relaxed. But perhaps we could avoid the cheap personal character analyses? I don't comment on people here, just on their posts.
Your comment above is rather bizarre. I expect verification, not of grammar, but of content and political and cultural sensitivity. I frankly don't care who works in that shop or what their first language is. I'm talking about communiqués published over the leader's name - Jack Layton's name. Does he know that it's not called Victoria Day in Québec? Did you? And what did you think of my comment about cultural insensitivity in the reference to European roots? You want to blame some workers in the "Communication shop" whatever that is?
Sorry, you should read more carefully. Peter3 linked a half-dozen articles in response to me, none of which dealt with the issue. Others (Scott P., remind) have carried on linking more material. In reply, I have said that I'm still waiting to hear, if anyone knows. And I'm still waiting, contrary to your insinuation that I've reached some conclusion. I'm not as close to the Ontario scene as others here.
The real unanswered question stems from the opening post. If the CAW should re-think its (alleged) support for the McGuinty Liberals (which I believe was a Hargrove thing, as confirmed by others above) based on the events surrounding these ongoing negotiations, part of that assessment must surely be an evaluation of where the ONDP stands. But all I've heard so far is how the ONDP wants job guarantees or no tax dollars - and they want to cap executive compensation.
Do they subscribe to the view that autoworkers' wages and benefits must be slashed in order to make GM and Chrysler viable and deserving of government assistance? That's an important question to me, and I'm still waiting for an answer.
You know the answer you are looking for Unionist. Why not write it yourself? Then it can be alternately saluted and called bullshit.
The second post of the thread is really part of the opening post. And its clearly searching for a means to improve the atrophied relationship between the labour movement and the NDP, and suggesting the auto manufacturing crisis looks like an opportunity for that.
The events Peter chose to illustrate that with in the opening post is very much secondary.
So how about rather than using that as a basis for an in your face challenge, instead simply say that the NDP could start by publicly decrying how the provncial and federal governments have joined in demanding endless concessions from the CAW.
The ONDP could start improving its atrophied relationship with the labour movement by publicly decrying how the provncial and federal governments have joined in demanding endless concessions from the CAW.
I'll bet that single act, performed sincerely and consistently, would go far in burying CAW "strategic voting" at the provincial level.
The ONDP could start improving its atrophied relationship with the labour movement by publicly decrying how the provncial and federal governments have joined in demanding endless concessions from the CAW.
I'll bet that single act, performed sincerely and consistently, would go far in burying CAW "strategic voting" at the provincial level.
The ONDP does not have an "atrophied" relationship with the labour movement- but then you don't care about facts do you.
As for your 'jockular' comments. You are a typical passive agressive.
I did not 'throw a fit' I called you on your bullshit. After all it is not as if this was the first time you have done this same exact sort of made up outrage crap fest.
I'll address Unionists point later.
But I'd like to right now say that I also think it is not accurate to say that the relationship is atrophied. I did put the words out there, but in the spirit of summarizing positions/questions, not as what I think.
I think it is more accurate to characterize it that for at least a number of decades the relationship was never what people presumed it to be. But I think pinpointing that is a distraction. I like the spirit of the opening posts, which I read as: its a relationship that could be more.
The ONDP does not have an "atrophied" relationship with the labour movement- but then you don't care about facts do you.
Sorry, I was just cutting and pasting.
Why do you call me names? Have I ever, once, done that to you? I pointed out that you threw a fit (which you did, and it's carrying on unfortunately), but don't characterize me, please. Deal with my opinions, whether you like them or not, or ignore them.
Actually, you never once - never once - commented on the topic of this thread. I never attacked you - never even spoke to you - and you attacked me over and over again, until I mentioned that you had thrown a fit, and now you do it again. If I apologized to you for that one comment, would it make any difference? In fact, would it inspire you to actually participate in the discussion set out in the thread topic?
.
The ONDP does not have an "atrophied" relationship with the labour movement- but then you don't care about facts do you.
Sorry, I was just cutting and pasting.
Why do you call me names? Have I ever, once, done that to you? I pointed out that you threw a fit (which you did, and it's carrying on unfortunately), but don't characterize me, please. Deal with my opinions, whether you like them or not, or ignore them.
Actually, you never once - never once - commented on the topic of this thread. I never attacked you - never even spoke to you - and you attacked me over and over again, until I mentioned that you had thrown a fit, and now you do it again. If I apologized to you for that one comment, would it make any difference? In fact, would it inspire you to actually participate in the discussion set out in the thread topic?
I see you are continuing with the passive agressive routine. You were not attacked over and over again. You were called on your bullshit twice . Said bullshit has a long history. There is no 'fit' but you continue to call someone challenging you as a 'fit'. Frankly you are a broken record with the kind of attacks you continue to make.
I chose to comment on comments made in the thread. If that's a crime - we better lock you up and throw away the key.
Pffft! Jocular tone is re-writing hisotry, IMV and I never mentioned your name in particular at all.
Ahhhh, as opposed to yours, I see. :rolleyes:
I like the spirit of the opening posts, which I read as: its a relationship that could be more.
I agree about the opening posts. In post #10, I made a crack about Jack's statement on Victoria Day, after seeing (for the first time) his comments to the Board of Trade praising workers' "courage" for taking pay cuts.
The respectful and interesting discussion resumed - until 14 posts later Stockholm decided to drag back my Victoria Day drift and create a provocation - which I of course stepped into.
So instead of addressing my point later, how about addressing it now. The CAW's manufacturing heart is dying. The union itself may well be dying. Everyone (almost literally) is attacking it, but actually attacking its members, as being responsible for a good part of the crisis. Today they're starting bargaining with Air Canada and being asked to put their pension in jeopardy.
I think there should be at least one party in this country that stands up and says, "the workers are not to blame; they must not be stripped of their hard-won gains under the pretext of a crisis caused by wealthy and unscrupulous credit derivative swappers" - and so on. The only party I know that can credibly say that is the NDP. Don't you think such a stand is needed and overdue? I am waiting to hear that from one person hear, because I hear it a lot in the union movement.
Curious whether what you hear from union members "is anyone going to speak to the unfairness?" or do thay actually say any party / will the NDP?
Really, even if you odn't hear it much even among union folk... its a valid question.
Don't think its going to happen. Don't rule it out, and my surmise may be overly pessimistic... but if it is, it is only overly pessimistic in this particular case. So without ruling out that it might happen, I'll address why it is at least fraught with difficulties.
Governments are not only not helping unions, but even using the extra influence they have as lenders of last reort to the automakers to add to the demands that they make more and more concessions.
They can do this because the population has a low opinion of unions and many see union members as having advantages they resent. [And before brushing that off- what of the many, many more of us who have lost jobs, have no one offering you anything and know they won't, plus minimal retirement provisions [if any] that you will now eat up to survive?]
Contrast this where Marchionne can come back to Canada and make demands on CAW members, but goes back to Italy to assure them no concessions will be required there.... while Fiat also needs a government bailout, and even the right wing government makes no demands of worker concessions.
People may not have known the details of that Italian comparison, but the neture of the comparison are no surprise.
So the situation for the NDP is that it cannot go into the public sphere and speak to defending unionized workers, without raising substantial resentments among people who vote or might vote for the NDP [doesn't matter what the population as a whole thinks] who absolutely certainly will say "nothing is happening to them that worse isn't happening to me and mine. Why should they be saved from being squeezed when I am not."
Now obviously we have a problem about that, and it doesn't do to just throw up your hands about it. But in the immediate term nothing can be done to change that. And the NDP running counter to that sentiment is not going to perceptably shift peoples notions- not a bit.
What it will do is cost the NDP votes- either directly, or at a minimum by putting the NDP on the defensive which always costs votes.
There may be a communications strategy around that- which is why I didn't rule it out. But barring that, I am simply uninterested in gestures with virually no chance of a material effect on anything except adversely effecting the NDPs electability.
Unions- let alone union rank and file- are no different. When what your allies want conflicts with your primary interest, then sorry folks.
Unions have done a piss poor job themselves of addressing the low opinion they have even among people in the same of lesser economic circumstances as their members. So its doubly unacceptable to expect the NDP to lay its head on the alter of sacrifice.
That's a long comment, Ken, to say that the NDP can't stand up to defend unionized workers at this particular moment (a moment when they are under arguably the most dangerous attack in many years) because it would rub other voters the wrong way. So the calculation must be, don't harm electability - develop a communications strategy.
You of course would never, ever, suggest such a pragmatic approach when other groups in society were under attack, would you? Women, immigrants, youth, farmers, persons of colour, the poor... I know you wouldn't. You wouldn't say, "well, those folks haven't done a great job of reaching out, so why should the NDP risk its skin for them?" No, you wouldn't.
It's not just the National Citizens' Coalition and right-wingers of all kinds that keep screaming that the NDP is beholden to Big Labour. There are people on this board who openly savoured the prospect in 2006 that the rupture with the CAW could herald an organizational split with unions, period.
If the NDP can't take the small risk of saying, "Leave the auto workers alone - it's the U.S. bondholders that should be making concessions here", then when can auto workers (and other manufacturing workers) expect to feel the NDP's support - when they no longer need it as badly?
Why in hell should the NDP make comments regarding unionized workers alone? Though they basically did when they talked of collective aggreements and pensions anyway. Things which average Joe and Jane workers do NOT have! But for some apparently that is not good enough, and want a further singling out of themselves, perhaps so then they can attack the NDP for not being inclusive to everyone who works and is feeling the impact?
See, parties have to earn people's respect and trust. It's not the other way around. If the NDP wants to focus on some groups of Canadians to the exclusion of others, no one should complain when that attitude is reciprocated. I would much rather the NDP were inclusive. That means championing those under attack without conducting popularity polls first.
Don't try to change the terms of what I said.
Its not small, and not simply a 'risk'. Its virtually guaranteed that the NDP would pay a steep price- which I said already.
You can and should talk about bondholders all you want. But you cannot by fiat determine the terms the question will be 'ingested'. When you criticise the governments for pushing hard on the CAW it will rebound as the NDP wants your tax dollars to go to keeping union wages and benefits higher [and not needing to be spoken: things you don't have and never will].
And I don't care how much need there is- the NDP cannot budge that opinion in the near or even medium term any more than unions can. A gesture that achieves little or nothing is just far too small benefits for the cost that will be paid for the gesture.
You of course would never, ever, suggest such a pragmatic approach when other groups in society were under attack, would you? Women, immigrants, youth, farmers, persons of colour, the poor... I know you wouldn't. You wouldn't say, "well, those folks haven't done a great job of reaching out, so why should the NDP risk its skin for them?" No, you wouldn't.
More to the point: I wouldn't have to make that choice. For all the resentment of immigrants, and all the veiled attacks on them, defending them gets virtually no blowback for the NDP. Attacks on unions don't even need to be veiled.
Among people who post here- at least those that stick around, the desire for such a split can't just be chalked up to ambivalence about unions- let alone outright ant-union sentiment.
But let alone what voters who support or might vote for the NDP think- the NDP membership is full of people who have a lot of ambivalence and resentment about what unions are able to get for the members. "Unions are good. But.... [among other things: my taxes go to pay for unuion benefits that are things I'll never have].
No surprise that the membership who come to the party for a variety of different appeals reflect opinions that are rife out there. When you talk among the activist cadre at the provincial organizational level of the NSNDP you will not find opinions like that, but its very prevalent among riding activists- especially away from Metro.
Everyone, is under attack unionist, not just CAW workers, and and they are being inclusive, and I see it as being you who wants them to be exclusive, by demanding that they speak directly about CAW. You have been given more than enough samples of their addressing unions in particular, as my point stands avergae jane and joes do not have collective agreements nor pension plans, but yet you decide to "overlook" them and say "nope nothing to see here" basically.
You are going to the point of absurbity, and that is sad to see.
Remind, please listen. The thread is about the CAW and whether the actions of McGuinty, in joining with Clement to squeeze more concessions out of autoworkers, should cause it to re-evaluate its attitude to the NDP. I know we're at post #81, but that's all I've been commenting on (except for my foray into Victoria Day). I support the NDP. I vote for the NDP. But this thread is just about that one very important issue - the CAW and its attitude to the NDP, based on McGuinty's betrayal.
Funny, where were CAW when BC forestry industry union workers were getting laid off in the tens of thousands? Frankly, IMV it is a BS thread drift demanding that NDP make references directly to the plight of CAW employees.
Ken, when the Rae government refused to whip its caucus for the same-sex benefits legislation - when it broke its promise to enact public auto insurance - and especially, when it tore up negotiated collective agreements of unionized employees - all the same "cost-benefit" considerations must have been at play as the ones you have just described.
If we want parties that pander to the backward and the powerful, why not just go with the ones that have been doing it best for so many decades?
At any rate, I do believe you have answered the question as to whether McGuinty's betrayal will occasion a rethinking of voting strategy by autoworkers.
...because their current strategy is working out so well for them?
Funny, where were CAW when BC forestry industry union workers were getting laid off in the tens of thousands? Frankly, IMV it is a BS thread drift demanding that NDP make references directly to the plight of CAW employees.
Address that to the person who opened the thread, not me.
LTJ, what stand do you think the NDP should take under these circumstances.
I would like to see a more radical NDP. And I would like to see them support labour rights more openly in these difficult times.
Then again, I have some difficulty with the question, given the shenanigans of the CAW in the recent past, and the self-absorbed reactionary voting record of much of their membership.
Speaking of a more radical NDP and the moving left vs. pragmatic debate, I'm curious what people think of these interviews of Andrea Horwath and Leo Panitch on The Agenda?
(I know I posted this elsewhere so I hope it's not spamming)
A NB government backed off public auto after they were advised of probable NAFTA challenges from insurance companies. And Rae was pandering to CUPE officials worried about insurance companies laying off workers in the middle of recession.
With this attitude, that the NDP should have fixed 45 years years of political conservatism in Ontario inside of four years and during what was a Mulroney induced recession nation-wide - they should have thrown out Tommy Douglas and the CCF in Saskatchewan after four years for failing to deliver medicare and all that they achieved over several consecutive terms in government.
Perhaps we should vote for federal parties promising to renegotiate NAFTA to eliminate that very neoliberal areement's restrictions on public sector expansion in Canada?
We're All Bob Rae Now Rex Murphy
Caw members vote NDP higher than regular people, but not much. Less than 35% which would take the whole area being blue collar to make much difference. In fact Jeff Watson(essex con) worked at Chrysler in windsor all the while shitting on his fellow union members. Along with fellow member Rick Fuschi(con, former refromer) who almost always runs against Joe Comartin (that is solidarity). But whatever, I guess it must be because the NDP was being inclusive. Of course inclusive means to one degree or another moving to the center, which is what unionist routinely bitches about jack doing. You can't have it both ways. If he had been more inclusive you probably would have said he was only doing it for votes. Meh.
I would like to see the MEDIA doing it's job. But it won't. It sees this as an opportunity to drive a stake into the heart of wages and benefits. As McQuaig points out, it isn't money that people value, it's relative social standing. That is why even though a doctor makes 3-5 times as much as an auto worker no one bitches because that is how we view THEIR place in our social order. But gawd forbid if they make as much as a teachers, cops or "jourmalists". Unfortunately social status is largely dependant on wealth and materialism, not how you contibure to the society in which you live. Otherwise athletes, movie stars and esp CEO wouldn't earn the outrageous amounts they do.
That is a great point. I'm in a white collar union myself (CUPE 3903) and at one of our solidarity rallies in our last strike someone supporting us said how it was how unfair how TEACHERS were treated as badly as Tim Horton's workers - the implication being that since we're "educated" people with middle class aspirations we somehow should be "above" that.
There it is. Class warfare achieved to where the wealthy would like it. Workers(by that, 75-90% of people) are too busy being petty towards one another to worry about the rich who are walking away with EVERYTHING. Everyone deserves a living wage. I see 15/hour as a living wage. At least outside of some of the overpriced housing areas(though with proper planning that could be fixed too).
Until we come to the realization that every job is important(maybe not rewarding but important) we will continue down the spiral attacking each other instead of the real enemy.
You know someone at Tim Hortons might not be educated(or they may) but getting someones coffee in a quick efficient manner is damn important to many of us as we rush to our jobs needing that caffine jolt. My co workers understand how important it is when I don't get my morning coffee(grumpy bastard that I am).
As it stands, they are trying to eliminate cashiers with the self service lanes at Zehrs, Wallmart, Silvercity etc. I can see a time when we will have the great grandkids on our lap talking about when people actually served you. You didn't just type a number and get served a plate of food. There was a thing called a food and beverage server. Right now it's hard to find a full service gas station, esp one that doesn't charge you extra for the service.
We are all doing more and the prices are not going down. This is a capitalist dream come true. Buy the capital equipment and never have labour to worry about. A few techs and overseers and your good to go. And we wonder why we always feel so pressed for time.
Taxpayers fork out billions for GM pension aid
Agreement between auto giant, CAW means taxpayers will subsidize pensioners after all
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/taxpayers-fork-out-billions-for-gm-pension-aid/article1148545/
There is an interesting interface between politics and collective bargaining [and reveleation of attitudes about workers] going on here. I could have quoted the Canadian Taxpayers Federation statements. This is the simple 'balanced' news reporting. And indeed, it is just reporting the obvious.
As a sidenote- as we watch even the 2 governments squirm and wiggle under not having forced the stripping away of more for workers, just imagine what would happen to the NDP had it come out in favour of what would be pitched, and believed, as giving taxpayers money to well paid autoworkers.
Note also what the CAW is and will be saying. From what I can tell Lewenza and the bargaining team did a damn good job. But you will not hear them saying that. Just the minimalist and pro forma "we protected wages and benefits." They won't be claiming any more than that because they don't want to throw any fuel on the bonfire of public resentment... which because the governments have an interest in buttoning up about it , everyone can reasonably expect that the resentment will remain mostly latent. [Of course, had the NDP spoken up, there would have been no such cone of silence. And even the CAW would have been best off saying nothing and letting them twist in the wind with it.]
But I'm sure there are some 'higher level' observations to be made about the interface between collective bargaining and politics than just stating what we already know to be true.
In the first place- the pandering is not to the 'backward' and powerful. The main audience of the pandering in question is the largely working class voter/supporter pool of the NDP. If you want to write them off because they are backward in a lot of their thinking, then you are on your own, and we might us well pack up our soapboxes and give up any pretence that we are ever going to talk to anyone else.
But it is pandering, or backing away out of fear. And here is how I would characterize the choice of the autoworkers that you referr to. And we're talking about as it would appear most clearly before this settlement.
You earlier equated the ONDP repeatedly calling for using government leverage as lender to get guarantees for employment levels; with the various governments saying that deeper CAW concessions were required 'to save jobs'. Disengenuous or not, thats incorrect. The NDP was calling for the same thing as what the CAW called for. With that distinction in mind...
My union, the CAW, has pressed for government using its leverage as lender of last resort to press for guarantees of jobs. We also would appreciate if someone- and who else possible but the NDP- would speak to the injustice in how we are being "asked" to give up everything.
On the one hand we have a provincial government who not only refuses to make demands on Chrysler and GM, but instead makes endless demands on us.
On the other hand we have the NDP, that even if it is unwilling to stand with us about the injustice of those demands, is willing to do the rest.
I think I could see who is my allie and who is not. The holding back likely means that I would reciprocate to the NDP. But I would know where there is at least a possibility of common goals.
That said.
My guess is that here is what will happen after the dust settles down [if it does that].
Memories will fade of McGuinty pressing for more and more concessions [helped by the 'cognitive expectation' of betrayals]. And what will be remembered is that the Liberal government agreed to putting bailout money directly into our pensions.
Lewenza and the national leadership in general will never forget being pressed to the wall. But despite that, and despite any preference they have for the NDP [if they have that], they know which side the bread is buttered on- and in the end, even if they had to bargain unbelievably hard, the provincial government was an agreeable partner to a tolerable solution.
Hence, the NDP reaps the rewards of over the long haul, when there was time, doing nothing about tackling all the tough nuts that made it too costly for them to have publicly supported the autoworkers against injust and unreasonable demands made on them.
There it is. Class warfare achieved to where the wealthy would like it. Workers(by that, 75-90% of people) are too busy being petty towards one another to worry about the rich who are walking away with EVERYTHING.
That's a nail hit on the head, thorin.
Perhaps the funniest thing I read during this whole process was back a month or so ago, Christina Blizzard dissing workers in the CAW. Meanwhile, the industry she works in is on tenter hooks because workers aren't spending money, and business is cutting back on advertising-- jeapardizing her job. And, for her in particular with a resume that includes "writting" for the Sun for lo these many years, unemployment should be her biggest fear.
It's a good illustration of how few people see or understand how all these things are related.
And, that's where the fight should be taken up.
I'm not sure that a political party has to move all the way to the center to be more inclusive. Small business, workers, farmers are all victims, and we have more common interest than those interests that may set us apart. And, the crimes against us call for radical, not middle of the road approaches.
Its not about 'moving to the centre'.
Its about doing the hard work that connects what you espouse to the aspirations folks have.
[And not so much 'hard work' as it is consistent work that does not have immeidate concrete payoffs.]
On the one hand we have a provincial government who not only refuses to make demands on Chrysler and GM, but instead makes endless demands on us.
On the other hand we have the NDP, that even if it is unwilling to stand with us about the injustice of those demands, is willing to do the rest.
I think I could see who is my allie and who is not. The holding back likely means that I would reciprocate to the NDP. But I would know where there is at least a possibility of common goals.
Ok, Ken, I think my little brain finally figured it out. Thank you for being patient and taking the time to explain this, but the light went on at last.
The reason I didn't get it before must be my distance from Ontario. Call me stupid, but I had no idea that so much hatred and resentment of the auto workers had been generated so quickly. Here in Québec, there is quite simply no comparable political penalty to be paid when a party stands up for unionized workers (which doesn't mean any of them do it particularly often, but never mind that). So if the NDP just confined itself to lobbying for the funding and the securing of jobs for the future, you may well be right that going further might have damaged that very objective.
It did occur to me Unionist that in quebec you might be insulated from the effects of that depth of resentmet of unionized workers.
I'm further geographically from Ontario- but live and swim among the same unfortunate sentiments.
That's a nail hit on the head, thorin.
Perhaps the funniest thing I read during this whole process was back a month or so ago, Christina Blizzard dissing workers in the CAW. Meanwhile, the industry she works in is on tenter hooks because workers aren't spending money, and business is cutting back on advertising-- jeapardizing her job. And, for her in particular with a resume that includes "writting" for the Sun for lo these many years, unemployment should be her biggest fear.
It's a good illustration of how few people see or understand how all these things are related.
And, that's where the fight should be taken up.
I'm not sure that a political party has to move all the way to the center to be more inclusive. Small business, workers, farmers are all victims, and we have more common interest than those interests that may set us apart. And, the crimes against us call for radical, not middle of the road approaches.
Until such a time, when more people become poor, and disenfranchised, and the statu quo threshhold no longer applies, radical approaches will not be viewed with a positive light. People do not yet see the crimes against them in big enough numbers, and people do not like to be jarred from their "comfort zone", that said zone is an illusion matters not. Yet that is!
That's a popular misperception. Radical approaches are most popular after a sharp downturn (including the likes of the Long Depression in the late 19th century) followed by a really, really slow recovery that somehow sees the top benefit disproportionately. The other time they are most popular is wartime defeat or pyrrhic victory/statemate - "Peace! Land! Bread!"
We have not even reached the level of poverty that was encompassed in the Great Depression years, let alone started into recovery.
Unless they screw up real bad, I dont think we'll see 1930's conditions repeated in the same way. It's true that personal savings rates in Canada are at a 1930's level, and Tories and Liberals have pared down UI/EI coverage to 1940's levels.
But we have too much socialist economy in place, believe it or not, since then to cushion the hard landing. Iow's, we cant crash like laissez-faire capitalism did in 1929, because laissez-faire capitalism was abandoned in the 1930's. Our governments in North America quietly adopted Soviet style soft budget constraints and much Keynesianism through the cold war. They have all kinds of tools at their disposal but choose socialism for the rich to near collapse. It's amazing how they can screw things up with socialism for the rich until the last dog is hung and still win phony majority governments with low voter turnouts.
The GM and union proposal is apparently a done deal, if the company isnt forced into bankruptcy by bond holders, which is likely.
Fidel I am curious of what your definition of "socialist" is.
Bankruptcy for GM has been pretty well the assumed outcome for at least a week. At any rate, the agreements with the CAW and UAW are crafted with bankruptcy filings in mind.
I have to ask unionist and others what is so unique about the auto industry that it should receive special and favoured treatment over other industries from our governments. The North American auto industry has beasically failed and it`s time to get over it. This brain-dead idea of supporting dying industires is exactly that. DUMB!!!
Fidel I am curious of what your definition of "socialist" is.
Socialism is all around us. It's keeping western world capitalism from coming unglued. And our options are narrowing between socialism and barbarism.
NR, the failure of the auto industry does not reside in the hands of the workers.