The CAW, government and strategic voting

Stockholm wrote:

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).

So you admit that most of the things issued from Layton's office are just "blah blah' that are not worth reading. I concur.

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.

Interesting thread drift. 

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.”

ottawaobserver wrote:

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.

ottawaobserver wrote:

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?

Quote:

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?

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 [b]I'm still waiting[/b] 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.

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.

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.

Unionist wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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.

Quote:

As for your 'jockular' comments.  You are a typical passive agressive.

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.

Quote:

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.

Actually, you never once - [b]never once[/b] - 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.

.

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.

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?

Unionist wrote:

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?

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.

Unionist wrote:

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.

Unionist wrote:

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.

 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.

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.

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.

remind wrote:

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.

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 [url=http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779503&... Agenda[/url]?

(I know I posted this elsewhere so I hope it's not spamming)

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.

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.

Unionist wrote:

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.

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.

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.

KenS wrote:

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.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

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.

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!