Canada’s union movement faces an existential struggle to protect its members — and rally public support.London, the sleepy former insurance capital of Canada, is now ground zero for a labour dispute that is shaping up as nasty, brutish and long. It will have ramifications across Ontario’s industrial heartland, which is why all of us — and the politicians who govern us — need to pay close attention.
If London has a problem, we all do.
At the old locomotive plant now owned by U.S.-based multinational Caterpillar Inc., the Canadian Auto Workers union is not even on strike. The CAW has been locked out since New Year’s Day because it refused to sign its own death warrant by agreeing to slash wages in half for most workers from $34 an hour to $16.50.
When a powerful multinational negotiates in bad faith, it becomes a story that governments in Queen’s Park and Ottawa can no longer wash their hands of. To put it in language that resonates with Premier Dalton McGuinty: When a bully tries to humiliate people, you can’t just watch in silence.
When high-paying skilled local jobs can be shredded at the whim of a combative multinational giant, it dramatically undermines all the upbeat rhetoric we hear from McGuinty and Prime Minister Stephen Harper about Canada’s global appeal. It sends a signal that Ontario is not so much open for business as it is closed for unions.
This is not how we want to do business in Ontario. Increasingly, however, this is the way the world does business.
There are no easy answers because there are larger forces at play here. Caterpillar is the culmination of globalization run amok — and I say this as someone who is not an anti-globalization crusader. Global trade can lift developing countries out of poverty, and remains the best form of foreign aid for countries whose comparative advantage is a low-wage workforce.
But that’s not Ontario’s trading advantage. There is still a future for skilled, value-added jobs in Ontario.
Perhaps Caterpillar doesn’t really want to be part of that. With 95,000 employees at 237 plants in 50 countries — and nearly $60 billion in annual revenues — it can afford to put the squeeze on a single locomotive plant in little old London until the union cries uncle.
So what can our anti-bullying premier do?
If I were McGuinty, I would ask myself a simple question: What would Bill Davis do?
The former Tory premier of Ontario wasn’t perfect, but he was always plugged in. He took labour seriously, listened closely to business and wooed foreign investors (remember Renault?). He knew how to leverage the power of the premier’s office to stand up for Ontario’s greater interests.
A phone call to Caterpillar’s corporate braintrust would show that Ontario’s premier is no pushover. If that didn’t work, a phone call to Harper — who is still trying to live down the tax breaks he gave the locomotive factory’s former owners a few years ago — might find a receptive ear.
Canadians are big customers of Caterpillar. Our governments spend billions of dollars on infrastructure development that relies on the multinational’s earth moving equipment. And the oil sands are huge customers of Caterpillar.
I’m not saying a boycott would be easy to organize, but it’s the kind of tactic that Americans understand. It’s the kind of hint that Caterpillar needs to hear — that there will be a price to pay in Canada.
Another thought for Ontario: Look at the Manitoba law that triggers government intervention when labour disputes drag on too long. CAW economist Jim Stanford argues that the threat of compulsory arbitration has a way of bringing both sides to the table.
Ontario’s existing toolkit — conciliation services and gentle prodding — is falling on deaf ears at Caterpillar, where they do things differently. Labour Minister Linda Jeffrey told me she hasn’t considered the Manitoba option, and “I haven’t landed on what I could do at this point.”
McGuinty also clings to traditional bromides, vainly hoping “both sides will try to moderate their tone.”
Instead of predictable press lines, Ontario needs to press some buttons. That means standing up for its over-arching interests and pulling a few economic levers, because standing back from the fray won’t work this time.
Original Article
Source: Star
Author: Martin Regg Cohn
No comments:
Post a Comment