CAW meets Chrysler
by Gordon Sova (gordon.sova@thomsonreuters.com)
With the acceptance by the Canadian Auto Workers of greater concessions in the Chrysler deal than in the earlier General Motors deal, some commentators have suggested that pattern bargaining in the auto industry, at least, is dead.
The rumours of its death are exaggerated.
There remains a pattern settlement in the auto industry and it is the Chrysler settlement. Ford and GM will want it and they will get it. The earlier tentative agreement at General Motors was unacceptable to the government and it was already history.
There are still several industry patterns that are viable, despite the industries themselves being in financial crisis. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers (CEP) negotiated a pattern agreement in the pulp and paper industry for western Canada last summer and has begun to work one for eastern Canada. The energy pattern was set in May 2007 and the CEP fought a 13-month lockout with Petro-Canada at its refinery in Montreal to protect that pattern.
In the public sector, even where there is no official employer’s bargaining council, there are often de facto patterns established. And established as much by the government through funding guidelines as by unions. This is especially prevalent in health care and school boards.
And it is not only the will to continue pattern bargaining that remains, the justification is unchanged.
Pattern bargaining allows unions and employers to take the employees’ wages out of the competitive equation. Profit is then dependent on other factors: technology, innovation, marketing.
Unions cannot whipsaw management with the most recent rich contract. Management cannot force a local to accept less through hard bargaining.
Which is not to say that local issues and the viability of individual operations cannot be addressed in local bargaining. Things such as shift scheduling and flexibility can be tailored to local needs and don’t have to follow the pattern. With the worsening economy, the CEP has been active in offering mills better terms, just not in wages and pensions.
Internationally, pattern bargaining is the standard across many industries in Europe, including ones with minority union membership.
What happened to the CAW and Chrysler raises some questions about pattern bargaining, but it does not prove that it no longer works.
GM management announced that it was satisfied with the agreement it reached but, unlike normal times, other parties not at the table also have significant say. And they weren’t. The deal was not viable from the start.
A lot of emphasis is being placed on the CAW agreeing to concessions after several weeks of brave talk. Since when has it been a requirement of effective bargaining to give away your entire position before you even sit down at the table? All the players in this scenario — the companies, the creditors, the government, the union and the workers — knew going in that CAW members were going to have to give up a lot to keep the company (and its domestic competitors) viable. And they gave it up.
When the dust settles, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors will have similar collective agreements with their union employees. And, if CAW economist Jim Stanford is right, Honda and Toyota in Ontario will be paying their employees the same wages. The pattern will remain.
Subscribe to this feed
Pattern bargaining may not be dead, but the way the CAW has practised it in recent years likely is. No longer will they be able to pick one of the (formerly) Big Three Automakers and negotiate a gold-plated deal that sets the bar for the rest of the industry, and indeed for all other unions to shoot for. The death of that type of bargaining isn’t just because of new economic conditions, it’s because of how CAW leadership approached pattern bargaining with the GM deal. The so-called concessions to GM amounted to lip service recognition that their workforce was on the edge of mass unemployment. And when they needed sympathy from government – ie money – they made the mistake of demanding the pensions, which their members never paid into, be the responsibility of Ontario taxpayers. Most people have to pay a fair amount into their own pension plans, and some people work at companies that don’t even have any. So how can you expect the public sympathy that is needed to support the call for government bailout money and support the pattern bargaining that came out of the earlier GM deal?
I read Gord Sova’s opinion with interest, but was disappointed with the comment by John from Mississauga. The writer is ignorant or, at best, mean-spirited.
Why are some people in Ontario opposed to making a decent living? Would you like it if your employer came to you and said despite all the years of hard work you gave, we are taking away everything we said we would give you? And then when you agree to that, a government comes in — one that you didn’t vote for — and tells the company it’s not good enough? Even though the company says it is? How is that remotely fair? Or justifiable?
My union brothers and I are fully aware there is a serious problem in the auto industry. Many of our good friends and families are off work and hurting. But you don’t hear us getting on our soapboxes and yelling about other industries and their pay, do you? No. Because it is counterproductive.
We have made huge sacrifices to try and save our companies. I suspect people like John from Mississauga haven’t made any sacrifices to help out their companies.
I am getting sick of defending workers earning a decent earning. I pose this question to everyone: Instead of being jealous of this “lavish lifestyle” we allegedly earn (ha!), why not ask your employer why you don’t have a good pension? Why you don’t have benefits? Why you don’t have a living wage?
We should be driving the bar higher, not lower.